Keeping track of Los Angeles building codes can be a difficult job for even the most detail-oriented contractor. However, figuring out when your project may be eligible for zoning variances can be even more difficult. Every contractor knows that zoning variances are when the city allows an exception to their usual zoning laws. Variances are usually approved when the property is used in a way that is mostly consistent with the code but has small differences.

The Burnham experience means that we can help you determine which variances are likely to get approved by the approval board. We streamline this process, often accompanied by hassles, to save you time and money. Our years of experience, combined with our close relationships with city officials, means that we have in-depth knowledge about zoning ordinances and building codes as well as changes to the codes and the laws. We understand what the city wants, what neighbors’ concerns may be, and how to submit requests that are likely to get approved. One of our main objectives is to get everything approved so that there are no hold-ups and so that no issues escalate into disputes or zoning conflicts.

While our Burnham team is guiding you through your zoning variance request, you can expect that we will study the relevant codes in each zone and thus predict where any potential problems may occur. Then we can work to circumnavigate those potential problems. We have experts that understand every aspect of getting a variance approved, from the impact the variance may have on traffic to its impact on the environment. Understanding the far-reaching effects of a variance is part of why we are so successful in getting variance requests approved.

Before you submit your request for zoning variances, you should speak with our consultants at Burnham. Our business connections mean that we understand the Los Angeles building codes, often have preemptive knowledge of changes, and know how to manipulate the approval process. We gladly offer our clients the benefits of our years of experience.

Related Posts:

• Environmental Quality Regulations and Los Angeles Building Codes

Many projects only require an OTC (Over the Counter) trade permit. The advantage to obtaining one of these permits is that you can avoid the cumbersome steps of plan reviews and site inspections. However, filling out forms and navigating municipal laws to figure out which projects can be done with an OTC permit is not always a simple task.

To expedite this process, you can rely on the twenty years of experience that Burnham has in obtaining building permits and complying with municipal laws. Our project managers work with you every step of the way to ensure that your permit does not encounter common delays, and to help you understand the various steps involved in obtaining a permit. If necessary, we can meet with you to offer a detailed report on which codes you need to follow and which permits you need to file. We derive our advice from careful research, years of experience and close relationships with city officials. When handled correctly, OTC permits can often be approved in as little as one to two business days, and you can track your permits online.

Every municipality requires different criteria to be met before they are willing to grant an OTC trade permit. Because we have offices in many of the country’s largest cities, we can advise you of the requirements in your specific area.

For instance, if you reside in Seattle and you are doing some electrical work, you might qualify for an OTC permit, given certain criteria. Once every two years, you can apply for an OTC electrical permit for a building that has up to four residential units if you plan on residing in one of the units for at least twenty four months following the completion of the project. This rule also allows you to circumnavigate the code that would normally require you to hire a certified electrician. In addition to the building and residency requirements, the work you are doing must not exceed certain voltages or amps. For instance, if you plan to install an electric vehicle charging station, you can only file for an OTC trade permit (and avoid site inspections) if your project does not exceed 400 amps. You may be surprised that even certain low voltage projects, like hardwiring a security system for a single family home or duplex, may require a plan review.

That is just a very brief look at some of the requirements that must be met to get an OTC trade permit for one type of project in one city. The rules, of course, are different for each city, and are constantly changing. Our clients rely on our expertise to help them file the necessary paperwork so that they can begin their work as soon as possible. We hope to work with you, too, and help get your project started!

Related Posts:

• Understanding NYC Building Permits
• New York City Department of Buildings launches QR Codes
• Burnham and Wright: The Best of Both Worlds

Applying for Los Angeles building permits is a lengthy process, and it requires a good deal of knowledge about Los Angeles building codes. To apply for a new building permit, applicants must submit their plans to the LADBS (Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety). The LADBS will obtain separate approval from any city departments that are affected by the work such as the department of health, the fire department, the department of cultural affairs, or any other relevant entities. Once the plans are looked over by the LADBS, they will normally be sent back to the applicant for any necessary corrections.

This step is what makes obtaining permits so time-consuming, and these delays can usually be avoided by using professionals (like us!) who know the ins and outs of municipal and city codes. After the corrections have been made and the affected city departments have approved the plans, the permit will be issued and work can finally begin.

