Florida Building
Commission
Fire Technical Advisory Committee
Meeting Minutes
December 28, 2015
1:00 P.M. UNTIL COMPLETION
Meeting Location: Teleconference Meeting from Tallahassee,
Florida
|
TAC/POC Members
and Objectives |
|
TAC Members Present Via Teleconference: Hamid Bahadori,
Chair; Brad Schiffer; Tony Apfelbeck;
Charlie Frank; James R. Schock; Jeffery Gross; Joe Holland; Peter T. Schwab;Joe
Belcher; Robert Hamburger; TAC Members not Present:
Staff Present: Mo
Madani, Robert Benbow, April Hammonds,
Nick Duval; Marlita Peters Facilitator: Marlita
Peters |
|
Ø Objectives: To review and accept interim report for
research project titled “Evaluation of the Cost Impact of the 2015 I-Code
Changes.” Ø To review
and accept interim report for research project titled “Evaluation of Fire
Separation Requirements of Zero Lot Line Residential.” |
|
Concurrent Meeting |
|
|
1) |
Review and accept interim report for research
project titled “Evaluation of the Cost Impact of the 2015 I-Code Changes.” The interim report for the
research project was presented by Dr. Raymond Issa. Mr. Apfelbeck mentioned he
had an issue with the term FPC Florida Fire Prevention Code as it was
utilized in the document and that reading through it gave an impression an
analysis was conducted of NFPA 1 and NFPA 101 on the Florida Fire Prevention
Code side of the house which he did not see inside of the document. He stated
the term FPC in the document means Fire Prevention Code but it seems to be
referring to the fire prevention provisions of the 2015 IBC. Mr. Madani replied that
throughout the I code they do refer to the International Fire Prevention Code
which we do not use. He further stated, we do use the Florida Fire Prevention
Code NFPA 1 and 101 and so on. Mr. Madani said in order to be accurate, we are
really focusing on those provisions that address the growth changes other
than referring to the International Fire Prevention Code but at the same time
we are trying to do a cursory review of those sections that’s referenced
within the I codes or the International Fire Prevention Code as it relates to
NFPA 1 and 101. Mr. Apfelbeck replied that
he was very confused on the scope when we got on page 6 when it talks about
FFPC and then we use an FPC term which only appears to be talking about the
fire prevention provisions of the Building Code and he really thinks there
should be some added clarity as to what scope was addressed within this and
that we only look at the fire protection provisions of the 2015 IBC and we
did not do an in depth review of NFPA 1 and 101 documents except where there
was a potential correlation issue to the 2015 IBC. Mr. Madani responded that
his comments could be addressed through the analysis. Mr. Apfelbeck then asked
how was all of this information going to be utilized with the intent of
conducting this study in the first place. Mr. Madani responded that
this came about when House Bill 915 started looking at what was the cost of
the code changes from the foundation code. He also noted the purpose was to
make everyone aware of the changes and the cost impact of the changes. As
well as to make it available to the construction industry and to use it for
analysis with regards to the cost impact that is required by rule. Mr. Madani
stated that we normally do it for Florida Specific changes but now we are
also looking at the foundation code. Mr. Apfelbeck responded by
asking if it doesn’t establish any other criteria changes within the code
adoption process? Mr. Madani responded that
there was no intention to do that but this is just a report to be made
available for whoever is interested. Mr. Schiffer asked if the
presenter was going to create the 5 models of a building that would comply
with 2012 and then update the model to any prescriptive or code changes that
have happened in 2015. He additionally
asked if UF would then update those models during the Florida Amendment
process to show what those changes would be. Mr. Madani responded that
we would not add those additional code changes from the current cycles which
are Florida specific and that the intent of this project is to only look at
the additional cost of construction from the foundation side. He also
mentioned that this additional research was not a part of the scope of this
project but could be looked into for future research. Mr. Schiffer then asked is
there something we should be responding to on cost because he believed that
in the legislation anything that cost more than 1 million dollars within a 5
year period should be flagged. Mr. Madani responded that
he agreed with Mr. Schiffer but he had not seen anything that cost that much
but at this point that we are moving toward those steps that could lead us to
that and that we could make tweaks to answer those questions if need be. A motion was then entered
by Mr. Schiffer and seconded by Mr. Frank to accept the interim report as
presented. The vote received unanimous approval. |
|
Meeting
Minutes |
|
|
Objective |
Discussion of
objectives included the following: |
|
1) |
1:00 PM
Welcome and Opening, Roll Call. A quorum was present |
|
2) |
Review and Approval of Meeting Agenda.
