Replies

1. 
   Guest_ | Mar 22, 1999 05:14am | #13

   *
   I don't know how widely publicized the International Code Council and its activities are, but thought some of you might be interested. Basically, it is a new model code organization formed by BOCAI, ICBO, and SBCCI to develope and maintain a single set of model codes for the whole country. (Now, if the title "National Building Code" hadn't already been taken I suppose it would have been used for this but, you takes what you can get and what the heck, maybe they can sell some books overseas.) Anyway, I'm here for a portion of the hearings - basically those dealing with occupancies and means of egress - and will attempt to post some of the highlights. Seems like a tailor made opportunity for the internet. Unfortunately, since my (supposedly) for profit activities don't rely on one and two family dwellings, I won't be able to stay around to report on those hearings - basically model codes replacing (incorporating might be a better term) the CABO OTFDC and the MEC (I think). But if you have any questions or - if by some chance - you have followed this activity and have views or opinions on it or that you would like voiced at the hearings, run them by us here and maybe I'll take them to the speakers podium.

1. 
   Guest_ | Mar 15, 1999 05:48am | #1

   *OutbuildingsIn the old UBC, sheds and outbuildings with a projected roof area of less than 120 square feet were exempt from permit. Roofs more than 60 degrees from horizontal were considered walls. Hence, many barn-roof (gambrel sp?) sheds have been built per this exemption of more than 120 square feet of floor area.The new code exempts small buildings less than 120 square feet of FLOOR AREA. Maybe an allowable area of 200 square feet would be reasonable (proposal G29-99 / ibc 105.2). I'm in favor of the 200 square foot allowance, the more the better.Retaining WallsThe current definition of retaining walls that can be built without permit is poorly written. Proposal G30-99 /ibc 105.2 is better written. I'm for it.Climbable GuardrailsOne extreme proposal limits guardrails to openings (or ledges) 2" or smaller when less than 34" above finished floor. Would practically outlaw horizontal rails and have far reaching affects. I'm against it, although it is well-meaning. (E87-99, page E47)Stairway Rise/RunThe IBC is set to limit all residential stairways to 7 3/4" rise max. and 10" run min. (UBC was 8" max rise, 9" min run for small private stairways) One proposal (E146, pageE78) apparently limits ALL stairways to the commercial standard of 7" rise max. and 11" run min. A bit excessive, especially as older home stairways could then be considered life safety hazards by some states. Depending on the way the housing codes are written in state law.Residential Dryer VentsI'm glad to see some common-sence being written into the code. The old UMC limitation of 14' and 2 elbows for a dryer vent was overly strict, and adversely affected building plans. Allowing manufacturer's recommendations of duct length, duct booster fans, longer ducts, aluminum duct and plastic duct below grade are all good ideas. (M71-99 for instance allows 75'). The old standards were overly restrictive.

1. 
   Guest_ | Mar 15, 1999 07:49am | #2

   *CABO stair rise is 8 1/4" max. It's like a ladder.Bill, what's going to make the different states adopt these new codes approved in Washington? They ain't a gonna force their rules on us, are they?

1. 
   Guest_ | Mar 15, 1999 10:07am | #3

   *These aren't "Washington" codes - this is all the same folks that have always written and approved changes in the model codes - BOCA, UBC, SBC - but now working together to support a single code rather than 3 different ones. I don't know what the effect will be for builders, though the CABO OTFDC was also a joint effort and was adopted nationwide by many (?) jurisdiction.The stair issue is very interesting, having just sat in the bar with a few committee people and many interested individuals. The homebuilders - as represented by NAHB - seem to basically want no change. A minority (an individual ?) has made a life's work of studying human movement - especially on stairs. A real David and Goliath event. Personally. I am persuaded that the minimum depth of the tread should be increased to 10 1/4 or 10 1/2 - rise is less important to safety but 8 might be a good maximum. It really has to do with stability and how far you have to rotate your foot from the direction of travel. Coupled with people less able (aged, youth, disability) this seems justified. But, I have no say - except I could take the podium but won't on this issue.Gary - you raise some interesting issues and I will look through the proposals and in particular try to psot about the discussion on those.Now, if I could only figure out how to print that out - faxing to myself at the hotel - but do I have a fax driver ........Wish I could have recorded all the bar discussions - I think builders would have appreciated the humor.

1. 
   Keith_Utter | Mar 15, 1999 03:24pm | #4

   *Bill, You are so right about David and Goliath on the stair issue and so far David has pretty much had his way. If he could, all homes would have elevators. I've seen him in action. Bill Clinton could have used him, he's extremely convincing. Anyway, since the adoption of the 7/11 stair rule at the BOCA hearings in Kansas City many states have modified adoptions of the codes with those sections changed. Although these codes aren't "Washington Codes", the Federal Government has strongly encouraged this process and I'm not sure their going to stay out of it forever. I think the stair geometry as well as other highly restrictive requirements will seperate the IBC from residential construction and leave the Int. 1&2 family standing alone. My personal opinion is that after these codes are finalized the stair requirements will be modified at the state adoption level,then we'll see what the majority really wants. You have to remember the home builders associations are among the top campaign contributers in many states. I support having one set of codes and the states will modify them individually as they see fit. I'm waiting till it's all done to see what happens. Enjoy the hearings. Keith

2. 
   Guest_ | Mar 15, 1999 04:03pm | #5

   *Sounds like the bill of rights is falling again!I believe in states rights! Blue

3. 
   Guest_ | Mar 15, 1999 06:31pm | #6

   *My understanding is the Int. Building Code will not cover same ground as Int. Resdiential Code - which is more like the CABO code - I think.As far as Washington "encouraging" - I don't think they have had much of a hand - unless it is there willingness for the model codes to include accessibility requirements since there is no Federal funding for enforcement of ADAAG on the local level.The "David" - and what the heck - Jake Pauls (a Canadian by the way) by name - has done a tremendous amount of research which he has consistently made public. As far as the what the majority wants - it is a difficult issue. I remember quite clearly the majority did not want seat belts (I mean installed in all cars - not wearing them) but in retrospect I think it was in the public interest.Well - off to hearings - and unfortunately one of my proposals is number one out of the chute!

4. 
   Guest_ | Mar 16, 1999 08:27am | #7

   *Bill:Most interior wood steps have a bullnose tread, so can't you put a 10 1/4" tread on a 9" riser to riser spaced set of stairs? You would need an 1 1/4" bullnose. Or is this too much of a toe tripper situation?Frank

5. 
   Guest_ | Mar 16, 1999 10:41am | #8

   *Frank - that's the theory - too much of a snagger. The run is measured from the vertical planes of the front of the nosing - and carpet makes it worse. I will ask the author if I cold post some of his diagrams - you'll all mostly groan - but there's a lot of info there.Meetings started at 8:00 am and broke at nearly 9:00pm - wiuth an hour for lunch and several 10 minute breaks - ugh! And we're not half way through the first two days - and then a whole other group Wed and Thurs.Tomorrow I can split early and hope to report a little and get to Gary's questions.Nearly live from Costa Mesa, Bill

6. 
   Guest_ | Mar 17, 1999 04:15am | #9

   *What's the deal? Stair codes seem to change every few years. Up, down, up, down, up, down. Hmmmm, just like stairs. Handrails, guardrails, risers, treads , nosings. Even the stair parts manufacturers don't keep up, they just wait 'til it changes back. So. Bill, occupancy and egress seem pretty related to stairs, what's the poop?

7. 
   Guest_ | Mar 17, 1999 06:13pm | #10

   *Sorry for being awol. There appear to be too many items for the time so yesterday they started at 7 and I don't know if they finished or not! They were still going around 10 last night on occupancy issues (which I didn't care about).Means of egress - which includes the stair rise/run and some controversial hand railing issues - is scheduled to start in an hour or so and run two full days (they better make it because my non-refundable ticket is for Friday am!).I don't believe the proposed changes to stairs - basically something near a 7-11 everywhere - in houses being the change - will pass - but should be interesting. Were I betting, however, I'd say I'd see this change in my lifetime - somteim over the next 5-15 years. Just a guess.I'll try to catch up on posting the news today - but it will be a long one.Live from the ICC hearings, Bill

8. 
   Guest_ | Mar 21, 1999 05:46am | #11

   *Well, it isn't over but the part I'm interested in is. Meeting from 7 or 8 in the morning till 9:30 at night did me in.7 3/4 X 10 stairs stay in residential - with some stricter measureing methods I think (instead of 7 X 11) but some of the traditional handrailing profiles are out in favor of graspability - I think. When reports are delivered, I'll report on the outcome of the questions asked.One intersesting bit of gossip - some real concern that jurisdictions won't adopt this new code in its first edition - but will stay with the last edition of whatever model code they have used (BOCA, UBC, SBC). Question will be how they all survive without the sale of new books? Certainly they all will.And I didn't quite undersatnd before but CABO is no more; staff and offices are now ICC.So, the more things change the more they saty the same.BTW, my constituency got almost everything we wanted - 80% or so by numbers I think - which sure beat the average of 20%. But then again, my issues were design oriented, not product issues like handrails or houseplans (graspability and 7/11 opponents) or steel versus cement.Did work with stadiaa and arena folk to get a lower guard rail where it impinges on line of sight.Sorry I didn't report as much as I planned - meetings just got too long.

9. 
   Guest_ | Mar 22, 1999 02:16am | #12

   *Bill, I'm in NC and under CABO, do you know what the change to ICC will mean, or when it will happen?Thanks for the railing thing, I'm too old to stay sitting up in my seat when Dylan comes to town.BB

10. 
    Guest_ | Mar 22, 1999 05:14am | #14

    *Well, these are all "model codes" - written by building officials with public testimony. They don't have any force of law by them selves, only when adopted by a legislative body - sometimes a city or town or village, somtimes a state. So, in the case of the IRC (International Residential Code), that may be adopted sooner than the IBC or IFC (building and fire respectively) but that is strictly supposition. There are already IPC and IMC (plumbing and mechanical). One of the good things - besides being consistent across the country so designers, builders, and code officials can move between regions easily - is that they are working very hard to have the various codes closely coordinated.I guess at the earliest, the organizations (BOCAI, ICBO, and SBCCI) will vote at their fall meeting so the likely earliest that any jurisdiction would adopt these new codes would be early 2000. Likely later. Wish I knew - so do the leaders and administrators I suspect.