In addition to helping you obtain Los Angeles building permits faster and more efficiently, the Burnham team helps you understand the complex Los Angeles building codes. These codes, which govern everything from plumbing to elevators, are often national or international standards, like those written by the International Code Council. However, to complicate matters, LA has added city amendments to virtually every code. In addition to a generation of experience, we also have strong ties to community leaders and a wealth of knowledge about municipal codes and laws. Whether you lack the time or inclination to wade through these complex codes on your own, we can help you.

We also offer sustainability consulting that can help you understand the LA Green Building Technology codes. These recent additions to Los Angeles building codes deal with everything from the requirements for electric vehicle supply wiring to the need for adequate storm water drainage during the construction period. Figuring out which codes are required for which project is no easy feat; let us help you decide which Los Angeles building permits are needed and which codes apply to you.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

In order to obtain NYC building permits, you, as a PE (Professional Engineer) or an RA (Registered Architect), must put forward an application that includes your project’s construction plans. It is your responsibility to ensure that the plans follow all of the current NY building codes. Once these plans have been approved, you can file for a permit, which, once granted, allows you to finally start your project. If the city has any objections to the plan, the entire process must be repeated until all of the stipulations have been satisfied.
Although the process sounds quite straightforward, RA’s and PE’s can be forced to submit and resubmit their applications an interminable amount of times if they include any number of small mistakes. When you work with Burnham, we ensure that all the forms are filed correctly, all the codes are adhered to, and that the entire process is as expeditious as possible. In fact, as often as possible, we like to take advantage of the New York Buildings Department expedition program, called the Professional Certification Program.  This program saves time because it allows professionally certified construction plans to bypass the plan review. Skipping this step means that your application will be approved much faster than it would have if it required a review. 

The NY building codes are based on a set of 1968 codes and over forty years worth of municipal updates and additions. One of the most recent changes to the code that Mayor Bloomberg signed into law at the close of 2009 was the Greener, Greater Buildings Plan. Currently, these laws are the most detailed and ambitious set of energy efficient codes in the nation. However, what is good for the planet is not always simple and clear for RA’s and PE’s.

RA’s and PE’s can avoid the onerous task of wading through the new complex codes and years worth of updates that address everything from climber cranes to the prohibition of smoking cigarettes at construction sites when they sign up for the ‘Burnham special experience’ for unparalleled help in filing for NYC building permits and understanding NY building codes.  

Related Posts:

• New Hours for NY DOB – Certificate of Occupancy Applications
• Do You Qualify for an OTC Trade Permit?
• New York City Department of Buildings launches QR Codes
• Burnham and Wright: The Best of Both Worlds
• Buildings NY/Greenbuildings NY 2010 Show

For decades, plaques have been posted in elevator lobbies urging occupants to use the stairs during a fire. However, it took only 16 minutes on Sept. 11, 2001 to call into question almost a century of conventional wisdom. In those 16 minutes before the second tower at the World Trade Center was struck, nearly 3,000 occupants were able to evacuate to safety because they USED the elevators.

Last September marked the ninth anniversary of the World Trade Center Towers tragedy, prompting some to consider how far we have come in dealing with the aftermath of that attack and the proposed building code modifications that could potentially save lives during the evacuation of very tall buildings. One of those proposals, occupant-evacuation elevators as a secondary means of egress to stairs, has gained popularity (and a reference in the 2009 International Building Code), and have already been used in Freedom Tower (United Arab Emirates) and in modified form in such buildings as One Financial Center Shanghai and Stratosphere Tower (Las Vegas). Separately, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) added ‘Annex B’ to the NFPA 101 Life Saftey Code that defines how occupant evacuation elevators should be designed (which is a voluntary provision).

This marks the beginning of a growing trend.

Under the 2009 IBC, buildings taller than 75 feet are now required to have an elevator large enough to accommodate a stretcher. Buildings taller than 120 feet are required to have a special fire service elevator. Buildings taller than 420 feet need to have either a third stairwell or occupant evacuation elevators. Among the changes NFPA made : elevator lobbies need to be enclosed and located directly adjacent to an exit stairwell. Elevator lobbies may also grow in size to accommodate occupants who have gathered for an evacuation. Sprinklers are also prohibited from evacuation elevator machine rooms.

So, why were elevators banned from use a public egress in the first place?

Triangle Shirtwaist Factory

It was on March 25, 1911 that the most famous case of elevator evacuation failure occurred. The Triangle Shirtwaist Company was located on the top three floors (8th, 9th, and 10th) of the Asch building, a structure which remains standing today in New York City. A fire in a rag bin caused panic for the 500 sweatshop workers who occupied these floors. The elevator operations saved many lives by travelling three times up to the ninth floor for passengers, but they were eventually forced to give up when the rails of one of the two elevators buckled under the heat. Some victims pried the elevator doors open and jumped down the empty shaft in a desperate attempt to avoid the flames. The weight of these bodies made it impossible for the elevators to make another attempt. In total, 147 people died, many within the first 15 minutes of the start of the fire.

Elevator Operation and Fires

Today evacuation elevators can make it easier for mobility-impaired occupants to evacuate a building, and make it faster for those who need to use the stairwells to evacuate by speeding the overall flow, some experts say. However, elevator use is currently governed by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) A17 Life Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators.The problem is that while NFPA and ICC have made code changes that begin to define evacuation elevators, ASME has not. Under ASME standards, once a fire has been detected elevators still operate under either Phase I or Phase II regulations.

Under Phase I operation, elevators that are 25 feet or more above the main floor return either to a designated landing area or an alternate area. Phase I operation is activated either manually by a special key, or automatically by a fire alarm initiating device. A sensor can detect smoke in the hoist-way, lobby or machine room and trigger Phase I. The goal is to remove the elevators form service so that building occupants DO NOT use elevators during a fire and become trapped.

Phase II operation is an override meant for firefighters after Phase I has been activated. Under Phase II operation, firefighters can use a key-switch to operate the elevator, provided the hoist-way is clear of smoke and the elevator has electricity.

Since 2004, ASME has been conducting a hazard analysis to determine how elevators might be safely used for evacuations. A related analysis is looking at whether fire fighters could use protected elevators to move close to a fire. Engineers from across the country are rethinking the traditional stairwell-centered approach to emergency egress from buildings and embracing a more holistic strategy that includes all aspects of building design and operation, as well as their impacts on occupant safety.

This December, the ASME is conducting a symposium on the use of elevators in fires and other emergencies, held in Orlando, Florida. Sponsors of this symposium include the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), NFPA, and other related organizations. They are focusing on the progress of the ASME/a17 Task Group on the Use of Elevators by Firefights and Use of Elevators for Occupant Egress, as well as well as reviewing the code changes under development that affect elevator, building, and life safety codes. It appears that evacuation elevators are going to become another tool in making high-rises safer, if not an outright requirement in some cases. ASME, ICC and NFPA are all moving towards that same destination.

About the Author
Christopher E. Chwedyk, CSI, AIA is a licensed architect, Director and Chief Code Consultant of The Code Group at Burnham Nationwide in Chicago. He was previously the principal of Gage-Babcock and Associates; a firm specialized in fire protection engineering. With more than 33 years of experience in the architectural field, Mr. Chwedyk has performed numerous code compliance plan reviews for the City of Chicago and other municipalities. He has a BArch degree from UIC and a Masters of Project Management (MPM) from the Keller Graduate School of Management. An adjunct faculty member of Harper College, since 1998, Chris teaches courses on building codes and construction drawings.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

It sounds like a great idea- use the top of a building for outdoor living in an urban setting where you can sit outside in the summertime without the benefit of having a patio or balcony. Amidst the glass, steel, and masonry of the metropolitan skyline, these decks form an oasis of outdoor living space in any city, transforming simple roofs to a  backyard-feel country club setting. The perfect solution for urban dwellers- or is it? Anyone who rides the elevated trains in Chicago has seen hundreds of examples of rooftop decks on both residential and commercial buildings. Many decks have been built over the years, some following building code regulations, some not.

Rooftop decks can raise some serious concerns when trying to meet regulatory requirements. For example, you may need to have the rafter system of the roof re-engineered to carry the excess loads of the deck and the anticipated number of people on it. Also, building a deck over a roof never takes into account just how you will replace the roof in 20 years without deconstructing the deck to do it. At that point, will the deck be a like-for-like replacement (like a repair) or a reconfigured alteration to an existing building? What about the deck material itself?

Chicago Building Code Section 15-8-510, Roof Structures, indicates that except for certain other limitations, all roof structures placed above the roof of any building within the Fire Limits (essentially the downtown Central Business District) or above the roof of any building exceeding fifty-five feet in height, must be constructed of non -combustible materials and must be supported by construction of non-combustible materials.

Recent experience has shown that conventional flamespread treatments and intumescent coatings are NOT an acceptable alternative to the requirement that the deck be of non-combustible material. We have tried these both at the Building Board of Appeals and the Committee on Standards and Tests and have not been successful in either case. I do not believe the City will be changing its stance any time soon.

