Board of Appeals - December 1, 2016
Members Present: Chairperson Wayne Larson, Harold Thompsen, Jeff Furstenau, Dave Obermiller, Clay Dietrich, and Mark Honzay.
Others Present: Bruce Taralson, Ryan Erickson, Gretchen Morlan, Joel Davy, Mike Moss, Mike Blevins, James Showalter, Jesse Craig, Randy Craig and Bruce Hummel.
Chairperson Larson called the meeting to order. Mr. Thompson moved to approve the minutes of the July 21, 2016 meeting, and Mr. Fursteneau seconded the motion. All members present voted aye and the motion was declared carried.
Mr. Taralson presented a plaque to past Board member Joel Davy and publicly thanked him for his service to the Board. Mr. Taralson welcomed new Board members, Mark Honzay of JLG Architects, and Clay Dietrich of Dietrich Homes.
Item 1 – Appeal to the requirements of the 2012 IBC, Section 1014.3 & Table 1014.3, Common Path of Egress Travel – Denied.
Mr. Taralson submitted the following handouts to the Board: the limits of authority of the Board from Section 113.2 of the 2012 IBC, the bylaws of the Board of Appeals, and the floorplan submitted by applicant, Jesse Craig. Mr. Taralson presented the appeal to the requirements of the 2012 IBC, Section 1014.3 & Table 1014.3, Common Path of Egress Travel. He stated that the code requires that the common path of egress travel shall not exceed the common path of egress distances listed in the table. He stated that a common path of egress travel can be defined as path of travel in a space until there is a choice of two exits. He explained that in this case, only one exit was listed, and the Common Path of Egress Travel was used to determine if two exits were required for the space to be habitable. Mr. Taralson stated that while reviewing the floorplan, the travel distance was well over the 125-foot allowance, thus requiring a second exit.
Jesse Craig, of Craig Development, presented project pictures to the Board. Mr. Craig stated that the appeal request pertains to a single-family dwelling attached to commercial building. He continued to explain that the dwelling includes a fire barrier wall with no units above the dwelling, sprinklers, a concrete foundation, and rooftop access with sufficient exits. The exit in question is located on the back side of the building. Mr. Craig stated that there could be a better solution than building a permanent stairway in the back of the dwelling as there is an alleyway directly behind the building which could pose security issues, and it is unknown if the stairway would interfere with lot lines. Mr. Craig stated that he is requesting the allowance of a fire-ladder in lieu of a permanent staircase.
Mr. Thompson requested that Mr. Craig describe the fire-ladder. Mr. Craig stated that he discussed with architect, Terry Stroh, the use of a platform older-styled fire-ladder, for example, something that is not easily accessible from the ground.
Discussion ensued regarding code requirements pertaining to the requirement of the project’s second exit. Mr. Thompson stated that because the single unit is attached to a multi-family building, the single-family requirements of the International Residential Code do not apply to this project. He further explained that because the single unit relies on the exiting, structure, setbacks, and egress of the attached multi-family building, the International Building Code requirements apply to this project. Mr. Thompson stated that Mr. Taralson’s interpretation of the code was correct in that a second exit is required as the path of egress travel exceeds the 125-foot allowance.
Mr. Thompson moved to accept Mr. Craig’s appeal but with the use of a permanent stair with a retractable tread for a second egress exit. The motioned died for a lack of a second.
Mr. Thompson moved to deny the appeal request. Mr. Furstenau seconded the motion. All members present voted aye and the motion was declared carried.
Item 2 – Staff reports – None.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.