A motion was made by Schiffer and seconded by
Hamburger to approve the meeting agenda as posted. This motion received
unanimous approval. |
|
3) |
Review and Approval of December 2, 2015 Meeting Minutes
A motion was made by Bahadori and seconded by Schiffer to approve the meeting
minutes as posted. This motion received unanimous approval. |
|
4) |
To review and accept
interim report for research project titled “Evaluation of Fire Separation
Requirements of Zero Lot Line Residential.” The
interim report for the research project was presented by Dr. Raymond Issa. Mr.
Schwab raised concern that in the presentation it was stated that when a new
house is being built in a subdivision that has existing houses that there is
the unintended consequence of causing the other existing homes to have to
install sprinklers. He then explained that all existing homes would be
covered under the building code which they were built under and the only the
new homes would have to be sprinkled. Mr. Schwab also noted that when you
have houses that are using the sprinkler option that there are other houses
in the subdivision that are separated by a zero lot line that are not
required to be sprinkled. Mrs.
Steranka responded to the TAC that these were listed in the report correctly
and misrepresented in the presentation. Mr.
Madani noted to the TAC that this research project only covers new
construction. Mr.
Schwab asked of the presenters to present a cost impact report in terms of
what the actual cost is on a typical house by frontage against the zero lot
vs. what it costs to sprinkler vs. the presenter’s method. Mrs.
Steranka responded that this was outside of the scope of the project but it
could be addressed in future research. Mr.
Holland noted that on slide number 13 and page 6 of the report that the table
was mislabeled that it should be 1 parenthesis instead of 2. His second was
that when you go back and look at the report on page 7 under the code history
UF listed 3 major building code councils the SBCCI, BOCA, and UBC. Mr.
Holland noted that UBC shouldn’t have been listed and it should have been
replaced with the ICBO because UBC is the building code and ICBO is the
International Council of Building Officials. He also stated that he would
rather they be referred to as model code organizations instead of major
building code councils. Mrs.
Steranka responded that those changes could be made to the report. Mr.
Schock mentioned that the research project really seemed to center around the
2015 code requirements which won’t work their way into the Florida code until
2018 so we have the 5th Edition Building Code out there and one of
the basic questions was are the 2015 changes that are coming considered to be
equivalent protectionwise to what is in our 5th edition. Mrs.
Steranka stated that it is considered equivalent fire protection but not
equivalent timewise but because without the eave that is considered an
acceptable loss and the heat will just continue up instead of being caught under
your projection so the fireblocking is supposed to protect it in time for the
projection to be lost to the “fire” and so it’s just providing that amount of
protection rather than the 1 hour protection required when the heat is being
caught underneath the projection. Mr.
Schock then asked Mr. Madani is there a way the Commission could move forward
and declare something as equivalent? Mr.
Madani responded that approving equivalency and alternative materials and
methods is at the discretion of the building official and out of the
jurisdiction of the Florida Building Commission. He also stated that the
intention of this research project was to provide alternates for building
officials designers and contractors to see if they could benefit from these
alternates. Mr.
Schiffer then noted that the biggest problem that we have with the code
change was that in the prior code you had exception 6 so that you wouldn’t
have to go to these tables. He further stated that this exception was
orphaned in the last code change process and major projects have been
designed and can’t use this exception anymore. He then wanted to know if the
researchers had reviewed this exception. Mrs.
Steranka responded that she had reviewed it but she did not have it in front
of her. Mr.
