BOARD OF CODE STANDARDS AND APPEALS MINUTES November 7, 2005 Members: Francisco Banuelos, Randy Coonrod, Randy Harder, Richard Hartwell, Bernie Hentzen, Gerald Herzberg, Ed Murabito, Warren Willenberg, John Youle Present: Banuelos, Coonrod, Harder, Hartwell, Hentzen, Herzberg, Willenberg, Youle Staff Members Present: Deb Legge, Maria Bias, Elaine Hammons, Paul Hays The regular meeting of the Board of Code Standards and Appeals was called to order by Vice Chairman Youle on Monday, November 7, 2005, at 1:33 p.m. in the 1st floor Board Room, City Hall, 455 N. Main, Wichita, Kansas. In the absence of Chairman Murabito, chaired the meeting. 1. Approval of the Minutes of the November 7, 2005, meeting. A motion was made by Board Member Coonrod to approve the minutes of the October 3, 2005, meeting as submitted. The motion was seconded by Board Member Banuelos. The motion carried, unopposed. 2. Approval of the November, 2005, license examination application as follows: Name Class Test Date Mike Sheets Roofing & Siding November, 2005 Board Member Hartwell made a motion to approve the application for testing. The motion was seconded by Board Member Willenberg. The motion was approved unanimously. 3. Condemnation Hearings Review Cases 1. 1155 North Spruce Barbara Shugart, daughter of the deceased owner, was present to represent this property. BCSA Meeting November 7, 2005 Page Two After asking that the Board Members introduce themselves, Vice Chairman Youle asked Deb Legge to give the Board an overview of the status of the property at 1155 N. Spruce. This property was brought before the Board for the first time at the May 2, 2005, Board hearing. It was presented to the Board again at the August 1, 2005, at which time Ms. Shugart appeared on behalf of her deceased mother, Veronica Hankins. At the August meeting, Ms. Shugart told the Board that she was trying to get control of the property, which was going through probate at that time. A motion was made and approved at the August meeting to allow until the November hearing to either complete the required repairs or reappear before the Board. The taxes are current. The premise conditions are fair, but need to be mowed. There have been no repairs to the structure; however, the building is secured. Ms. Shugart told the Board that her son was planning to mow the property the previous weekend, but had become ill and was hospitalized. She said that he would get the mowing done on the upcoming weekend. Vice Chairman Youle asked whether any substantial repairs had been made to the structure. Ms. Shugart confirmed that nothing had been done in the way of repairs. Board Member Hartwell inquired whether anyone was currently living in the structure. Ms. Shugart said that the building was unoccupied. Board Member Hartwell also asked if the house was habitable. Ms. Shugart said that the front part appeared to be habitable, however, the rear portion of the structure needed extensive repairs. She went on to explain that she had encountered financial difficulties due to the legal expenses incurred over the property. Board Member Willenberg asked Ms. Shugart how much time she would need to bring the exterior of the property into compliance. In response, Ms. Shugart told the Board that she would need at least two or three months to make the repairs. She said that the onset of winter would probably delay some of the repairs, but she would try to get the exterior fixed to the satisfaction of the City. In the meantime, she would continue with whatever procedures are necessary to have the property transferred into her name. Vice Chairman Youle inquired whether Ms. Shugart had any idea how long it would take to resolve the issue with the ownership. She estimated that it would take another thirty days to work out the legalities on the transfer of the deed. Board Member Hartwell expressed concern that the shed at the rear of the property should be razed. Ms. Shugart said that an individual had approached her about obtaining the building and removing it from the site. Although he was supposed to have removed the shed the previous weekend, she said she contacted the individual the morning of the Board meeting, and he assured her that he would remove the building on the upcoming weekend. Ms. Shugart said that she told the party that if he failed to follow through on the removal of the shed that she would have to make other arrangements to have the structure demolished. BCSA Meeting November 7, 2005 Page Three A motion was made by Board Member Hartwell to allow thirty days to mow, remove the overgrowth and debris from the property, remove the shed, repair the porch, and then reappear at the December meeting to give an update on the property and the status of the ownership issue. The motion was seconded by Board Member Hentzen. The motion passed unanimously. 2. 