City of Lawrence

Building Code Board of Appeals

March 1st , 2007 minutes

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Lee Queen - Chairperson, Mark Stogsdill, Janet Smalter John Craft,  Mike Porter

 

 

 

MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

 

 

 

 

STAFF  PRESENT:

 

Victor Torres -  Director of Neighborhood Resources.

Guess Present :

 

 

Ex-Officio

 

Adrian Jones

Attachments

 

1. Memo Letter From City of Lawrence advising of

    Mechanical Board Meeting

2. Letter from Lawrence Home Builders Association

3. Minutes February 8th Building Code Board of Appeals

4. Copy Appendix F 2006 IRC

5. Radon Resistant New Construction, Kansas State  

    University

 

 

 

Meeting Called to Order 11:55

 

Victor Torres gave an update on the progress of code adoptions. Torres advised the Board that staff has prepared a report for the Commission addressing the pros and cons of adopting the complete family of I-Code versus a blended code set.  He advised the report was on the agenda for March 13th.  The Boards would receive a notification letter of the agenda item.  Torres said the report would have several attachments.

 

Queen asked if the letter from Building Code Board would be attached.

 

Torres advised that he would attach it to the report.

 

Craft asked if the Plumbing Board had reviewed the IPC.  Craft said it was his understanding the Commission directed all the Boards to review the I-Codes and they could review another code if they wished.  

 

Torres replied that it was his understanding that all the Boards had reviewed their relevant portion of the IRC and the Plumbing Board chose to recommend the Uniform Code.  Torres said the Commission meeting was the opportunity to express an opinion directly to the commission.

 

Queen said that he believes the Board’s sentiment was relayed in it’s letter.

 

Torres said that some of the information in the letter is dated due to the length of time that this issue has been ongoing. The Commission meeting is the time to voice any concern.

 

Review minutes from Board meetings 2-8-07

 

Queen said that he believes that his discussion on the backfill provisions of the IRC was quite lengthy.  He said that he wanted any one who read the minutes to understand how unreasonable those provisions were and it would invite contractors to cheat.

Jones said that the discussion was lengthy and somewhat technical in nature.  He said that he usually tries to include key points of the discussion and asked Queen if he wanted the minutes amended.

 

Queen said that he just wanted the point raised that requiring the floor to be in place before backfilling was impractical, costly and time consuming.  He didn’t want to hear a year from now, if the provision was actually being enforced, some one to say that he didn’t bring that topic up for discussion.

 

Jones said that his comments would be included in the present set of minutes.

 

Queen said that was ok.  

 

The Board discussed Porter’s calculations on heat loss through flexible air duct in attic spaces. Craft asked Porter if it was necessary to cover the top of the duct with blown in insulation.

 

Porter replied that it didn’t matter as long as more than 50% of the duct was covered because it was conduction of heat through the wall of the duct.  If 50% of the wall was covered it didn’t matter if it was the top half or the bottom half.   There was not much natural convection.  There was not much air movement exterior to the duct.

 

Stogsdill moved to accept the minutes as written. Seconded by Queen. Motion passed 5-0.

 

Received letters from Lawrence Homebuilders and City of Lawrence

The Board received letters from the City of Lawrence addressed to the construction boards. The letter notified the board members of an upcoming meeting of the Mechanical Board.  Jay Woodward a representative of the International Code Council would attend the meeting to answer questions concerning the ICC and International Codes.  The second letter was from the Lawrence Home Builders Association.  The letter opposed adoption of Appendix F Radon Control Methods.

 

Porter noted the Lawrence Homebuilder letter used statistics but did not cite sources.

 

Queen said that several months back the Board received several emails through Neighborhood Resources from Commissioner Highberger’s office.  According to the email the Kansas Department of Health is encouraging municipalities to adopt Appendix F of the 2006 IRC.  Attached to those emails was the Radon Resistance New Construction document.  The Homebuilder’s Association letter was quoting that document.

 

Porter noted it is difficult to determine who is the author of the Radon Resistance New Construction document. 

 

Review Appendix F Radon Control Methods

 

Porter asked if radon a problem in Lawrence.