Schiffer stated that the problem really wasn’t with the tables the problem
was that you had to go to the tables with zero lot line when prior to that we
had this exception to exterior walls which spelled out what you had to do and
all of these projects were designed according to that. Mr. Schiffer then
stated a lot of zoning across the state was designed to match that also. Mr.
Schiffer then wanted to know if this could be included in the scope of the
research project. He then stated that the problem is not being able to read
the tables but the problem is not being able to rely on exception 6 anymore. Mrs.
Steranka responded that is their requirement that allowed exterior walls
separated by less than 6 feet to have a 1 hour fire resistance rating on both
sides. Mr.
Schiffer responded yes and it discusses open eaves and it discusses that they
don’t have to be protected if they are not closer than 4 feet. His other
question was the exception Mr. Schock mentioned where you put the blocking at
the exterior wall the way its worded is incomprehensible it says if you don’t
put it under the eave or soffit area but you move it to the ridge roof does
that mean that you can’t have any ventilation anywhere else except the ridge? Mrs.
Steranka responded that it isn’t really clear in the code that she would
check with her contacts to see if she could get more information on the
subject. Mr.
Hamberger agreed with Mr. Schiffer and that this really doesn’t meet the
requirements of the energy calculations would be needed for a home and that
you would have too much heat buildup on one side of the roof. Mr.
Schiffer also wanted to know how come there was never a requirement for the
facia board its only for the soffit area is that because of the buildup that
would occur there or is nobody concerned about the fascia which could be made
of any cheap material. Mrs.
Steranka responded that the biggest concern was the heat buildup underneath
the projection which is why 1 hour protection was needed. She then stated that you wouldn’t have the
heat buildup start combustion in some way to go into unprotected attic space. Mr.
Schock also asked about the historic background for these changes and why did
the code change so dramatically over a period of time. He also asked if there
had been any historic data that these changes were necessary to the I codes. Mrs.
Steranka replied that as far as the research she conducted that she couldn’t
find what exactly caused the code to be rewritten and that she could go back
and try to find the commentary on the reasons why the code had been changed. Mr.
Holland stated that was a similar provision in the building code having that
provides 3 options that you could use 1 hour fire resistance, heavy timber,
or fire retardant treated wood. He also stated that you need to contact the local
Building Official and see if he is willing to accept any of these three
options and that they should be considered as equivalent. Mrs.
Steranka stated that she agreed and that she did not look at that section of
the IBC and she is not going to look at that section because the IRC does not
reference that part of the IBC it’s more of what the code official decides
that they feel is appropriate. She mentioned that if you go to 4.3 of the
report she did take section 721 from the IBC of which gives different 1 hour
resistance construction types which are permitted. Mr.
Schock then asked about the three systems that were found and were they
systems that were based on the projection configuration or were they
horizontal systems in walls. Mrs.
Steranka responded that she believed they were horizontal systems and that
she chose them because they were there closest that seem that they could be
retested in a projection system that could be 1 hour tested. Mr.
Schock then stated that it didn’t appear that those systems would be tested
in configurations that this project proposed to use them in. Mrs.
Steranka replied that she would have to go back and check the report. Mr.
Apfelbeck asked if they were willing to put in their report that the 2015
design is equivalent to the 2012 design and stand by that statement as a
professional engineering judgment that could be used as an equivalency. Mrs.
Steranka stated that she would have to discuss that with her colleague who
was not in the room. Mr.
Apfelbeck then stated that he would like to see the report before be brought
back to the TAC for further review before going to the Commission with a
recommendation. He then stated that he was also concerned that only passive
fire protection and did not look at the provisions for fire sprinkler
protection and that the IRC does require fire sprinkler protection of one and
two family dwellings and only because the Florida Legislature intervened did
we not end up with that provision in Florida. Mr. Apfelbeck then stated that
he would like to see a cost benefit language in the report regarding P2904
which requires a 13D system not only at the initial system installation phase
but also over the life cycle of a house considering the insurance savings
that’s incorporated in that too. He then stated the report should look at all
of these different items objectively as a problem instead of just focusing on
the fire projection aspect. Mrs.