317 South Dodge Francis Buckman appeared as a representative for this property. This property was brought to the Board for the first time at the May 2, 2005, hearing. The property was before the Board again at the July 11, 2005, hearing; the September 12, 2005, hearing; and the October 3, 2005, hearing. The last motion made and approved by the Board was that once a permit was issued for the repairs, the case would be returned to regular code enforcement; however, if those stipulations were not met, the owner would reappear before the Board at the November 7, 2005, hearing. Mr. Buckman said that the contractor that he hired had said he held a valid contractor's license and would obtain the required permits. The contractor continued to stall on the matter and ultimately left the job. Mr. Buckman said he has since hired a licensed contractor, Homer Hoffine, to complete the repairs. Mr. Hoffine has told Mr. Buckman that it would be three weeks before he could begin work on the house; Mr. Buckman told the Board that he would like an additional sixty days to complete the repairs. A motion was made by Board Member Harder to allow until the next scheduled hearing for the contractor to obtain the required permit; if the contractor gets the permit, the case would then be turned over to regular code enforcement and there would be no need for Mr. Buckman to reappear before the Board. In the event that the condition is not met, Mr. Buckman would need to appear before the Board with a status on the property. The motion was seconded by Board Member Willenberg. The motion passed, unopposed. 3. Presentation and discussion of proposed amendments to the International Existing Building Code 2003. Mr. Paul Hays, Senior Plans Examiner, Central Inspection, provided an overview of the proposed amendments to the International Existing Building Code 2003. He explained that Melvin Green and Associates worked with the City of Wichita to create a rehabilitation code, which was adopted by the City of Wichita in April, 2001, and is currently being enforced by the City of Wichita. Since that time, the International Code Council has issued a rehabilitation code (International Existing Building Code), which is a national standard, also authored by Melvin Green and Associates. BCSA Meeting November 7, 2005 Page Four Primarily the chapters of the International Existing Building Code 2003 that are being reviewed for the proposed amendments are those that would bring that code in line with the International Building Code since they are part of the same group of documents. There are fifty-five proposed amendments, Mr. Hays stated. The majority of the revisions would be considered "cosmetic" changes, which would simply be correcting the references noted in the rehabilitation code as relating to the other various codes enforced by the City of Wichita. Board Member Hentzen inquired about the edition of the rehabilitation code presently administered by the City of Wichita in relation to the International Existing Building Code 2003. Mr. Hays clarified that there was no prior national standard for a rehabilitation code, the first edition having been produced in 2003. Typically, the codes are updated every three years, the next versions due in 2006. Board Member Hentzen asked whether the adoption of the International Existing Building Code 2003 and the proposed amendments had been reviewed by a codes committee that included building and remodeling contractors. In response, Mr. Hays said that although it has been generally an internal assessment, a copy of the International Existing Building Code 2003 and the proposed revisions had been given to the president of the AIA for evaluation. He was not aware of any other committees that might have been involved in the review. A question about the expected time frame for adoption of the International Existing Building Code 2003 was posed by Board Member Coonrod. Mr. Hays surmised that the intent of Kurt Schroeder, Superintendent of Central Inspection, was to present the proposed amendments to the Board of Code Standards at the November meeting and then proceed to the City Council with the suggested revisions at the December Council meeting. An overview of the major changes included in the amendment packet was requested by Board Member Hentzen. Board Member Coonrod also voiced a desire to see the proposed code adoption and amendments go before a codes committee for study. Mr. Hays provided background information on the International Existing Building Code, explaining that the code was basically broken down into three categories: (1) Cosmetic work that would involve minor repair, painting, carpeting, etc.; (2) renovation that could include new construction, relocating partitions, and other work of that nature; (3) reconfiguring of space or remodeling, typically involving 50% or more of a tenant space or building. Section 02: IEBC 101.5 Maintenance The text has been modified to indicate that it is the building owner's responsibility for the maintenance of his building and keeping it in working order. The intent is BCSA Meeting November 7, 2005 Page Five to give the code official and/or architect more latitude to evaluate existing buildings; the language of the code potentially allows the use of a new provision that might be less restrictive than the code that was enforced at the time of the construction of the building. Section 06: IEBC 105.3 Application for permit This change would require the applicant to submit a copy of the Plan Information Sheet with commercial projects submittals. Additionally, the architect will be required to determine the percentage of work area on the project as a part of the basic information submitted on a commercial project. Section 13: IEBC 301.2 Work area Since neither the currently adopted rehabilitation code nor the 2003 IEBC define what constitutes reconfiguration in a work area, the language in this proposed amendment would better define the term. This would make determining the extent of the renovation easier, particularly in work areas that involve sporadic redevelopment where the construction does not encompass the entire space. Section 16: IEBC 503.3 Materials and methods The revision corrects the references to the various codes currently adopted as the standard for construction materials and methods. An exception has also been included which addresses minimum firewall separations for buildings with multiple electrical services. This would permit the construction of a fire barrier rather than a true firewall. This provision is a current amendment to the 2000 International Building Code. Section 22: Fire escape access and details The language in this proposed amendment brings the provisions found in the Wichita Rehabilitation Code into the International Existing Building Code. Section 25: Stairs and handrails The International Existing Building Code did not have a detailed standard for new and/or existing stairs, so this section was modified to include provisions from the current Wichita Rehabilitation Code. Section 32: IEBC 703.2.1 Separation required This revision would allow for less restrictive fire barrier separation requirements as allowed with past practice under the Uniform Building Code. Section 43: IEBC 812.5 Creation or extension of nonconformity The language in this proposed amendment allows an existing area separation BCSA Meeting November 7, 2005 Page Six wall that was approved under the Uniform Building Code to be extended up to 30 feet in length, using similar ratings and construction materials without compliance with the provisions of the International Building Code. Section 44: IEBC 902.2 Area limitations This proposed revision would allow structures to retain "allowable area" rights established at the time of the original construction. Generally, the International Building Code is less restrictive than prior codes; however, in some cases, buildings that were built under the Uniform Building Code would be oversized under the current code. This amendment would allow the building owner to continue to build out the total square footage as determined at the development stage. Section 45: IEBC 902.2 Fire protection systems This amendment is currently in the International Building Code. This allows for buildings with nonconforming fire areas to be increased up to 25% without triggering the fire barrier separation or automatic sprinkler system requirement. Referring to Section 23, Board Member Hentzen asked if he understood correctly that upon adoption of the 2000 International Building Code, the threshold for panic hardware was lowered from over 100 persons to over 50 persons. Mr. Hays clarified that the standard was 50 under the Uniform Building Code; when the International Building Code was adopted, it was amended to reflect the lower threshold. Board Member Hentzen made a motion to table any approval of the adoption of the 2003 International Existing Building Code with the proposed amendments until such time as the document is reviewed by the Wichita Area Builders Association and other interested property owners that would be affected by this change in code, the review period not to exceed sixty days. Board Member Coonrod seconded the motion. Mr. Hays asked if the property owners group to which the Board referred was the BOMA (Building Owners & Managers Association) and Rental Owners, Inc. Board Member Hentzen confirmed that those were the groups that he had in mind. Vice Chairman Youle asked Board Member Hentzen if he wished to modify his motion to include BOMA and Rental Owners, Inc. Board Member Hentzen amended his motion to include both BOMA and Rental Owners, Inc. Board Member Coonrod seconded the amended motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 2:19 p.m.