Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCA 1986-09-09 Minutes CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OF THE BUILDING CODE & ORDINANCE COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TX SEPTEMBER 9, 1986. - 7:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by acting chairman John Larriviere. PRESENT: Secretary Members Greg Wheeler Orville Baker John Larriviere Michael Dean Eric Hill Danny Taylor Ron Fields Rex McIntyre Fire Marshall Fire Inspect. City Attorney ABSENT Joe Coulson Robert Skinner CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 1. BBA 86-6 The approval of minutes of the meeting on June 10, 1986 was postponed due to the lack of a quorum. Request by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to appeal the Fire Code requirements as adopted in City Ordinance No. 1377. Rex McIntyre explained that the func- tion of the Board of Appeals was to interpret the codes. The board was not to grant immunity from the codes or waivers. The board does not have the power. John Larriviere called the representa- tive of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints to come forward. Mrs. Pat Kuehn carne forward and listed the items that she wanted waivered or appealed. Rex McIntyre stated that the board could not do this. They could only interpretate. Pat Kuehn stated that she had under- stood that the Board could grant a Page 2. a waiver as said by the Fire Dept. Danny Taylor stated that this was a new procedure and that his department did not know alot about it. The church could only appeal to the Board. Pat Kuehn stated that a number of the items could be waivered by the local jurisdiction or authority. Mrs. Kuehn asked if the Fire Department had that authority. Danny Taylor stated that he could overlook all of the items but that he would not. Rex McIntyre stated that if they had a discretionary section that they wanted waivered the Fire Department had the power. Pat Kuehn explained that they were doing minor remodeling for the church. Some of the items were: changing the paving in the parking lot to con- crete; dry up water underneath the foundation; adding gutters; redoing the ceiling; replace thermostats; add- ing HVAC units to offices; replacing the stage curtains and toilet parti- tions; grills in exhaust fans; re- placing parking lot lights; sound- proofing some doors; putting trim around the stage; changing the main auditorium lighting to fluorescent; relocating lights, and adding an exterior vestibule. Mrs. Kuehn said that some of them were not major items and that is why they wanted some of them waivered. She stated that concerning item No. 3 about the fire hydrant. There is one fire hydrant that does not cover the entire building in the 300 feet radius. From the fire hydrant to the farthest point in the building in one direction is 545 feet. In the other direction is 495 feet. In addition, inside the building are four fire hose cabinets. Under the circumstances with the four inside hoses and the fact that they are not much outside the 300 foot radius, they would like that to remain as is for it would present financial problems for their client. Page 3. John Larriviere asked if Mrs. Kuehn was finished with item No.3. Pat Kuehn stated yes. Orville Baker asked Greg Wheeler if there is a cost that determines the extent of the compliance with the code for an existing building when a certain percentage of the building is remodeled. Greg Wheeler stated that the Building Code has a variety of requirements. Usually fifty percent for remodeling for a major building. There is no standard percentage. John Larriviere asked Ron Fields to interpret the code for the variance that the church was asking for. Ron Fields stated that under the City Rules and Regulations Policy and Procedures for the North Richland Hills Water and Sewage System there is no variance. In areas other than single family fire hydrants shall be on a 300 foot radius. John Larriviere stated that to meet the Fire Code the church would need a fire hydrant. Ron Fields stated yes, that the church would need to get with the Public Works Director to decide what main it would need to come up off of. John Larriviere asked Pat Kuehn if they knew that information at this time. Pat Kuehn stated no, she did not know the location of the closest main. The hose lay was not over 750 feet. John Larriviere motioned that item No. 3 be voted on. Eric Hill asked how many hydrants would be needed. Pat Kuehn stated that one hydrant was needed. , Page 4. Eric Hill asked of money was the main concern. Pat Kuehn stated yes because the church was not wealthy. The items would have normally been maintenance work and never would have passed the City's desk. But for the church's convenience and the congregations peace of mind concerning the quality of work, it was brought to the City. Eric Hill stated that his main concern was an accident happening. Pat Kuehn stated that the congregation did not smoke and candles were not used in the services. The Church had fire equipment as every building does. The building is made of concrete block. Orville Baker asked of there were any provisions in the Fire Code that says the Class of Building as far as one in infrequent use as a church compared to a business. Ron Fields stated that the only difference between classes is single family and commercial. Orville Baker motioned to deny the request of Item No.3. Eric Hill seconded and the motion carried 4-0. Pat Kuehn stated the Code reads that "Items can be that in an existing building alteration shall not diminish level of life safety below that which exists prior to the alteration. Life safety features which do not meet the requirements for new buildings but exceed requirements for existing buildings shall not be further dimin- ished. Life safety features in an excess in those required for new construction are not required to be maintained and in no case shall the resulting life safety be less than that required for existing buildings." Mrs. Kuehn said that there are differ- ences in the code for new and existing structures. Page 5. John Larriviere asked Ron Fields to interpret. Ron Fields stated that there is a specific chapter in the Fire Code for existing buildings. Every write up from the Fire Department is done under the Existing Building section. Pat Kuehn stated that under the Life Safety Code Handbook the commentary says that "It is not the intent of the code to make existing places of assem- bly conform precisely to the require- ments of new occupancies, however, it is the intent of the code that exist- ing places of assembly comply to the extent that reasonable life safety is provided." Mrs. Kuehn said that her exception was with the reasonable life safety. Ron Fields stated that if the Fire Department did not feel it was neces- sary, they would not write the code up. He would not put a dollar value on a human life. With the Church having an occupant load of 1000 people, what would be reasonable. John Larriviere asked what code the Church was under prior to construc- tion. Ron Fields stated the when the Church was built, they probably did not have a fire code and that is why there were no sprinklers in the building. Bill Fowkes, the minister of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, stated the building was designed to facilitate several con- gregations at one time. Each congre- gation is sized so that they are no larger at anyone time to occupy the building. Each congregation occupies the building 3 hours in a set schedule. Only twice a year is the church filled with the 1000 people occupancy load. The kitchen is just a serving area, food is not prepared in it. Stoves are only used for warming up food. The stage area is used 3 times a year for culture events and is also used for a classroom. Page 6. With no smoking or use of candles, special consideration concerning the fire code should be given. Rex McIntyre asked Mrs. Kuehn if she had run into any other cities under this fire code. Pat Kuehn stated yes she had and some cities were under the 1985 Code rather than the 1981. Rex McIntyre asked Mrs. Kuehn if any other cities were under the 1981 NFP. Pat Kuehn stated no. Rex McIntyre stated that this was the only city under the 1981 Code. He said that is was not the interpretation that Mrs. Kuehn needed, it was that the code was to tough. Mrs. Kuehn agreed. Rex McIntyre stated that if Mrs. Kuehn was wanting the Code waived, she would need to see the City Council because the Board of Appeals and the Fire Department did not have the power to waiver it. Mrs. Kuehn stated that it was not strictly true as Danny Taylor had pointed out. It is up to the Fire Department to determine how strictly they want to force the code in any particular instance. Rex McIntyre stated the Danny Taylor was being factitious when he said that, he could turn his head and not do anything about it. He asked her to find a discrepancy in what she was asking there, point it out to him and to the commission; she may be correct. Mr. McIntyre stated that he had not seen any yet. Danny Taylor stated that he could look the other way and possibly lose his job. Rex McIntyre stated that if there was actual discretion in the code, point it out where the discretion is on a Page 7. particular item. The commission has the same power the Fire Depart- ment has. Pat Kuehn stated that it was the in- tent in the lead paragraph that "In existing buildings, housing, and assembly occupancy established prior to the effective date of this code may have its use continued if it con- forms to the provisions of this code in the opinion of the authority having jurisdiction reasonable life safety against fire hazards, explosions, and panic is maintained." Rex McIntyre stated that Ron Fields came under the Existing Building code and that it was a precise term. He asked Pat Kuehn if she is saying that there is some discretion. Pat Kuehn stated agreed that the para- graph she just read at the beginning of the Existing Building section in the Fire Code gives Ron Fields the authority to wave or repeal the requirements as long as he feels reasonable life safety against the fire hazards is maintained. She said that the Church feels that their occupancy because of the low fire risk should be considered for these waivers. Mrs. Kuehn stated that the next item they wanted waive red was the require- ment of a fire sprinkler being installed over the stage. Danny Taylor stated that each building submitted for a permit, is brought up to the minimum requirements of the Life Safety Code by the Fire Department. In the Fire Department's opinion the sprinkler system is the minimum life safety requirement. The Board may not feel that a sprinkler system is required and if not it would be waivered. Orville Baker asked Ron Fields the size of a building that would be required to be sprinklered. Ron Fields replied a building over Page 8. 25,000 square feet and the Church building was over that. If a second opinion was wanted, then the plans could be sent to National Fire Protection Association to let them give give the approximate square footage since they write the Code. Orville Baker asked the square footage of the Church. Ron Fields stated that he came up with a little over 25,000 gross square feet on the first floor only. He had not figured the top floor yet. Pat Kuehn stated that the second floor only consisted of some mechanical rooms. Rex McIntyre asked Pat Kuehn the square footage that she came up with. Pat Kuehn stated that she came up with 24,929 with the addition and the up- stairs. Being a very odd shaped building, the footage was very hard to figure and it could be off. Danny Taylor asked the footage of the upstairs. Pat Kuehn stated that there was 1150 square feet. John Larriviere asked if a building had a stage was it required to be sprinklered. Ron Fields stated no. Every enclosed platform larger than 500 square feet in area shall have an automatic sprinkler system. John Larriviere asked if the size of building mattered. Ron Fields stated no. John Larriviere stated that a vote needed to be taken. Eric Hill motioned to deny the request of Item No.4. Michael Dean seconded and the motion carried 4-0 to deny. Page 9. Pat Kuehn stated that the next item was No. 7 concerning emergency light- ing. Her only comment was that it was an existing building. In order to comply, it would be expensive and the ceiling would have to be torn down. Danny Taylor asked if the Board under- stood what they were referring to as emergency lighting. He said that it was a backup lightirrg system operating by battery that would come on in case of a power failure. Rex McIntyre asked Danny Taylor where exactly were they required in the Church. Danny Taylor stated in the corridors leading out to exits. Rex McIntyre asked about the problem of taking down the ceiling. Pat Kuehn stated that in order to be able to install the conduits for the emergency lighting, the ceiling would have to be taken down. Danny Taylor asked if it was a suspen- ded ceiling. Pat Kuehn stated no it was not. Rex McIntyre asked how they would put the light pack in. Danny Taylor stated that the wiring would have to run through the ceiling and into the electrical system. John Larriviere asked if when people renovate, are they brought up to the current code. Danny Taylor stated that a change of ownership in a commercial building comes under the same code. Orville Baker asked if they had any extenuating circumstances for the halls on the outside having lights. Pat Kuehn stated no, all the hall were interior corridors with ample lighting during the day. Page 10. Eric Hill asked if the Church had night meetings. Pat Kuehn stated they had occasional meetings at night. John Larriviere called for a vote. Orville Baker motioned to deny the request of Item No.7. Eric Hill seconded and the motion carried 4-0 to deny. Mrs. Kuehn stated that the next item she wanted to comment on was Item No. 10, (food preparation facilities), about the ventilation system and fire protection system for ranges in the kitchen. The portion of the Code that the Fire Marshall has called out where the requirement is found under Special Provisions for Food Service Establish- ments. Single occupancies include bars and restaurants. Her interpreta- tion of this provision for food service establishments is for restaurants, not churches. Eric Hill asked of food establish- ments were defined in the provision. Rex McIntyre asked Pat Kuehn if this was her objection to the requirement of the Fire Department. Pat Kuehn stated yes. Rex McIntyre asked what was required. Pat Kuehn stated that food preparation facilities shall be protected in accordance with Vapor Removal Cooking Equipment in NFPA 96 and are not re- quired to have openings protected be- tween food preparation areas and dining areas. NFPA 96 calls for a commercial vent hood system of stain- less steel that has outside air to come in and circulate air. It also incorporates a halogen fire suppres- sion system so that if anything breaks out on the stove, the fire suppression system immediately extinguishes the fire. "The intent of this is to put some barrier between cooking areas and Page 11. dining areas of restaurants. The intent of the barrier is to screen possible flash fires from the view of the patrons in an attempt to prevent panic." Rex McIntyre asked Pat Kuehn where she was reading this from. Pat Kuehn stated she read this from the Life Safety Code Handbook Section 9-3.2.4.3. Eric Hill asked if anyone found the definition of the term of food service establishment. John Larriviere asked why this item came up and what was the Church doing to the kitchen. Pat Kuehn stated that there was not going to be any remodeling in the kitchen area. She said that the majority of these items came up be- cause something was being done to the building. Nothing was being done to the kitchen. John Larriviere asked if they had a vent-a-hood in the kitchen. Pat Kuehn stated no. They had an exhaust fan that serves the purpose of of the vent-a-hood. John Larriviere asked if it was over the stove or in the ceiling. Pat Kuehn stated that it was in the ceiling. There was also a fire ex- tinguisher in the kitchen by the stove. John Larriviere asked if the stove was being used for just the warming up of food. Pat Kuehn stated yes. Rex McIntyre asked what page of the Handbook the information she read was on. Pat Kuehn stated on Page 248. The title of the Section was on the Page 12. bottom of the page. John Larriviere asked if there was fire extinguishers in the area. Pat Kuehn stated yes. Danny Taylor stated that if the stove was only used for warming prepared food, for the Church should get a microwave. Rex McIntyre stated that a Church did not seem to be a food service establishment. The term should be for a restaurant. John Larriviere asked if the kitchen was next to an assembly hall. Pat Kuehn stated no it was an outside room separated by a wall. John Larriviere asked where the food went once it was heated. He asked if it was originally built as a kitchen or later converted into one. Pat Kuehn stated it was originally built as a kitchen. Bill Fowkes stated that it was the general intent to just warm up foods. No food was allowed to stay in the building overnight. All of their organizations had been warned against cooking in the building. Rex McIntyre stated that if he had to determine whether any part of a church was a food service establishment, he would have to stretch it a long way because an establishment is the pur- pose of a business. Eric Hill stated that it would be hard pressed to find an establish- ment that did not have a hot plate for the same purpose. John Larriviere stated they needed more information on the definition that the Church falls under for a food service establishment. Pat Kuehn stated that this is the Page 13. Special Provision for Food Service Establishment and this is under the portion that is for restaurants -- the commentary concerning restaurants and nothing else. Ron Fields stated that the commentary was for the screening wall and not for the food preparation facilities. Rex McIntyre stated that the biggest clue they have is that in this Section it says it does not use food service establishment, it calls it a food preparation facility. John Larriviere asked if it was or was not allowed. Rex McIntyre stated that it did not pertain to this particular section. John Larriviere stated if they were to allow the Church to have two stoves where they are not allowed. Pat Kuehn stated that there was nothing in the Code saying that the Church could not have the stoves. Ron Fields stated that in the NFPA 96 Code that any cooking equipment that can produce smoke or grease laden vapor must be protected. Mr. Fields suggested that they go to the NFPA and let those people tell them what it is. John Larriviere asked if there should be a fire in the kitchen if the Board grants the Church's request, where would the liability fall. Rex McIntyre stated that the Board would not be liable unless that were calling this a food service establish- ment. John Larriviere stated that they agree that it is not a food service estab- lishment. But that the Fire Marshall obviously had some concern over it. Danny Taylor stated that it is a fire hazard because it is a cooking facility and food is being prepared for groups of people. This code has Page 14. been required in every establishment in the city including day cares. Rex McIntyre stated that the day cares are covered by a different word of where you prepare food; where as the Church is under restaurants. Orville Baker motioned that the Board agree that the Church was not a food service establishment. Rex McIntyre stated that if the Church was not a food service establishment, then the provision did not apply. John Larriviere asked for the vote of whether the Church kitchen was a food service establishment or not. The Board agreed that it was not a food service establishment. Rex McIntyre stated that this was a true interpretation problem that the Board has to decide and he thought the Board decided that it was not a food service establishment and the Church did not have to comply with the requirements of a food service estab- lishment. Orville Baker made the motion to approve the Church's request. Michael Dean seconded and the motion carried 4-0 to approve. Pat Kuehn stated that the next item was No. 11 concerning a manual fire alarm system. That under the 1985 NFPA 101, Ron Field interrupted and stated that the City was under the 1984 NFPA. Pat Kuehn stated that she knew that, but this was part of her point. The Church's occupancy would be exempted under the 1985 Code. The Code was a newer one and that the Code Officials deemed that the 1984 Code was too restrictive and unneccessary and the Officials omitted it from the new version of the 1985 NFPA. There is not a place in the 1981 NFPA that she wanted to address. Page 15. Rex McIntyre asked what the Fire Department was requiring. Pat Kuehn stated that every Class A or B place of assembly shall be pro- vided with a manual fire alarm system in accordance with 7-6.1.2. Rex McIntyre asked what was being required. Ron Fields stated that the Church had to have a handle on the exits that could be pulled in case of fire. The alarms will warn everyone in the building. The Code says that it is required. Orville Baker asked Ron Fields if he had any reason for why the Code Off- icials have changed the requirement in the 1985 NFPA. Ron Fields stated that he did not know. Rex McIntyre stated that he did not know that 1985 Edition was already out. John Larriviere asked if the Church had to have a manual and voice system. Ron Fields stated yes they had to have a manual alarm system. The pur- pose of the was so no one would have to run through to certain part of the building to set off the alarm. The system would be at every exit door. John Larriviere asked about 9-3.4.3. Provisions shall be made for the transmitting voice messages by a public address system. Ron Fields stated that was a part of the alarm communication system. The public address system is only in the auditorium to prevent panic that bells would do. The bells would be in the halls and offices. John Larriviere stated that he wonder- ed why this was omitted from the 1985 NFPA. Page 16. Ron Fields stated that he did not know. The engineers and specialists of the NFPA would be the only ones who could tell them why. Orville Baker asked Pat Kuehn if she had found anything to replace the system in the Church. Pat Kuehn stated no. The Code said that assembly occupancies required to be sprinklered by Section 9-3.5.1., "Theaters with more than one audience viewing room, and all assembly occu- pancies of over a 2,000 occupant load shall be provided with an approved fire alarm system in accordance with this Section." She said under this Code their occupancy load was less than 2,000 and therefore the system is not required. Bill Fowkes state that the acoustics in the Church were such that a noise making alarm system which when set off, there would be no way that the alarm could not be heard throughout the auditorium, chapel, and cultur- al center of the building. The Fire Department is requiring that the Church is to have a voice backup system that is to prevent a panic situation where the noise making system is already alerting the people. He said that there was no way to isolate the auditorium from the class room sections without spending millions of dollars. He stated that he did not know what the Fire Department expect- ed the Church to do. Ron Fields stated that the Code said that they had to do two things. 1.) have bells in all places of assembly and 2) the auditorium had to have a prerecorded voice message upon the activation of the alarm system. They must have an activation by manual alarm system. Rex McIntyre asked what kind of alarms the Church had now. Pat Kuehn stated the there was not an alarm in the existing building. Page 17. Bill Fowkes stated that in churches that have auditoriums, he under- stands that they have to have a manual pull alarm system, the Church is not fighting that provision. They are concerned about the fact that in addition to that, they are to have a recorded voice message. He said in this situation it was ridiculous. He agreed with the manual alarm system but not to have both. Ron Fields stated that the voice alarm was for the auditorium only. Bill Fowkes stated that he knew that, but everything could be heard from the auditorium. Ron Fields asked how he knew that he could hears alarms go off without any alarms in the building. Pat Kuehn asked if under the Section they are also given the option of having the room manned while the auditorium is occupied and using a live voice instead of a pre-recorded voice. Ron Fields stated no. John Larriviere stated that a vote needed to be taken. Orville Baker motioned to deny the request of Item No. 11. Michael Dean seconded and the motion carried 4-0 to deny. Pat Kuehn stated that Item No. 14 re- garding Marking of Means of Egress was next. Under 9-2.1.0. means of egress shall have signs in accordance with Section 5-10. In that section under 5-10.1.2., there is an exception that signs in existing building need not meet the 100 foot distance require- ment. The other point regarding this is in the commentary. "The character of the occupancy has the practicle effect of the need for signs in any any place of assembly, hotel, depart- ment store or other buildings subject to transient occupancy, the need for signs will be greater than in a build- Page 18. ing subject to permanent or semipermanent occupancy. Mrs. Kuehn stated that she read that as saying that the building that people are familiar with should have less requirements than those building that people are less familiar with. Eric Hill asked if the Church ever had an influx of strangers in the Church that were not familiar with the building. Bill Fowkes stated that they did have new members coming in and they did make up a fraction of the congregation of about ten percent of year. They were talking of a very small percentage of people not knowing the layout of the Church. Eric Hill asked of there were any conventions held at the Church. Bill Fowkes stated that the people who used to use the building only one to two times a year are coming on a more frequent basis for other activities. For the most part a large portion of people of familiar with the building at all times. Orville Baker asked if the Church had any exit sign at the present. Bill Fowkes stated that they did have exits sign that were lit. Pat Kuehn stated that the Fire Depart- ment did not feel that there were not enough signs. John Larriviere asked if the sign were in an inadequate places. Pat Kuehn stated that the signs that they had were in the auditorium to show the exits out of the auditorium doors. John Larriviere asked if the sign were adequate now according to the Code. Pat Kuehn stated that the Fire Marshall said that the signs were not adequate and that there were not enough of the signs. Page 19. Rex McIntyre asked if the Fire Marshall was saying is that there had to be a sign at each entrance. Pat Kuehn stated no that under the Code in the Section of Exit Marking, it say "Access to exits shall be marked by readily visible signs in all cases where the exit or way reach it is not immediately visible to the occupants. Sign placement shall be such that no point in the exit access is more than 100 feet from the nearest visible sign. The exception being signs in existing buildings need not meet the 100 foot distance requirement. Where a main entrance also serves as an exit, the exit location will usually be sufficiently obvious to occupants and no exit sign is needed." She stated that a glass door is a readily visible exit. "There are many situations where the actual need for signs may be debatable." John Larriviere stated that the Board had enough information to consider. Ron Fields asked Pat Kuehn how many doors that the Church was not wanting to put the signs by. He stated that a building could only have one main entrance by Code. Eric Hill asked what door they referred as the main entrance. Bill Fowkes stated that there were several doors that were equally used. Pat Kuehn stated from the Code "Access to exits shall be marked by readily visible signs in all cases where the exit or way to reach it is not immediately visible to the occupants. A glass door is a visible exit. Ron Fields stated that if there is a person in the middle of the hall who has been in the Church only one time, if there was a fire they would be running out a door they had never seen. And if it was at night the door would not be visible. Page 20. Bill Fowkes stated that the building is already familiar to its occupants. Ron Fields asked if this was for 100 percent of the time. Pat Kuehn asked if they could agree that the Church did not need to add the signs in front of the obvious exits. Ron Fields stated that it was needed at the main entrance only. Pat Kuehn stated that the Code said that access to exits shall be marked by readily visible signs in all cases where the exit or way to reach it is not immediately visible. If the exit is immediately visible then it does not require a sign. Orville Baker asked if one carne out the internal exit and could see the outside within fifty feet, that was not considered a visible sign. Ron Fields stated that he could not see anyone who was not familiar with the building coming out of the auditorium from a different door in which they entered and having anything apparent to them. Pat Kuehn stated that they exit at the ends of the building where the glass doors are. Ron Fields asked about if they could not get through those exits. Bill Fowkes stated that the main exits from the auditorium are very close to the glass door exits. Ron Field asked what if someone was coming in from one of the other rooms. Rex McIntyre stated that all Ron Fields was asking was for the Church to mark the existing exits. Pat Kuehn stated that was not the only thing that was required. There were a number of items. Page 21. Ron Fields stated that the Church had to have more than one means of egress. Danny Taylor stated that the Ramada Inn fire in Fort Worth had five people died because there were no exits signs. Pat Kuehn stated the Churches were not used in the early morning hours. John Larriviere stated that if there was a fire in the Council Chambers he would run to a door marked "Exit". Pat Kuehn stated that if the door was glass and he could see outside he would know that it was a means of egress. John Larriviere stated yes he would know that, if he could see outside of the door. Danny Taylor stated that in a room full of smoke the door would not be visible. He said that it would be a very least cost factor to save lives. The Church can put up illuminous signs which are cheaper than the wired in signs. Orville Baker made the motion to deny the request of item No. 14. Michael Dean seconded and the motion carried 4-0 to deny. Pat Kuehn stated that the last comment she wanted to address was item No. 16 about smoke detectors being on house current and of approved type, and on a dedicated circuit. The Code requirement the Fire Department is citing is "Smoke detectors shall be installed in all areas where required either by the appropriate NFPA standard or by the authority having jurisdiction." John Larriviere asked if the Church had any fire detectors or smoke alarms. Pat Kuehn stated no. Rex McIntyre asked what the Fire Department was requiring. Pat Kuehn stated that the Church add smoke detectors on a dedicated circuit of the building, which meant more Page 22. wiring. Orville Baker asked if they had to be on their own circuit. Ron Fields stated yes, that it had to be on a dedicated circuit. John Larriviere asked if the Church preferred not to have smoke alarms. Pat Kuehn stated yes. Eric Hill asked why the Church did not to have them. Pat Kuehn stated that her hope in appearing before the Board of Appeals is that she was given the impression that some of the items could be discussed and waved if it was deemed that that the Church was meeting enough of the life safety requirements. She stated that the Code required smokes detectors be installed in all areas where required either by the appropriate NFPA standard, in which the NFPA did not require it for this type of building, or by the authority having jurisdiction. Rex McIntyre stated that particular section of the Code was part objective and part subjective. Ron Fields stated that there was not a building in the City that comes in whether it was old, new, or used that did not have a fire detector. He said that a fire detector is one's only early warning device. Pat Kuehn stated that the other appeal she wanted to make was that all smoke detectors were not hard wired. Ron Fields stated that the battery operated ones were only good as the person who changed the batteries. That is the reason for detectors on house current only. Danny Taylor stated that there not a business that had battery operated detectors because if they did, they were made to replace them. Page 23. John Larriviere asked if there was any spring loaded detectors on the market. Ron Fields stated that those were outlawed in the City because they were a farce. Orville Baker asked if the hard wiring rather than using the existing wiring a requirement. Ron Fields stated that it was a NFPA requirement. Greg Wheeler stated that hard wiring and a dedicated circuit were the same thing. Pat Kuehn stated that a new wire had to be pulled through and have conduit and wire in the attic to service it. Greg Wheeler stated that there was a provision for the dedicated circuit that emergency lighting and smoke detectors could both be on the same circuit. John Larriviere asked for a motion. Michael Dean made the motion to deny the request of item No. 16. Orville Baker seconded and the motion carried 4-0 to deny. Danny Taylor stated that item No. 13 still needed to be decided concerning sprinklering the building. Orville Baker asked if it was for the stage. Danny Taylor stated this was for the whole building. Ordinance No. 1377 it says it "Any occupancy 25,000 gross square feet shall be sprinklered." Michael Dean asked if they had less than 25,000 gross square footage then it did not have to be sprinklered. Danny Taylor stated yes. He said that Ron Fields had figured up the footage twice and came up with 25,022 without the top floor. Rex McIntyre asked Pat Kuehn the square footage that she came up with. Page 24. Pat Kuehn stated that she came up with 24,929 square feet. She asked the Board to bear in mind that the sprinkler system was terribly expensive to retrofit. Danny Taylor stated that since the Fire Department's figures and Ms. Kuehn's were different an outside party should figure the square footage because it would deem whether a sprinkler system would have to be added or not. John Larriviere asked for a motion. Pat Kuehn stated that before the Board voted on this that so far in this project they had been required to sprinkler the stage, put in smoke detectors and fire alarms, emergency lighting, a fire hydrant and exit signs. There was not much more that could be added to this list. She asked how far did the Church have to go protect the building and its occupants. Ron Fields stated that the purpose of this was to protect the 1225 people. Pat Kuehn stated that she understood the concern for safety, but she was concerned about her client's monetary situation even though she knew that a life could not be bought. Some where there should be a partial balance in an existing building such as this one. She stated that a fire sprinkler system in a new building was about a third of the cost to install the same system in an existing building. She was not sure that one could even be put in the Church because of the low roof spaces. Eric Hill stated that this requirement was not something that was thought up over night. Situations have been proven through the years and this is the maximum protection that has been brought up for everyone concerned. Mr. Hill stated that all of the other building are complying with the requirements that have been brought up. Bill Fowkes stated that he understood that a line had to be set up somewhere, but the cost of the sprinkler system will cause them to not be able to do the Page 25. the renovations. Because of the enormity of cost of the requirements, the building will just have to remain in substandard condition that is unaccept- able to the community. Orville Baker stated that Bill Fowkes could appeal it to the City Council. John Larriviere stated that if the Board voted that the Church did not have to have a sprinkler system, then they would have to do it for all existing buildings. Rex McIntyre asked the cost analysis on the project. Pat Kuehn stated that for the sprinkler system the cost would be phenominal since it would be put in an existing structure. It would cost two to three times more than a system in a new building. Danny Taylor agreed that the cost would be tremendous. Orville Baker stated that since this was in the Ordinance and City Council passed it and set the 25,000 foot limit, then the City Council would have to be the one to wave it. Danny Taylor stated that if it had the 24,929 square feet that Pat Kuehn had, then the system would not be required. John Larriviere stated to have this Code changed it would have to be brought to the City Council. Pat Kuehn stated that she would have to go before the City Council to have the Code changed or get a variance on her appeal. Danny Taylor stated that she should not approach the Council for a variance because he would fight it. He said that she should approach them with the existing building having to be torn up in order to be brought up to Code and get an amendment. John Larriviere stated that a variance may be in order, but the Board's Page 26. function is to interpret the Code and make a decision. John Larriviere called for a vote. Orville Baker motioned to deny the request of Item No. 13. Michael Dean seconded and the motion carried 4-0 to deny. (,£ A 8b - '-1 Request by the North Park Baptist Church to appeal the Fire Code requirements as adopted in City Ordinance No. 1377. John Larriviere call forward the representative of the North Park Baptist Church. Reverend Bob Lane came forward and introduced the Church's General Contractor David Wilson. Mr. Lane explained that Lloyd Wilson the original General Contractor passed away on July 4, 1986. He said that they were not there to make an impassioned plea or to compromise safety in any fashion. He stated that there were two items that they wanted to appeal. Rex McIntyre stated the Fire Department and he had discussed this case and they felt that they had a proper case for the Board. Bob Lane stated that they had met in the Fire Marshall's Office and tried to draw plans in accordance with the Code. There seemed to have been some misunderstanding and a lack of commun- ication but it literally has the Church confused. John Larriviere asked Greg Wheeler to explain the Church's problem. Greg Wheeler stated that the basic problem was the lack of communication and falling in the crack between two codes. He said that the fact that Ron Fields had been told that this was to be a Sunday School class and to be used less than twelve hours a week. This was not covered under either code, the Uniform Building Code or the National Fire Protection Association. Ron Fields Page 27. had talked to the contractor which had recently deceased. In a conference with Rev. Lane, Greg Wheeler had been told that the building was to be used for a regular Elementary School. Greg Wheeler stated that when he reviewed the Fire Department's write ups, there was not any requirements for education. He then looked up in the Uniform Building Code and showed Rev. Lane the requirements that would have to be met. In the UBC if certain provisions are made, which is to sprinkler the building and put up area separation walls, which the Fire Department does not recognize. Since the Fire Department made no requirements for the educational facility, Greg Wheeler told Rev. Lane that if area separation walls by the UBC they would have three zero lot line buildings. To meet the requirement of the UBC, if he would sprinkler the middle section, which by the Code is a separate building, and provid two means of egress from the second floor that would lead directly outside and to ground level, then he could have children of less that second grade level occupy the second floor. Greg Wheeler stated that this is what Rev. Lane proceeded with and then when the remodeling came in for another section of the building, this is when the Fire Department found out that this was a regular Elementary school, and wrote the requirements under their section of the Code. The Church had no problems with that and this was inspected and passed by the Fire Department. The problem that they were experiencing now was on the new portion of the building. Rev. Lane stated over the last ten years, every requirement ever made by the Fire Department has been made. The Church went into this project to add on to the auditorium and somewhere along the line there was a misunderstanding. The Church did have a design of the building and there was no possible way to redesign the building. It was built under the approval of Greg Wheeler. The building is windowless but the Church felt like they were meeting every requirement with two fire walls and sprinklering the class rooms. There was no desire to eliminate any thing that Page 28. would present a safety hazard to any children. The Church felt that by meeting the requirements that they are not creating a safety hazard. The Church had two different sets of write ups; one marked for new building requirements that stated: Rooms in Division 1 used for kindergarten, first or second grade pupils shall not be located above the first story. Exception: In buildings equipped with an automatic sprinkler system throughout, rooms used for kindergarten, first and second grade children or for day-care purposes may be located on the second story, provided there are at least two exits directly to the exterior for the exclusive use of such occupants. Rev. Lane stated that the Church had the fire walls. The Church redrew their plans to meet this requirement with one corridor dedicated to an outside door. The building was built in what the Church in assumption of the requirements and now they had some rooms that they could not use. This expenditure was approaching $500,000 and the budget was $375,000. Ninety percent of the $500,000 was Fire Code related. He stated that in the remodeling write ups the Code stated that only second grade children could be above the first floor. The Codes were overlapping and the Church had designed the room for first grade children. No age break down was stated in the Code. Rev. Lane stated that there were two requests that the Church had. 1) In the original requirements the sprinklering had never been a continguency. The ceiling in the auditorium were 20 feet high. Sprinkler Companies had been contacted and Rev. Lane read a letter from Ready Sprinklers Inc. " Dear Mr. Wilson, As you requested I am commenting on the addition of sprinklers from the above mentioned church. All though the best protection of the property would be sprinklers, it is doubtful that a system protecting a gymnasium or sanctuary would be affective due to the height of sprinklers above combustives or flames. Also the expensive of providing this protection in the existing areas along with the damaged and retrofit cost." He requested that the Church only have to sprinkler the classrooms as in the first set of write ups and exclude the Page 29. gymnasium and the auditorium because of the fire wall and other things that had been added. Rex McIntyre asked if the Church had fire wall between those two sections. Rev. Lane stated yes. Rex McIntyre asked if the Church had met the zero lot line requirement with respect to the two hour wall. Greg Wheeler stated yes the Church had met that. Rev. Lane stated that the second request is simply to allow the Church to have the first grade children upstairs. John Larriviere asked if the sprinkler system and the first grade children upstairs were the appeals. Rev. Lane stated no. The Church had no problem with sprinklering the upstairs, they did not want to be required to sprinkler the gymnasium and the auditorium. Orville Baker asked for a statement from the Fire Department concerning this issue. Danny Taylor read the Code for the Board to interpret. "Every room or space used for classrooms of other educational purposes or normally subject to student occupancy shall have at least one outside window used for emergency rescue or ventilation. He stated that the exceptions were 1) In buildings provided throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system. Mr. Taylor stated that the Fire Department does not recognize fire walls as separation in a building. Exception 2) Where the room or space has a door leading directly to the outside of the building. If there is not a window in the classroom then the building must be sprinklered throughout. Orville Baker asked Danny Taylor if he had a definition of a building. Mr. Baker asked if there was anything about being able to break up a building into several buildings. Page 30. Danny Taylor stated that there was not anything in the Fire Code on that. Rex McIntyre stated that there was a Code problem with this kind of situation. Orville Baker stated that there were apartments that were zero lot line. Danny Taylor stated that apartment over three stories or thirty five feet in height had to be sprinklered. Rex McIntyre stated that there was a problem in how to interpret the separate building situation. Danny Taylor stated that a shopping center of 90,000+ square feet and two stories in height tried to get out of sprinklering the building by placing two hour fire walls every 12,000 square feet. He said that the Fire Code did not allow for that and the definition for "building" was any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy. Orville Baker stated that the Fire Code was new to the Board. All their decisions had been based on the Building Code. Mr. Baker asked about the fire walls. Danny Taylor asked Greg Wheeler of he had a shopping center of 100,000 square feet and had two fire walls, would it have to be sprinklered under the UBC. Greg Wheeler stated no it would not if the fire walls were installed properly. He stated that the problem of this was that he was aware of this in the Fire Code, and he normally informs people of this. With this being an education center, was not aware of this because Ron Fields had not mentioned it. He went strictly by the Building Code which had been met by the contractor. The exceptions that were being asked for were strictly in the Fire Code because the Building Code was followed to the letter. The two items that are being requested have been done to meet the UBC. Page 31. Orville Baker stated that only if a building is described as everything under one roof, instead of how Danny Taylor described it, may be separated by a fire wall making it into two build- ings. If the same interpretation of a building was used then the Church meets the requirement. Rex McIntyre stated that something would probably have to be done about the conflict of Codes in the future but this case needed to be decided on. Eric Hill stated that the Fire Department interpretation of building is that which is under one roof. Danny Taylor stated yes that the Fire Code does not recognize fire walls for separating buildings. Rex McIntyre stated that the zero lot lines had been recently used in duplexes. Bob Lane stated that the Church would not have minded putting in sprinklers or fire walls, but now they were having to go over what has already been protected. He said that he understood the Fire Department not respecting the fire walls, but that the fire walls had already been put in at a cost of $12,000 because the Church had been asked to do that. Both of the write up classify the Church as Group "E" occupancy which is a school. Mr. Lane stated that when he and the contractor went to the Fire Marshall's office with the original plans, Danny Taylor stated that that the UBC was tougher than the Fire Code. Danny Taylor stated that he made the statement because Mr. Lane told him that the UBC required the building to be sprinklered. Orville Baker made the motion to approve the request of the Church by going under the UBC. Danny Taylor stated that before the Board go with the decision, that a shopping center was waiting for the outcome of this case. Page 32. Rex McIntyre stated that there was a problem and there was a way of meeting that problem in the future. This needed to be taken to the City Council of an amendment to one of the Codes. He said that it was not fair to a citizen to have different definitions and trying to comply to both. Ron Fields stated that when a building permit application is first submitted, the Fire Department does the plan review as well as the Building Official. The more stringent of the two Codes goes to the person who signs for the write ups. From the first blue print submitted from the Church, the Fire Department had been told that the classroom would be used less than twelve hours, therefore it fell under "A Place of Assembly Occupancy." He stated that since then it had been changed. A new plan was draw up because it was going to be an educational facility. If the Fire Department had been told that it was going to be an educational occupancy, then it would not have been draw up like it was the first time. Bob Lane stated that there never any intention to mislead anyone. He appeared in the office and both set of write ups are a Class "E". Rex McIntyre asked when the original application was made. Bob Lane stated in April. Rex McIntyre stated that it did not make sense that any deception was made when Bob Lane sat there and talked to the Fire Department about the plans. Bob Lane stated that since the Church was checked once a year, it would be foolish to try and deceive anyone when it would be inspected to meet the State Welfare Requirements. This was the reason that they met with Danny Taylor. Orville Bake motioned to approve the request. John Larriviere asked if the Church had to have a sprinkler system in the auditorium and gymnasium. Page 33. Orville Baker stated that it would not if it was considered a separate build- ing under the Building Code. Danny Taylor stated that the Fire Department did not care if it was sprinklered or not. If the Church put windows in the classrooms it would suffice. Orville Baker motioned to approve the request of BBA 86-7. Ron Fields asked if the bottom floor was sprinklered also. Bob Lane stated yes. Eric Hill seconded and the motion carried 3-1 to approve. Request by Kent R. Mikesell to appeal the Fire Code requirements on Locking Devices on exit doors. John Larriviere called forward the representative for this case. Kent Mikesell came forward and stated his name and place of business. He said that the locks on the door have a key lock inside and outside. The locks are very high security and are very hard to penetrate by drill or pick. The reason for this is because they have the master keys to hotels, motels, and apartment complexes allover the Dallas/Fort Worth area. If anyone got a hold of the keys, rapes, assaults, and murders could be committed. Mr. Mikesell stated that there is no one at his place of business after he leaves there at night. It is locked all of the time. If he, his son, or his wife are in there, they have the keys to get out. If he is required to put in a thumb turn lock on the inside of the door, it will be as easy as ten seconds to open the door with a coat hanger. Mr. Mikesell stated that he need to keep the cylinder inside. Lives, money, jewelery, and cash that would be stolen if anyone got a hold of the keys. lLi I q ;AJ (j- BlJfÅr~ øt PP el1.& /'tA i NJLt e:s 7-9- 3£ f MisSr¡t) .