Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCA 1987-06-09 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CALLED MEETING OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, JUNE 9, 1987 - 7:05 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman John Larriviere called the meeting to order June 9, 1987 at 7:05 P.M. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT: John Larriviere Orville Baker Joe Crane Michael Dean Eric Hill Chairman Member Member Member Member STAFF: Danny Taylor Lisa Mills Division Chief Secretary ABSENT: Robert Skinner Member 3. BBA 87-5 THE REQUEST OF D & M MECHANICAL TO APPEAL THE FIRE DAMPER REQUIREMENT IN SUPPLY AND RETURN DUCTS AT ROOF OPENINGS AT 6242 RUFE SNOW DRIVE SUITE 212. Chairman John Larriviere called forward the representative of D & M Mechanical. Dennis Wright came forward and stated that he was appealing the fire damper requirement. He interpretated that Code to read that the roof deck is not a roof ceiling. A roof ceiling is a roof that has no ceiling below it. Chairman John Larriviere asked Mr. Wright if he thought that this was a roof deck. Mr. Wright stated yes, that his interpretation was that the roof deck was not a ceiling. A ceiling is anything below the roof deck. The roof ceiling that is in the shopping center is a 2x4 layin acoustic ceiling with 3~ inch insulation above it. Six feet above that was the roof deck which was a metal deck with tar and gravel on top of it. Chairman John Larriviere asked if it was a suspended ceiling with the unit on the top. Mr. Wright stated yes. Page 2. Chairman John Larriviere asked Mr. Wright if he thought that there should be a damper. Mr. Wright stated no. Orville Baker stated from that from reading the Code, his interpretation is if one goes through any form of a fire wall with a duct, there should be a damper to stop a fire from coming outside of the fire wall into the inside or vice versa. Dennis Wright stated that all the duct work that he does in North Richland Hills if he penetrates a sheetrock ceiling going from the store front to the sales area to the storeroom in the back, he puts fire dampers in them. Orville Baker asked if the ceiling was not a fire rated wall also. He was talking about through the roof, not through the ceiling. If there was something on the outside of the roof coming in, it could blow a fire into the inside or let the fire outside. Dennis Wright stated that he interpretated that if he was in a shopping center that was two story level, if he penetrated the floor down below or the floor above, he would put a fire damper in it. Orville Baker asked what would Mr. Wright be protecting. Mr. Wright stated that he was protecting bothfloors. If he was on a roof deck there would be no person up above. Orville Baker stated that he thought that the danger would be from the unit itself and not the ducts. Mr. Wright stated that if he was penetrating an occupied space above he would put a fire damper in. Chairman John Larriviere stated that if a damper was being put in or above a wall, why not on the roof. Mr. Wright stated that he would not do that because the other side of the wall is occupied by people. It is stated in the UBC Page 80, Section 1706; Exception No. 5-8. Orville Baker asked Danny Taylor to read the requirement. Danny Taylor stated that openings under protection may be permitted. Under B-2 the fire resistance of exterior walls which is not permitted less that 5 feet. This is not an exterior wall but a roof opening. Orville Baker stated that he was thinking of it as being a vent. Could a fire come in from the outside. Danny Taylor stated that under a B-2 that it is not permitted less than five feet and protected less than 10 feet. Between five and ten feet it will have to be protected. Page 3. Orville Baker stated that he was not convinced if the fire wall down below or the fire wall up above makes alot of difference. He was convinced that cutting off air conditioning inflow in through a duct. Dennis Wright stated that he had never installed a fire damper and duct work in a roof opening. Chairman John Larriviere asked if the unit was inside, would there be ducts through all the walls that penetrated. Dennis Wright stated yes, if he penetrated into a corridor or to a store room, he would have fire dampers in them. Chairman John Larriviere asked if the dampers would seal off the fire on both sides. Dennis Wright stated yes. Chairman John Larriviere stated that if the unit was causing a problem there would be a need to seal off the unit from the inside of the building. Orville Baker asked that if there was a utility room and all the equipment was in the room, would a damper be installed in the room if there was a fire rated wall. Dennis Wright stated yes, if it was a fire rated wall with sheetrock going all the way to the deck. Orville Baker asked if it would have to be a fire rated wall if it was in a commercial building with the heating unit inside of it. Dennis Wright stated that all walls do not go to the decking. Some are fire rated walls and some are not. Orville Baker asked if the walls in utility closet are fire rated. Dennis Wright stated that a fire rated wall would be sheetrocked on both sides all of the way to the roof. Danny Taylor stated that in a heating closet in a commercial building would be required to have fire rated walls, The duct work is not only to protect fire spreading in the unit out into the building , but to also form a chimney effect should a fire be started. The only problem would be traveling the distance of the complex if all the fire walls were not intact between each occupancy, which is enforced by the Code. Joe Crane asked if a damper was put on the roof, how would it be protected. Danny Taylor stated that it would not be protected. That is why the Code stated a roof ceiling, which is what is needing to interpretated. If there was not void between the deck and the Page 4. roof, then there would be no requirement for a damper. Joe Crane asked if this space (Council Chambers) was a one hour fire rate. Danny Taylor stated no. The tile itself sometimes carries a one hour fire rating. The metal slats will not withstand a fire. Dennis Wright stated that the deck itself carried a 15 minute to 30 minute fire rating. Danny Taylor stated that most of the type 2 buildings carry a one hour fire rating on the roofs. Chairman John Larriviere stated that if this were a gymnasium it would not require a damper if the duct was coming through the gymnasium ceiling. Danny Taylor stated that was his interpretation of the Code. It would depend on what he was calling a roof ceiling assembly. Chairman John Larriviere asked that if not having a damper is going to cause a chimney effect. Danny Taylor stated that it would carry the fire into the unit itself if there was roof unit up there. Chairman John Larriviere asked if that would stop the fire or create a chimney effect. Danny Taylor stated yes. Chairman John Larriviere asked if that would accelerate or control the fire. Danny Taylor stated neither one. The problem he had was when there was a suspended ceiling and the a roof deck over it and then a fire gets in the void and travels anywhere. Joe Crane stated that Mr. Taylor had commented that a damper would not prevent the spreading of the fire. Danny Taylor stated that it would if the damper was placed where the ducts penetrate. Joe Crane stated if a damper was put in all the fire would do is travel and the damper would be useless. Danny Taylor stated that his question was what was a roof ceiling. Dennis Wright stated that it was all in the interpretation. Chairman John Larriviere stated if they used a gymnasium as a true roof, then anything between the roof and the floor is going to be a ceiling assembly. Page 5. Joe Crane stated that he understood about requ1r1ng a damper in a two story or more commercial building. But with a one story commercial building with a drop ceiling, he did not see any reason for a damper. Danny Taylor stated that the Code did require for all of these to be rated. Chairman John Larriviere stated that if they sealed off the building if there is a fire with the chimney effect and a hole in the top of the ceiling where the air is getting through, then it would enhance the fire. Danny Taylor stated that the damper would carry out the smoke and heat which would help the firemen going in. Chairman John Larriviere asked if he had the ceiling stopped up, would it not help to smother the fire. Danny Taylor stated that the fire would get the oxygen from the floor level and not from the ceiling. If this was in the Fire Code it would be spelled word for word exactly what was required. The UBC was more vague in some areas and room for interpretation problems. Joe Crane made the motion to approve the request of D & M Mechanical. Orville Baker seconded the motion with the statement that single story commercial buildings would not have to have fire dampers. The motion carried 5-0 to approve. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 7:33 P.M. CHAIRMAN OF BOARD OF APPEALS SECRETARY OF BUILDING CODE AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE