Loading...
8.1 Wall Height Limitations CITY OF SALINA REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION DATE 6/01/2009 TIME 4:00 P.M. AGENDA SECTION NO: 8 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR AGENDA: ITEM NO. Page 1 Building Services BY: BY: Michael Roberts ITEM: Ordinance No. 09-10502 An ordinance amending Chapter 8, Division 2 of the Salina Code by adding Section 8-54.1 providing for an amendment to section 602.3.1 of the 2003 International Residential Code to create a new exception allowing certain walls to exceed current height limitations. BACKGROUND: The 2003 International Residential Code (IRC) contains provisions that limit the height of laterally unbraced studs in load-bearing walls to 10 feet. For a variety of reasons, local builders had occasional need to exceed that limitation and were forced to hire an engineer to produce an acceptable design in order for their project to be approved. Generally speaking, the contactors were having very little difficulty in getting an engineer to approve their proposed designs on a case-by-case basis. Consequently, many felt that it should be feasible to create a code amendment that would eliminate the need for engineering fees for each individual project. Staff brought this issue as a stakeholder concern to the Board's attention in February 2008. However, the Board was reluctant to recommend any changes to the prescriptive code limitations without more technical data to support and shape such a change. They declined to take any action at that meeting other than to ask the Salina Homebuilders Association to consider bringing back a report from a licensed engineer that would provide some specific recommendations to support an amendment. The Homebuilders retained the services of a structural engineer who provided a letter outlining his recommendations, based on our specific local wind and snow load conditions, for modifying the current code limitations. The Board reviewed these recommendations at their April 2009 meeting and voted to direct staff to provide the appropriate amendment language to incorporate the recommendations. The Board reviewed the text at their May meeting and the following action, as reflected by the minutes, was taken by the Board; Board Questions/Comments: Brief discussion and questions to clarify the application of this code amendment language. Mike Roberts clarified that the table in the IRC addresses all laterally un-braced walls and clarified circumstances under which you can exceed ten feet in height. Don Marrs asked if the letter from the engineer was acceptable to staff. Mike Roberts said that it was. Mike Roberts also asked Jim Manley, ("resident structural engineer") if he was comfortable with staff's clarifications of the two loading conditions in the text. Jim indicated that he was. There were no public comments or questions MOTION: Jim Manley moved to accept the proposed code language for amendment to Section 602.3.1 of the International Residential Code. SECOND: Steve Barnett (no discussion) VOTE: 9-0 motion carries CITY OF SALINA REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION DATE 6/01/2009 TIME 4:00 P.M. AGENDA SECTION NO: 8 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR AGENDA: ITEM NO. 1 Page 2 BY: Michael Roberts The following language is the text that was approved by the Board with the new exception in italics; R602.3.1 Stud size, height and spacing. The size, height and spacing of studs shall be in accordance with Table R602.3.(5). Exceptions: 1. Utility grade studs shall not be spaced more than 16 inches (406 mm) on center, shall not support more than a roof and ceiling, and shall not exceed 8 feet (2438 mm) in height for exterior walls and load-bearing walls or 10 feet (3048mm) for interior non-load-bearing walls. 2. Studs more than 10 feet (3048 mm) in height which are in accordance with Table R602.1.3. 3. Nominal dimension 2" by 6", Grade #2 or better, Spruce/Pine/Fir studs not to exceed 16" on center may be used without lateral bracing up to 12 feet in height in walls supporting no more than a roof/ceiling load. The span of rafter/ceiling joist assemblies supported by such walls shall not exceed 16 feet nor shall the wall support trusses with more than 32 feet of clear span. Such walls may also support other minor accessory loads from roof projections or overhangs. The design loads of such roof/ceiling assemblies shall not exceed 20 pounds per square foot live load and 20 pounds per square foot dead load. The minor axis of the studs must be braced on at least one side by exterior wall sheathing or wall finish panels. Building Services BY: We have included a copy of the engineer's letter and the staff report related to the draft amendment language as well as a draft copy of the May minutes of the Building Advisory Board for your review. FISCAL NOTE: There would be no fiscal impact to the city by making this change. CONFORMANCE WITH THE STRATEGIC PLAN: Related Strategic Plan goals may include: Goal #3 The City will provide the highest quality of services, consistent with governing body direction, available resources and staff commitment to quality. COMMISSION ACTION: The following options have been identified for consideration by the City Commission: 1.) Take no action at this time. 2.) Adopt Ordinance No 09-10502 after making any specific changes that would be determined by the Commission. 3.) Adopt Ordinance No. 09-10502 as recommended by staff and the Building Advisory Board. 4.) Refer the matter back to the Building Advisory Board for further consideration. Staff would recommend that the Commission approve Ordinance 09-10502 amending section 602.3.1 of the 2003 International Residential Code to create a new exception allowing certain walls to exceed current height limitations. Building Services Room 201 City-County Building 300 West Ash . P.O. Box 736 Salina, Kansas 67402-0736 ~of ~ SaIha TELEPHONE. (785) 309-5715 FAX . (785) 309-5713 TOO . (785) 309-5747 E-MAIL . building.services@salina.org WEBSITE . www.salina-ks.Qov To: From: Re: Date: Staff Report - Agenda Item B Building Advisory Board Building Services Staff Approval of IRC amendment language for stud height limitations May 12, 2009 Last month, the Board directed staff to draft language for an amendment to section 602.3.1 of the 2003 IRC in response to a request from the Salina Homebuilders Association and the submission of technical analysis by their contract engineer. We have prepared the following language for the Board's review: R602.3.1 Stud size, height and spacing. The size, height and spacing of studs shall be in accordance with Table R602.3.(5). Exceptions: 1. Utility grade studs shall not be spaced more than 16 inches (406 mm) on center, shall not support more than a roof and ceiling, and shall not exceed 8 feet (2438 mm) in height for exterior walls and load-bearing walls or 10 feet (3048mm) for interior non- load-bearing walls. 2. Studs more than 10 feet (3048 mm) in height which are in accordance with Table R602.1.3. 3. Nominal dimension 2" by 6", Grade #2 or better, Spruce/Pine/Fir studs not to exceed 16" on center may be used without lateral bracing up to 12 feet in height in walls supporting no more than a roof/ceiling load. The span of rafter/ceiling joist assemblies supported by such walls shall not exceed 16 feet nor shall the wall support trusses with more than 32 feet of clear span. Such walls may also support other minor accessory loads from roof projections or overhangs. The design loads of such roof/ceiling assemblies shall not exceed 20 pounds per square foot live load and 20 pounds per square foot dead load. The minor axis of the studs must be braced on at least one side by exterior wall sheathing or wall finish panels. It is important to note that the conditions of the exception differ from the stamped letter provided by Mr. Bruce Collins PE dated April 1 0, 2009 in two regards. First, the language has been altered to clarify the difference between rafter spans and truss clear spans. The IRC provides a different requirement for measuring rafter spans than for clear span trusses. The intent of the clear span provisions are that the total load of the span is equally supported on each end of the truss, meaning that the supports on each end each support half of the total span. The roof load limitation in this case would be that the wall in the exception would support no more than half of the 32 foot clear span, which would be 16 feet of span. Similarly, the maximum roof load of rafter/ceiling joists supported by the wall would be 16 feet, not 32 feet. Second, language has been added that clarifies that the additional loads created by overhangs and eaves is acceptable in the design. Page 2 of 2, Staff Report, BAB, 3-10-09 These two clarifications were made after staff discussed these issues with Mr. Collins in a telephone conversation initiated by staff. Although the clarifications are relatively insignificant, it is our opinion that for the consistent future enforcement of the exception the clarifications are necessary. We would suggest that the Board could consider the possible following options: 1. Recommend adoption of the draft language as provided by staff amending IRC section 602.3.1. 2. Modify the language as provided by staff and make a recommendation of the altered language as an amendment to IRC section 602.3.1. 3. Provide direction to staff regarding another preferred approach and request staff to prepare draft language. 4. Postpone any action on the draft language at this meeting pending further confirmation from the engineer of record. SUMMARY MINUTES - BUILDING ADVISORY BOARD TUESDAY MAY 12, 2009 AT 4:00 P.M., ROOM 107, CITY-COUNTY BUILDING Members Present: Donnie Marrs, Vernie Stillings, Bob Dolan, Carlin Zuker, Steve Barnett, Jim Manley, Diana Dierks, Mike Prester, Daryl Bixby Members Absent: Kenny Hancock, Gary Palmateer Staff Present: Gary Hobbie, Sue Cline, Sean Pilcher, Mike Roberts Meeting was called to order by Donnie Marrs at 4:00 p.m. (A) Approval of April 14, 2009 minutes MOTION: Diana Dierks moved to approved minut SECOND: Vernie Stillings (no discussion) VOTE: 9-0 Audience Count: 7 (B) Review of proposed draft language amending IRC Section 602.3.1 Mike Roberts presented the staff report for this agenda item (see staff report) Board Questions/Comments: Brief discussion and questions to clarify the application of this code amendment language. Mike Roberts clarified that the table in the IRC addresses all laterally un-braced walls and clarified circumstances under which you can exceed ten feet in height. Don Marrs asked if the letter from the engineer was acceptable to staff. Mike Roberts said that it was. Mike Roberts also asked Jim Manley, ("resident structural engineer") if he was comfortable with staff's clarifications of the two loading conditions in the text. Jim indicated that he was. There were no public comments or questions MOTION: Jim Manley moved to accept the proposed code language for amendment to Section 602.3.1 of the International Residential Code. Steve Barnett (no discussion) 9..0 motion carries SECOND: VOTE: (C) Other Business Mike Roberts reviewed the status of agenda item (D) from the April meeting regarding the 2006 IRC requirements for lateral wall support of basement walls. Mike reported that Mike Flory was not ready yet to proceed with this discussion and since the IRC committee will be meeting soon, they will include discussion on this topic during the IRC committee meetings and then bring back recommendations to the board. Don Marrs - reminded the audience that these committee meetings are open public meetings and he encouraged them tOlake part in the committee discussions and code reviews. Mike Roberts announced that the IBC committee will meet on Thursday, May 14, 4:00 in Room 105. Other committee meetings are yet to be scheduled but will occur in the near future. Mike announced that the next PME quarterly meeting will be June 3,2009. Mike reported that the ADA Class that was held last week was a success and city staff plans to offer other continuing education opportunities for building contractors in 2009. Meeting adjourned by Don Marrs at 4:23. Michael Roberts A DVD of this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Development Services Dept at 785-309-5715. There is a fee for duplication.