Steranka responded that conducting a true cost benefit analysis is outside of
their scope of work but they could do a general overview. Mr.
Apfelbeck then stated that he thought that it would be appropriate to get
some basic cost per square foot as opposed to the prescriptive solutions that
are going forward from here. He then stated that he would be uncomfortable
moving this project forward without having another secondary review and
response to these issues. Mr.
Madani clarified that what they are doing at this time is presenting an
interim report on the progress of this project at this time. He also noted
that the researchers would work with the TAC to produce a final report that
they would be okay with. Mr.
Schiffer noted that nothing in the tables really discussed projecting over a
property line and he wondered if when these tables were put together that the
separation distance based upon the definition of fire separation distance
could be a negative number. He then wanted to know if these tables are in any
way suggesting that a zero lot line building can have a projection go over
the lot line. Mr. Schiffer then mentioned that one thing to look at is there
are some proposals that are moving forward in the legislature to deal with
these issues. Mrs.
Steranka responded that one of the biggest things that the IRC did clarify in
their new tables is that if you have less than 2 feet of fire separation
distance that includes negative numbers no projections are allowed for
similar reasons. Mr.
Schiffer then asked if she believed that would allow you to have any
component of the zero lot line go past the lot line. Mr.
Richmond responded that the building code was not a mechanism to authorize or
prohibit a building over a property line and that was to be determined
between two property owners. Mr.
Belcher then mentioned that there were 2 issues which was the zero lot line
issue and when you have your standard lot with a 5 foot setback with a 3 foot
separation you were okay then suddenly the code changed and required a 5 foot
separation from the lot line. He then noted that the zero lot line issue and
standard lot issue were being confused and that they were two separate
issues. Mr.
Schiffer then asked the chair if he thought the biggest issue was the fact
that they lost exception 6. Mr.
Belcher then stated that was the biggest problem with the zero lot line issue
but you still had all of these subdivisions being built with a 5 foot setback
and now it doesn’t work because you can’t have a projection within that 5
feet anymore that actually was a bigger problem than the zero lot line problems.
CW
Macomber mentioned on the interim report on page 17 where it talks about
performance based assemblies it states that three assemblies were found in
the ICC-ES database that tested positively on providing a 1-hr fire
resistance rating for exterior wall projections. He stated that just for
clarification purposes that they should strike the word projection because
those reports are vertical tests on walls not horizontal tests for
projections and that they doesn’t think they want to infer that those three
listed below meet some type of projection one hour resistance rating when
there is no standard for testing horizontally for one hour resistance. Mrs.
Steranka responded that she would change the language so that it would be
clear what it was tested for. Mr.
Apfelbeck then entered a motion to accept the interim report with the
following caveats that we incorporate Mr.
Holland recommended changes for the clarity issue we research whether we can
have an equivalency statement in their documentation and also look at the
issue of including active fire protection in addition to passive fire
protection as an option and that this report be brought back to the Fire TAC
for final review before going to the Commission with a recommendation. This
motion was seconded by Mr./ Schiffer. Mr.
Schock stated that he would like to broaden the motion to include all of the
discussion points that were put forward in this conference call. Mr.
Apfelbeck and Mr. Schiffer took that as a friendly amendment to their motion.
Mr.
Madani then stated that there will be another Fire TAC meeting between now
and June to show the TAC members that their comments had been addressed. This
motion received unanimous approval. |
|
5) |
Other TAC Business No other TAC
business. |
|
6) |
Public
Comment No public comment |
|
7) |
Member
Comment Tony Apfelbeck wanted to know the
status of the elevator issue. Mr. Madani replied that FSEC has given us an
interim report which has been accepted on the work that they have done so far
and we have an interim report along with some preliminary results of the
survey. As we speak at this point the survey data is being analyzed and they
are moving forward with the project and the final report is due in May. |
Staff
Contacts: Robert Benbow
Planning Analyst (850) 717-1828 Robert.benbow@myfloridalicense.com
or Mo Madani, Manager mo.madani@dbpr.state.fl.us (850) 717-1825