 

Queen said that it was.  Queen said that if the Board accepted the facts in the document that meant that 1of 4 homes had higher than acceptable levels of radon in Douglas County.  The proponents of Appendix F want every new home to install a passive system that if working properly only gets rid of 36% of the radon gas.  This would require installing 6 mil poly under the slab, sealing all the joints around the slab and running a pipe up through the house and out the attic.  They want this done to every house when only two out of three need it.  Queen said he is not going to argue that radon doesn’t cause cancer.  He’s not a scientist and doesn’t know for sure, but why spend $600.00 or $700.00 on a house that doesn’t need it.

 

Craft examining the Radon document asked what was the purpose of the sump pit?

 

Queen replied that the pit needs to be sealed to prevent any opportunity for gas to permeate up though the slab.

 

Craft stated when he builds homes he installs a pipe and gravel under the slab then stubs it up so that if there is a problem the new owner has the ability to create a negative pressure by installing a fan and venting it out. The majority of the cost is associated with the rough-in of the under floor components.

 

Queen replied that Appendix F would require that every new house have a complete passive system.  The difference between passive and active is the fan. The active systems work great.  They are quiet, and the fans are low maintenance.  He anticipates the system costs of about $600.00 and with profit $800.00 when two out of three don’t need it.  If the one of three do need it an active system can be installed for $1,100.  Why not have the person who needs it pay the cost instead of having the person who doesn’t need it pay the unneeded cost.

 

Craft asked what was involved in a retrofit system.

 

Jones stated that he saw a retrofit system yesterday where they sealed the existing sump pit and installed a vacuum fan and vented it to the exterior.

 

Queen said that the ones he’s seen are core drilled basement slab and a sealed 4” pipe  vented to the outside.  Another issue is this will cause another inspection. The new code has already added an insulation inspection.

 

Jones said he thought the inspection could be completed at the time of the rough-in plumbing inspection.

 

Queen asked how the poly would be inspected?

 

Smalter questioned if the added inspection fee would be passed on to the home owner.

 

Queen responded that now that the cost of running the inspection department is covered by the inspection fees.  If it requires another inspector to cover the insulation inspection and the radon inspection those fees and costs would be passed on to the home owner. 

 

Stogsdill asked if the retro fit systems were vented out the side wall.

 

Queen replied that most retrofit systems were vented out the side wall.

 

Stogsdill said that would make the system installation much easier than trying to go through to the roof on a retro fit.

 

Porter asked Queen if he built a home without a system and it tested positive for high levels of radon gas prior to sell would the builder be required to install a radon system.

 

Queen said the builder in most instances would have to install a system. The home owner would have to pay for it.  Those types of issues are typically handled in the contract.  He would not bid on a house without anticipating the cost of a system.

 

Stogsdill stated those costs always come out of the homeowners pocket.

 

Queen said that if this was a big enough health hazard that every new home needs a radon system then every home in Lawrence needs to be checked.

 

Jones asked if it would save any cost to have the builder rough in a pipe at the time of new construction.

 

Queen replied that idea would be a nice alternative.

 

Craft agreed.

 

Stogsdill said that if the Board is recommending only a rough-in where the builder is doing everything but leaving out a piece of pipe that is goes from the basement to the roof then he feels that the Board has short sighted the issue.  

 

Craft said that his company always runs a length of slotted pipe under the slab ¾ the length of the floor.

 

Jones said that he spoke to Joe McKinney owner of a radon mitigation company in Lawrence, who advised him that a passive system is not effective in sufficiently reducing the radon levels.

 

Queen said the radon handout confirms that information.

 

Stogsdill said that Craft’s system would be more effective because it gives more surface area.

 

Jones asked how much would be saved by a roughed in system.

 

Porter asked if it was current practice to put the poly on top of the gravel.

 

Craft said it depends on the builder.

 

Smalter noted that poly was required in the IRC.

 

Porter said that since the poly was required it was probably a trade off.  Drilling the basement cost $150 and roughing in the stub out cost $150.  For those that don’t need it they are paying $150 too much.  He doesn’t’ think there is a gain.  If the poly is require then the retrofit is most likely very straight forward, and the homeowner is money ahead.

 

Craft said the trend in most government regulations is to get more stringent.

 

Queen said that he does not believe 12% of all cancer deaths are caused by radon.

 

Craft said the IRC will mean that buildings are tighter.  If there is a radon problem that will worsen it’s effects.

 

Queen said that his experience is that if you have radon the retrofit solves the problem. The test kits are $10.  His whole argument is why punish homeowners for something they don’t have.

 

Smalter said there are so many people that are not educated on the hazards of radon. One out of three houses is a large percentage of homes with radon.

 

Queen said that even with one out of three a passive system only removes 36% of the gas. 

 

Craft asked if the Board could require that each home be tested for radon.

 

Jones said he did not think the Board had that type of authority.

 

Queen said that most real estate contracts gave the homeowner the option of having the home tested for radon.

 

Smalter said that test was not mandatory and a realtor might not push the buyer into requiring a test.

 

Stogsdill said that for him the issue is how much is a retro fit system and is it readily available.  If it is then, he agrees with Queen that requiring each new home to put in a system seems to be unfair to homeowners for something they don’t have.

 

Craft said the other part is the fact that if the system is not required to be there and the home is not required to be tested then there is the possibility of people living in thousands of homes that are contaminated.

 

Queen said there are thousands of people living in homes that are contaminated and no one is requiring all homes to be tested.

 

Jones asked how much would a 4” T cost.

 

Queen said that it would be insignificant.  It would only have to stick up through the slab 2 or 3 inches.  If the test proved positive the mitigation company could cut off the cap, put a fan on and vent it out the side.  He said he could live with that as a compromise.

 

Stogsdill said that would be an active system.

 

Porter said that would require adopting appendix F and amending it to require a roughed in system.

 

Stogsdill added that a builder could install a complete passive system or rough-in the underground components for an active system.  Stogsdill asked the board members if there was support for a rough in for an active system.  The consensus was that there was support for a rough-in.  If there was support for a rough –in then it did not matter if the appendix was adopted.

 

Smalter stated that the only concern was how to amend the code.

 

Jones said that the rough in saves the homeowner money.

 

Stogsdill asked if the Board need to indicate where the rough-in had to be located.

 

Queen asked for the record if the rough in would be a 4” T a short pipe and a cap. The Board confirmed that configuration

 

Porter moved that the Board adopt appendix F and insert a provision for installing a rough-in for an active system as an alternate means of compliance. Seconded by Craft.  Motion passed 4-1.

 

IFC provision for residential Fire Sprinklers

 

Smalter asked about a statement that was made at the end of the Board meeting on February 8th about the International Fire Code (IFC) requiring residential fire sprinklers if the International Residential Code (IRC) is not adopted.

 

Queen replied the 2006 IFC requires single family homes to have fire sprinklers. The IRC supercedes that and does not require them.  For a period of time if the IFC is adopted and the IRC is not, there would be a small window of time where any new house under construction would require a sprinkler system.  Victor Torres said the Building Safety Division would not require sprinklers in that short time span.  Victor said absolutely the city will not require sprinklers in single family residential structures because the IRC is due for adoption very shortly.  

 

 

Foundation Walls IRC Section R404

Jones advised the Board that several surrounding jurisdictions including Johnson County Code officials, and Wichita were creating an alternative method of construction to the prescriptive provisions for section R404. The provisions of section R404 details the prescriptive methods for construction for foundation walls to resist loads imposed by expansive soils. 

 

Stogsdill noted that some soils in Lawrence would require anchor bolt spacing of 5” to 8” on center for some foundation walls.

 

Queen also noted the IRC required the first three joist spaces blocked.  The IRC also requires the slab must be poured prior and the floor joist and decking installed prior to backfilling. This would require all the materials be delivered and the deck constructed.  The work crews would have to work off ladders while standing on gravel and drain tile. Then remove all the material, bring in a loader to backfill and then fill in the garage.   

 

Smalter motioned to adjourn seconded by Stogsdill.   

 

Meeting Adjourned 12:55