Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 02/25/1980 Kent, Wa.shis'Igtr_)D February 25 , 198(1 A SPECIAL MEETING of the Kent City council wa.-i called to c)-L&-Z' at 7: 00 o'clock p.m. by Mayor Hogan. Present: Councl.1persons Bailey, B. Johnson, J. Johnson, Masters, McCaughan and Mooney, City Administrator Cushing, City Attorney Mirk, Planning Direc- tor Harris , Acting Public Works Director Wickstrom and Finance Director McCarthy. Also present-. Administrative Assistant Webby, Parks Director Wilson, Fire Chief Foster, Building Direc- tor Chandler and URS representative Abed. Approximately 30 people were in attendance at the special meeting. The purpose of the meeting was determined -to be to consid(-.!i, an appeal from the interpretation of the Building official, filed by DMS Contractors. Bill Dinsdale of DMS Contractors stated that the controversy centered around the interpretation of Table 29.A of the Uni- form Building Code as to whether the apartment building under construction was to be considered a 2-story building or a 3-story building. He stated that it was considered a 2--story building according to the official interpretation of the ICBO, but that Kent's Building Department considered the structure a 3-story building and required, therefore, that more stringent -conditions be met. Jim Chandler, Building official for Kent, noted that the requirements set forth for the D_MS project Piave been in fore for allbuildings since November of 1977. He noted further that the UBC requirement for reinforcing steel was much more strict than the city' s requirement, and that this was considered to be a trade-off--less steel for more concrete to support a structure. He stated that he had explained to DMS that they had three options regarding the foundation: 1) Place the concrete per the foundation requirements of the City, which is part of the approved set of plans. 2) Utilize the reinforcing steel as shown in Enclosure No. 2, to qualify for an 8" wall with 15" footing. 3) utilitze the structural. engineer of his choice for- design of the foundation. Historically, this will require at least 2500 PSI concrete, which by the Code will require inspection by an approved testing laboratory for the cast- ing of test cylinders to verify strength. Chandler noted further that the UBC is a minimum standard to be used in construction in the State of Washington. Any jurisdiction February 25, 1980 may require more stringent requirements, or offer engineered tradeoffs as long as the Code is not violated. DMS, or their subcontractors had the approved plans in their hands prior to setting forms for their foundation, and compliance with those approved set of plans becomes their burden. Any changes or deviations to the approved plans must be initiated by the Designer or Engineer and approved by the Kent Building Depart- ment. Thus far, since November, 1977, the only deviation in Kent to the foundation requirements (Enclosure #1) have been systems designed, stamped and signed by a licensed engineer. Dinsdale stated that the City's handout was worded differently than that of the UBC and was not clear to DMS. He noted that they had built similar structures all over the County and had never been given any reason to consider this type of structure as a 3-story building. Chandler stated that if there is a load of three stud walls on the foundation it is considered a 3-story building under the City' s foundation requirements which are optional requirements to those in the Code. The ordinary procedure for calling for inspections during the foundation work was explained. Dinsdale stated that the prob- lem was that as a 3-story building an 18" footing and a 10" .foundation wall were necessary. Upon questions from the Council, Mirk quoted from the Code Interpretations as follows: " (One note of caution should be expressed regarding the foundation illustrated by Figure No. 2. Since the foundation must also serve as a retaining wall, Table No. 29-A is not directly applicable and the foundation should be investigated for stabil- ity and flexural wall strength. ) " He noted that if the foundation is also serving as a retaining wall that the interpretation of 29A did not apply. Chandler noted that under option #1 the forms would have to be spread, and suggested that #2 or#3 be utilized. . Dinsdale noted that he had submitted a report to Chandler from a soils engineer. He further stated that option #3 would be more expensive than #2, and that the entire controversy could be resolved if the City accepted the ICBO interpretation. Chandler explained for Masters that it is primarily a matter of the area of steel required for the area of concrete placed. - 2 - February 25, 19-60 J. JOHNSON MOVED to deny the appeal and suggested that DMS follow option #2 or #3, McCaughan seconded, and upon his question Miry: noted that DMS had asked for the Council to act as a Board of Appeals and that the Council had the authority, and that the qut-.,s-- tion is what is the purpose of the foundation and is the founda-- tion adequate. Motion carried, with no dissenting votes. At 8:05 o' clock p.m. , B. JOHNSON MOVED for the Council to re- treat to an executive session. McCaughan seconded. Motion carried. The meeting reconvened at 8: 35 p.m. and was then adjourned. Marie Jen n, CMC City Clerk - 3 -