Architectural Control Commission

1 APPROVED 2 3 MINUTES OF A REGULAR, RESCHEDULED MEETING OF THE 4 ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMISSION 5 VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK 6 COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS 7 February 20, 2013 8 9 Commissioners Present (6) 10 Alan Schwall, Chairperson 11 F. Dirk Heidbrink 12 Lori Jordison 13 Robert Katz 14 David Menn 15 Cliff Town 16 17 Commissioner Absent (1) 18 Mike Rubenstein 19 20 Village Staff Present 21 Lynne Coleman, Building Official and Licensed Architect 22 Nick Desario, Assistant Director, Building and Development 23 Kevin Frangiamore, Director, Fire Prevention Bureau 24 Corey Friedman, Electrical and Mechanical Inspector 25 Tom Poupard, Director, Development and Planning Services 26 David Schoon, Assistant Director, Economic Development Coordinator 27 Stacy Seiden, Recorder 28 29 1. Call to Order 30 Chairperson Schwall called the meeting to order in the Terrace Room of Village Hall, 1225 Cedar Lane, at 31 5:40 PM. A quorum was present. 32 33 2. Public Comments 34 There were no comments from the public. 35 36 3. Review of Minutes 37 Commissioner Menn moved, seconded by Commissioner Town, to approve the minutes of the January 38 16, 2013 Architectural Control Commission (ACC) meeting with the following correction: on page 5, line 39 11 of the draft, add “.1” to “Section R506,” so that the corrected minutes read “Section R506.1.” On a 40 voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. 41 42 4. Review of 2012 International Building Code (IBC) and Possible Local Amendments 43 a. Review of Current Local Amendments to 2006 IBC 44 Director Poupard explained that approximately 90% of the IBC amendments addressed two categories— 45 fire protection and elevators. He noted that the International Code Council (ICC) requirements were 46 available online and that commissioners would discuss elevators, including specific recommendations, at 47 a subsequent ACC meeting.  Page 2 Minutes of the February 20, 2013 Architectural Control Commission Meeting 1 Director Frangiamore explained the “zero square foot rule,” which meant “sprinkling everything that is 2 new” and which also was reflected in amendments 903.2.1.1 – 903.2.10.1.3. Chairperson Schwall 3 requested clarification regarding those areas that do not require fire sprinklers, to which Director 4 Frangiamore explained his rule of thumb—a sprinkler was necessary if the area in question included a 5 door and was considered livable space. Director Poupard raised the possibility of codifying this rule of 6 thumb. Chairperson Schwall also inquired about when “piping has to be steel or plastic.” Director 7 Frangiamore explained that sprinkler manufacturers provided this very specific information and that the 8 relevant UL recommendation should be followed. 9 10 Director Frangiamore then reviewed and made initial recommendations regarding the following local 11 amendments. He will provide commissioners with a written draft of his specific recommendations for 12 the next ACC meeting. 13 14 Chapter 3: Use & Occupancy Classification 15 16 309.3 Interior Spaces Accessible to the Public. 17  Director Poupard explained that the Village Board of Trustees adopted this local amendment at 18 a time when pallet rack shelving was not as commonly used by retailers as they are today. 19 20 Chapter 7: Fire Resistant Rated Construction 21 22 702.1 Fire area. 23  According to Director Frangiamore, the local amendment was “never used” and, therefore, he 24 recommended deletion. 25 26  According to Ms. Coleman, the section undermined the code itself, as well as building design. 27 28  While safety was of primary importance, commissioners and staff acknowledged the need to 29 also consider the costs associated with adhering to codes as they review them. 30 31 Chapter 9: Fire Protection Systems 32 33 903.3.1.1 NFPA 13 sprinkler systems. 34  Director Frangiamore noted that the local amendment included a “typical standard” and, 35 therefore, recommended retention. 36 37 903.3.5.1.1 Limited area sprinkler system. 38  Director Frangiamore noted that “750 square feet” represented a decrease sought by his 39 predecessor and, therefore, recommended retaining the local amendment. 40 41 903.5.1 Fire pump test header. 42  Director Frangiamore perceived the local amendment as unnecessary and, therefore, 43 recommended deletion. 44 45 903.3.5.3 Safety factor.  Page 3 Minutes of the February 20, 2013 Architectural Control Commission Meeting 1  Director Frangiamore perceived the local amendment as redundant and, therefore, 2 recommended deletion. 3 4 903.3.5.4 Multitenant occupancy. 5  Director Frangiamore perceived the local amendment as necessary and, therefore, 6 recommended retention. 7 8 903.3.7 Fire department connections. 9  According to Director Frangiamore, the local amendment reflected operating procedure and, 10 therefore, he recommended retention. 11 12 903.4 Sprinkler system monitoring and alarms. 13  Director Frangiamore perceived the local amendment as necessary and, therefore, 14 recommended retention. 15 16  Director Poupard observed that some IBC sections may be applicable to the International 17 Residential Code and, therefore, a disclaimer may be warranted in the event of a conflict 18 between the two codes. 19 20 903.4.2 Alarms. 21  According to Director Frangiamore, the local amendment reflected operating procedure and, 22 therefore, he recommended retention. 23 24 903.4.2.1 Audio/visual. 25  Director Frangiamore perceived the local amendment as redundant with the base code and, 26 therefore, recommended deletion. 27 28 903.4.3 Floor control valves. 29  Director Frangiamore perceived the local amendment as necessary and, therefore, 30 recommended retention. 31 32 903.4.3.1 Control valves. 33  Director Frangiamore perceived the local amendment as the same as the above 903.4.3 34 amendment and, therefore, recommended deletion. 35 36 903.6 Add new subsection: 37  Director Frangiamore perceived the local amendment as important, and, therefore, 38 recommended retention. 39 40  Chairperson Schwall commented that the amendment represented a fair compromise that 41 resulted from “hours” of previous deliberations. 42 43 903.7 Check valves. 44  Director Frangiamore perceived the local amendment as outdated, and, therefore, 45 recommended deletion.  Page 4 Minutes of the February 20, 2013 Architectural Control Commission Meeting 1 903.8 Quick response sprinklers and 903.9 High-rack storage. 2  Director Frangiamore perceived both local amendments as redundant, and, therefore, 3 recommended deletion. 4 5 903.10 Hose values. 6  According to Director Frangiamore, the local amendment “did not make sense” (e.g., the fire 7 hose valves system piping is usually calculated at 100 PSI) and, therefore, he recommended 8 deletion. 9 10 903.11 Location and Number—Know Box Location. 11  Director Frangiamore observed that the local amendment was included in the fire code and, 12 therefore, recommended deletion. 13 14 904.3.5 Monitoring. 15  Director Frangiamore perceived the local amendment as unnecessary and, therefore, 16 recommended deletion. 17 18 905.3.1 Building height. 19  Director Frangiamore recommended deleting “retrofitted” from the local amendment. 20 21 905.3.1.1 Building area. 22  Director Frangiamore perceived the local amendment as redundant with the building code and, 23 therefore, recommended deletion. 24 25 905.5 Location of Class II. 26  According to Director Frangiamore, the local amendment continued to be relevant and, 27 therefore, he recommended retention. 28 29 907.1.2.1 Addressable systems. 30  Director Frangiamore perceived the local amendment as important in terms of identifying the 31 specific location of a problem area, and, therefore, recommended retention. 32 33 907.1.3 Fire alarms license. 34  According to Director Frangiamore, the local amendment was a state requirement and, 35 therefore, he recommended deletion. 36 37 907.1.4 Where required—retroactive in existing buildings and structures. 38  Director Frangiamore perceived the local amendment as unnecessary because fire alarm 39 systems were upgraded when panels, which have a limited shelf life, were replaced. According 40 to him, upgrading fire alarm systems as panels were replaced was a manageable and cost- 41 effective approach and, therefore, he recommended deleting the amendment. 42 43 907.2 Where required. 44  Director Frangiamore perceived the local amendment as redundant with the base code and, 45 therefore, recommended deletion.  