Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCA 1986-12-09 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TX, DECEMBER 9, 1986. - 7:05 P.M. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:20 P.M. by Chairman John Larriviere. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Secretary Members Fire Insp. Fire Marshal Lieut. Greg Wheeler Robert Skinner John Larriviere Eric Hill Kirk Marcum Danny Taylor Don Andrews ABSENT Orville Baker Michael Dean CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES The approval of minutes of the meeting on November 11, 1986 was postponed due to the lack of a quorum. 1. BBA 86-10 The request of Birraporetti's Restuarant to appeal the Fire Code Requirements requiring an interior finish to have a Class "A" or Class "B" flame spread rating as adopted in the City Ordinance No. 1377. Chairman John Larriviere called forward the representative of Birraporetti's Restaurant. Ben Callis came forward and stated that he was the owner's representative. He said that the reason that they were at the meeting was to essentially out- line their belief that they were complying with the Code. Mr. Callis introduced the architect of Birraporetti's, Palmer Schooley. Palmer Schooley stated that Birraporetti's was not in viola- tion with the Code. He passed out rating chart from the PPG, the supplier of the wood varnish and Page 2. sealer that was used on the wainscot in the restaurant. Mr. Schooley stated that after some investigation it was found that the combination of sealer and varnish that was used on the wood did give a fire spread rating of 50, which does fall within the Class "B" range. He said that he did not have a number rating for Mahogony wood. He hoped that they could deal with the Mahogony as being not more combustible than Douglas Fir. Robert Skinner asked Mr. Schooley if the wood that was under the PPG coating was solid Mahogony. Mr. Schooley stated that it was Mahogony plywood with veneer of solid Mahogony. Robert Skinner stated that he saw nothing on the rating list about plywood. Palmer Schooley stated that the list had Douglas Fir on it. Robert Skinner stated that it had to be for solid Douglas Fir. Palmer Schooley stated that the list did not say. Robert Skinner stated that ply- wood was made of resins and wood chips that is covered with veneer. Mr. Skinner stated that the restaurant had a plywood Mahogony wood veneer that was painted with PPG and the restau- rant was calling it Mahogony. Palmer Schooley stated that his main response is that the basic hardwood is Mahogony or Red Oak. He said that Red Oak is the standard that PPG determines what is 100. Given that solid hard wood untreated is 100, then the coating reduced that number to a 50. Chairman John Larriviere comment- ed that the wainscoting has the Page 3. Class "B" fire rating. Palmer Schooley stated that he believed that it did. Robert Skinner read from the PPG rating list " The performance numbers must be indexed to that referenced substrate and evaluat- ing the system and it potential performance." Mr. Skinner stated that no where on the list did it rate a substrate of plywood. Palmer Schooley stated that the coating does put the substrate within the rating. Eric Hill asked Mr. Schooley if the plywood come treated or was it treated afterwards. Palmer Schooley stated that it arrives raw. It is a high quality plywood, but it is not pretreated. He stated that applying that fire spread would not be impossible to do, but the old varnish would have to be removed. Robert Skinner asked if the laquer coating on the wood now would have to be removed before the fire spread coating could be applied to meet the Fire Department's requirements. Palmer Schooley stated that he did not have any knowledge of this. He was not sure that putting the varnish coat right over the other would be the appropriate thing to do. Robert Skinner asked how they applied one varnish coat over another. Palmer Schooley stated that he would need to talk to a painting contractor for exact specifics. He was sure that the old varnish would have to be roughed up. Robert Skinner stated that the old varnish would have to be Page 4. lightly sanded to allow the second coat of varnish to adhere. It would not take very much time to apply the coating. The only areas that they were talking about were the exit areas. Palmer Schooley stated that he thought that it was the walls throughout the entire restaurant. Robert Skinner asked Mr. Schooley if he was aware of this require- ment when the first inspection was made. Palmer Schooley stated that it was noted in the first inspection that Mahogony wainscoting would not be considered a wall cover- ing. They were thinking of wall- paper, painting, and fabric coverings. The restaurant assum- ed this because the other restau- rants they did in Arlington and Los Angelos there was no require- ment for a flame spread coating. Birraporetti's did not even think that the Fire Marshal's office was talking about the wood. Chairman John Larriviere stated that the Board's purpose was to interpret the Code in case of an interpretation problem. The Board did not have the power to change a Code. Palmer Schooley stated that if the Board agreed that what the restaurant had now was a Class "B" fire rating then they could all go home. Chairman John Larriviere asked for a Fire Code interpretation. Danny Taylor stated whoever put the sealer and varnish on the wood would supply the Fire De- partment with a letter stating that it meets the requirement, then that would be acceptable. Palmer Schooley handed Danny Taylor a letter. Danny Taylor asked Mr. Schooley Page 5. if he could get a letter that stated the fire rating and the name of the product. Mr. Taylor said that he wanted the name of the manufacturer and whoever put it on so should a fire occur and spreads out of control, then it will be in the manufacturers hands because they said that it was tested and approved. Palmer Schooley stated that they should be able to supply that. Danny Taylor asked what if he could not supply the Fire Department with this informa- tion. Palmer Schooley stated that he did not see why they could not get this information in a quick fashion. Robert Skinner asked how long it would take. Palmer Schooley stated that since they also wanted to get the matter wrapped up it would take two or three days. Danny Taylor stated that even a wrapper off of a paint can would suffice. Robert Skinner asked if Mr. Schooley did bring the certifi- cation off the can of paint and the Fire Department is satisfied, then does Mr. Schooley have to fill out a form to state the fact. Danny Taylor replied that all he needed was a letter from the per- son who applied the paint and a wrapper from the product stating that it meets the Class "B" code. John Larriviere stated that if Mr. Schooley provided the Board with this information they would have an alternative to the Code. Robert Skinner stated that the first time that this requirement Page 6. was written was on April 21, 1986 and the Board was having to listen to the case in December. As the Board of Appeals they were looking at past history. The restaurant was allowed to open, with the knowledge that the requirement would be met. Eric Hill asked Mr. Schooley the length of time it would take for him to comply with the request. Mr. Schooley stated that it should take no longer than five working days to get the letter. Danny Taylor stated that he al- ready had the letter. All that he needed was a label from the material or from the manufacturer stating that the spread meets the Code. Eric Hill asked what happened if they did not meet the Code after all the information had been turned in. Robert Skinner made the motion that if Mr. Schooley and Mr. Callis could supply the letter of certification as expediantly as possible and the Fire Depart- ment was satisfied with it, then it would satisfy the Board of Appeals. Eric Hill seconded and the motion carried 3-0. Eric Hill stated that if the Code was not met, then the Board would go with the Fire Code. Mr. Skinner asked Mr. Schooley if he thought that he could get the letter quickly. Mr. Schooley stated yes, but that the motion should not depend on the letter. He stated that he had a whole set of arguments and problems with the requirement to begin with. He only found out today that the spread is within the Code. Page 7. Mr. Skinner stated that the Board did not agree with that since the requirement has been known about since April. The Fire Department had also within the time, written two seperate inspection sheets Mr. Callis was aware of. Mr. Schooley agreed. Mr. Skinner asked if Mr. Schooley was in agreement with that if by January 9, 1987 he could not present the certification to the Fire Department's satisfaction, then the Board would meet again and decide whether they would procede from there. Mr. Schooley and Mr. Callis agreed. Eric Hill stated that they had been rather liberal in letting the restaurant open and operate. John Larriviere stated that the Board was to interpretate the Code, not change it. He felt that the restaurant had a reason- able interpretation and did not go by the Code as worded. If the certification did not meet the Code, then the only alterna- tive would be to go with the Fire Code. Danny Taylor stated that all he needed was the wrapper from the material and the manufacturer. John Larriviere stated that if the material the restaurant had now passed the Class "B" rating then the Board and the Fire Department would be satisfied. But if the information does not classify the material as Class "B" then it would have to brought up to Code. John Larriviere made the motion to approve the request of Page 8. Birraporetti's Restuarant on the condition that the certification be brought in and approved by the Fire Department. Eric Hill seconded and the motion carried 3-0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 P.M. CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS SECRETARY BUILDING CODE AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE