Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCA 1986-05-13 Minutes CALL TO ORDER Roll Call 1. BBA 86-4 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OF THE BUILDING CODE & ORDINANCE COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TX, MAY 13, 1986.- 7:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by acting chairman Gerald Stewart. PRESENT: Secretary Members Greg Wheeler Orville Baker John Larriviere Gerald Stewart ABSENT: Joe Coulson Robert Skinner Request of Trammel/Crow from two variances from the Uniform Building Code. They are asking for a variance to do away with the four-hour separa- tion wall that they originally wanted and put a one hour wall instead. The second variance is to do away with elevator doors as required by the Building Code. Gerald Stewart called forward the representatives of the Trammel/Crow group. Vic Suhm came forward and stated that he was the manager of the Tarrant County Office group for the Trammel/ Crow group. Gerald Stewart asked the representà- tives to make their presentation in order of the letter dated April 15, 1986 to Greg Wheeler. Vic Suhm stated that he would like to introduce the group to the comm- ittee and tell them a little about themselves. The group introduced themselves. Mr. Suhm stated that the Nowlin Center is a joint venture developement of the Trammel/Crow Company and the Nowlin Page 2. Companies. The Nowlin Center is the first developement for Trammel/Crow in North Richland Hills. The Trammel/ Crow Company is a private real estate developement and investment firm. It developes, leases, and manages commer- cial projects. They build to own and believe that the Nowlin Center will be the premiere project in North Richland Hills. Mr. Wade Nowlin, Chairman of the Nowlin Corporation came forward and stated that he wanted to present the finest office building in the area. There are to be three phases to this project and right now only one is under construction. It is to be the home office of the Nowlin Companies. He stated that the building would be first class in every aspect. Mr. Suhm came forward again stated that the variance requests would not reduce the safety. Since they will be occupying the building they do not want it to be unsafe in any way. He stated that the first variance request is the separation requirement between the garage and the Garden office. The Garden building is a low rise building and does not have to comply with the Fire Requirements in Section 1807. He stated that they could put in the four-hour separation wall without the sprinklers, alarms, and voice communications. But they designed it in the building with the fire protec- tion measures even though they were not required. He said that if it was the committee's choice, they could delete these fire protection features in place of the four-hour separation wall, even though it would decrease the building fire protection. He said that they saw no justification for having to also provide a four-hour wall separation along with the other fire safety features. Mr. Suhm stated that their second variance request dealt with Section 1807 H of the Uniform Building Code that requires a onè-hour separation of the elevator lobby from other parts of the high rise building. This requirement was added to the Building Code after the MGM Grant Hotel fire in Las Vegas. The purpose of this was to Page 3. prevent smoke from spreading from one floor to another through the elevator shafts. He said that since that time many jurisdictions have eliminated this requirement from their Codes for buildings which are sprinkled, be- cause the sprinklers will put out or contain the fire before smoke can spread from one floor to another. Mr. Suhm stated that not only will the building be sprinkled, it will be manned 24 hours a day with the guard having a central monitoring station. With these kinds of fire protection systems, there is no need for elevator separation lobby. He stated that if the committee felt that it was necessary, Trammel/Crow would pressurize the elevator shafts. They prefer the elevator pressurization to elevator separation for safety rea- sons. The elevator lobby doors would cause only confusion in case a fire did happen, and would only be another door that people would have to go through. He said that they were ready to answer the committee's questions. Orville Baker asked if the whole building would be to the high rise standards and if so, he saw no reason for the four-hour wall if everything is to the high rise requirements. Mr. Suhm stated that many of the requirements in Section 1807, are being included in the low rise build- ing even though they are not required because that section deals only with the high rise. He said that the low building has sprinklers, smoke alarms, and voice communications not required by code. Mr. Tucker the Fire Protection Engin- eer and Building Code Consultant stated that the only things not pro- vided in the low rise building were stair pressurization and elevator lobby separation. They are looking for a reduction in the wall area separation so they will not have to pressurize the short stairs. Page 4. Mr. John Larriviere asked if the area between the four-hour wall would meet requirements for the high rise. Mr. Tucker stated that the design for the low rise was the same as the high rise building. Mr. Orville Baker asked if the stair- ways in the low rise building were the only ones that were not pressur- ized. Mr. Tucker said yes that the I.C.B.O. reviewed the drawings and gave an interpretation of the code maintain- ing the interpretations that they have done. Individual cases are looked at for what is specifically need for the building. The different wall area separation is based on different types of buildings. Mr. Gerald Stewart asked what advet- sions they had about placing a four- hour wall. Mr. Suhm showed the plan of the wall and stated that the wall is ten (10) inches thick and the four-hour wall would have to be 7 1/2 inches thick. With all of the other fire protection the wall is unnecessary. Mr. John Larriviere stated that the problem was deciding if this is a high rise building or two different buildings. Mr. Tucker said that according to the I.C.B.O. it is a high rise building. But outside of the foot- print, the building can be low rise. There for the separation is not re- quired. Mr. Larriviere asked what if a fire started in the high rise side and went to the garden side of vice versa. Mr. Tucker stated that with the fire protection system and the separation wall, it was unlikely a fire could spread from area to another. Page 5. Mr. Larriviere stated that if what Mr. Tucker said is true, then the code needed to be changed. Mr. Nowlin stated that they were not wanting to change the code. They are only wanting an exception. Mr. Tucker stated that they are asking for alternate means of meeting the code requirements. Gerald Stewart asked Mr. Suhm whether they are to take a four-hour wall and separate the high rise from the low rise building. Then would they also put the fire protection system in the low rise. Mr. Suhm stated that they would have to evaluate that because they had not contemplated putting both the separ- ation wall and the sprinkler system in the low rise. Gerald Stewart asked the cost of placing a fout-hour wall. Mr. Suhm did not know and did not want to speculate about the cost. Gerald Stewart stated that he wanted to know the difference between the four-hour wall and the sprinkler system. Also would it be safer with the wall or the sprinkler system. Mr. Suhm stated that it would be safer with the sprinkler system. Mr. David Faith with Trammel/Crow came forward and stated that the sprinkler system would be the most expensive compared to the separation wall and the safest. The sprinkler system is $50,000 and the fire alarm system is $15,000. Mr. Wheeler stated that in accordance to Ordinance,1216. any building three stories and over will be sprinklered regardless. Mr. Suhm stated that he did not know Page 6. that is was required. Orville Baker asked what cities had adopted the use of pressurization in lieu of elevator lobby doors. Mr. Suhm stated that Dallas, Fort Worth, and Farmers Branch did not require the lobby doors. Orville Baker asked if there was any data showing when they made the decision and what is was based on. Mr. Suhm stated that it was a result of an engineering study that reviewed the building code in conjunction with the construction and developement in- dustries to find things in the code that were not necessary in order to encourage sprinklering in the build- ings. He said that he was told by the technical experts that if a building is sprinkled, elevator lobby doors are not needed. Mr. Tucker said that their primary data was the fire records put to- gether by the National Fire Pro- tection Association. Orville Baker asked where data could be obtained. Mr. Tucker stated that the I.C.B.O. has had the data submitted to them in code change requests. But it has been turned down on a close vote but there is a split vote in I.C.B.O. right now on whether or not elevator lobby doors are needed. They do not give any special consideration for using pressurization in elevators and no penalty for using pressurization because it does not fit in the rating structure. Don Powell of H.M.B.H. Architects stated the he was responsible for the design of this building. It could have been build with less than Type 1 construction. But they decided to go with it even though it cost more. The separation would have been less if they had gone Type 2 construction. Page 7. Orville Baker asked if the garage area open on the sides or enclosed. Don Powell stated that is was closed but open on two sides for ventila- tion. Gerald Stewart asked how many car spaces there were. Don Powell stated that there were 291 spaces. Gerald Stewart asked if Trammel/Crow had to put a sprinkler system along with the four-hour wall. Greg Wheeler stated yes. Gerald Stewart stated that if the Committee granted the variance that they would be violation to the Fire Code. Mr. Tucker stated that they were not asking for a variance. That asking for a two-hour instead of a four- hour wall is an interpretation of the code requirements. They are asking for an alternate means of methods. Don Powell asked if they conformed to the four-hour wall would the voice communication system and other fire safety features be required. Greg Wheeler stated they would not be required, just the sprinkler system. John Larriviere asked if the low rise building had the same requirements as the high rise building. Don Powell stated no. John Larriviere made the motion to deny the request of Trammel/Crow for a onè-hour separation in the low rise building. Gerald Stewart seconded the motion and the motion to deny carried 2-1. ADJOURNMENT \~1L~ Secreta Building de and Ordinance Orville Baker oþpùsed. Page 8. Gerald Stewart stated that Trammel/ Crow had the right to appeal the decision to the City Council. Gerald Stewart made the motion to accept the request for the pressuri- zation. Orville Baker seconded the motion and the motion carried 2-1. John Larriviere opposed. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M. Chairman Building Code and Ordinance Committee Committee