Page 5 Minutes of the February 20, 2013 Architectural Control Commission Meeting 1 907.2.1 Group A through 907.2.10.1.2 Groups R-2, R-3, R-4, and I-1. 2  Director Frangiamore perceived the existing exceptions as “okay, “and, therefore, 3 recommended deletion of the local amendments. He observed that manual pull stations 4 frequently resulted in “false alarms” and described these stations as “nuisances” in sprinkler 5 buildings. 6 7 907.8 Zones. 8  Director Frangiamore perceived the local amendment as unnecessary and, therefore, 9 recommended deletion. 10 11 907.11 Duct smoke detectors. 12  Director Frangiamore perceived the local amendment as necessary and, therefore, 13 recommended retention. 14 15 907.14.1 Hood and duct systems. 16  According to Director Frangiamore, Chapter 9 addressed the local amendment and, therefore, 17 he recommended deletion. 18 19 907.20 Radio transmission systems. 20  Director Frangiamore perceived the local amendment as necessary, citing problems with phone 21 lines, and, therefore, recommended retention. 22 23 909.20.6.4 Fan shut-down. 24  According to Director Frangiamore, the local amendment provided necessary clarification, and, 25 therefore, he recommended retention. 26 27 912.2 Location. 28  Director Frangiamore perceived the local amendment as necessary to prevent fire hoses from 29 being “dragged too far,” and, therefore, recommended retention. 30 31  Director Poupard noted the absence of relevant code for areas outside buildings (e.g., exterior 32 stairs). Ms. Coleman described working “without direction” in these areas, which, according to 33 her, civil engineering standards should address. Director Poupard stated that the Village may 34 want to address the absence of such requirements. 35 36 912.4 Signs. 37  Director Frangiamore observed that the code addressed the local amendment and, therefore, 38 recommended deletion. 39 40 Chapter 30: Elevators & Conveying Systems 41 42 2.8.2.3.1 Shutoff values in sprinkler branch lines. 43  Director Frangiamore will confirm that the local amendment “makes sense,” if not addressed in 44 the fire code. 45 46 3012.3 Elevator car to accommodate ambulance stretcher.  Page 6 Minutes of the February 20, 2013 Architectural Control Commission Meeting 1  According to Director Frangiamore, the fire code provided “more specifics” and, therefore, he 2 recommended deleting the local amendment. 3 4 Chairperson Schwall and Ms. Coleman agreed that the ACC should address residential elevators. 5 Director Frangiamore commented that the ICC and fire code mirrored one another. 6 7 b. Summary of Major Changes to 2009 and 2012 IBC 8 Director Poupard reported that one of the major changes to the 2012 IBC was additional information 9 concerning mixed occupancies (e.g., a childcare facility within a church). Another significant change, 10 according to him, was lowered height limits for buildings based on use, construction type, and 11 occupancy. The newer code contained a large number of high rise requirements, which were not 12 applicable to Northbrook. In general, Director Poupard observed that the code continued to improve. 13 14 5. New Single Family Elevations 15 The ACC considered two new single family home elevations. Chairperson Schwall asked if commissioners 16 perceived 1912 and 1939 Alexandra Court to be essentially “the same house.” Following limited 17 discussion, the ACC determined that the two homes were sufficiently different (e.g., dissimilar roof lines 18 and door elevations). Accordingly, Commissioner Katz moved, seconded, by Commissioner Town, to 19 allow staff to review and process the appropriate paperwork for each of the following elevations: 20 a. 1939 Alexandra Court – OKW Architects 21 b. 1936 Alexandra Court – J. J. Heaney, Architect 22 23 On a voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. 24 25 6. New Business 26 There was no new business. 27 28 7. Old Business 29 There was no old business. 30 31 8. Adjournment 32 There being no further business, Commissioner Menn moved, seconded by Commissioner Katz, to 33 adjourn the meeting. On a voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. Chairperson Schwall adjourned 34 the meeting at 6:55 PM. 35 36 Respectfully submitted, 37 38 /s/ Stacy J. Seiden 39 Recorder