As a substitute product, composite/synthetic decking (manufactured from wood fiber and plastic to form a deck profile) is really no different than wood in terms of its combustibility. In addition, there have been problems with discolorations, de-lamination and mold when used in exterior applications. Many of these products are not chemically designed to withstand exterior exposure for an extended period of time.

However, the Chicago Department of Buildings has in the recent past, recommended and approved at least two substitute materials for high-rise decks the we are aware of: Ipe Wood and wood-glass composites. Although both still qualify as combustible, their physical properties are considered to be an acceptable alternative.

Ipe decking has been used in several large residential and commercial buildings, including LEED certified projects. Examples include the Brooklyn Bridge pedestrian walkway, the Treasure Island Casino in Las Vegas, and the boardwalks in Ocean City, NJ and Miami, Flordia.

Ipe is a Brazilian Walnut and has a Janka hardness of 3640.

Note: The Janka hardness test measures the hardness of wood. It involves measuring the force required to embed a 0.444 inch steel ball into wood to half its diameter. This method is used so that the result would leave an indentation 100 square millimeters in size. It is one of the best measures of the ability of a wood species to withstand denting and wear.

Ipe is also rated the same as concrete for flammability testing. This hardwood is so dense that it is resistant to mold, fungus even insects. No chemicals are required and no treatments are needed unless you want to to keep the tones of the wood from fading. If no treatment is used it will patina a silverish grey tone, otherwise a UV oil inhibitor can be used. The lifespan for Ipe decking is over 30 years old without treatment and over 100 years with treatment. Ipe is also available FSC certified with select approved companies. This certification guarantees the hardwood is harvested from a responsibly managed forest. Ipe is a renewable, recyclable, durable, biodegradable, energy efficient and versatile product.

Products that infuse glass into wood decking are another alternative. A chemical bonding of sodium silicate (a mixture of sand and soda ash used since the 19th Century in detergents and as an egg preservative) and wood soaked in this solution, then (literally) baked, becomes an insoluble matrix of amorphous glass, which hardens and essentially “shrink-wraps”  the wood fibers throughout. Due to this glass infusion, the wood is inert and will not rot. Because conventional fungicides like copper are not required to pressure-treat the wood, the resulting product is non-corrosive to nails and other fasteners. The fusion of wood and glass creates a product that is approximately twice as hard as conventional wood. As measured by the Janka Scale, the hardness of southern  yellow pine, for example, increases from 690-870 lbs-force (range depends on species) to 1560 lbs-force, approximately double. Since the deck material is many times stronger that composite products due to the glass portion fusing parallel to the grain of the wood, this insures that nails, screws and fasteners hold more firmly.

The best part, however, from a regulatory standpoint, is that the wood-glass matrix is not flammable. Years ago we would laugh when a note would appear on  construction drawings referring to the “noncombustible wood blocking”; since the only noncombustible wood in existence was petrified rock. Now that is no longer the case. Wood-glass composites carry a Class A classification and also for reduced levels of smoke, in accordance with the 30-minute extended ASTM E84 (Steiner Tunnel) flamespread test.

Both of these alternatives offer the look of wood with the added benefit of being safer and more durable than a conventional wood deck. Now if you could just do something about that bothersome requirement for a second exit off the deck (but that’s another story).

About the Author:
Christopher E. Chwedyk, CSI, AIA is a licensed architect, Director and Chief Code Consultant of The Code Group at Burnham Nationwide in Chicago. He was previously the principal of Gage-Babcock and Associates; a firm specialized in fire protection engineering. With more than 32 years of experience in the architectural field, Mr. Chwedyk has performed numerous code compliance plan reviews for the City of Chicago and other municipalities. he has a BArch degree from UIC and a Masters of Project Management (MPM) from the Keller Graduate School of Management. An adjunct faculty member of Harper College since 1998, Chris teaches courses on building codes and construction drawings.

Related Posts:

• Life Safety, Code and Politics – The Residential Sprinkler Debate
• NY Concrete Testing Laboratory
• To Swing or Not to Swing?
• Are Open Stairs Permitted in Chicago?
• Chicago Building Code – Area of Primary Function Requirements

By Christopher E. Chwedyk, CSI, AIA

In mid-February of this year, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) released a legislative update on their Fire Sprinkler Initiative Project – “Bringing Safety Home” e-mail blast, titled “Are Home Fire Sprinkler Opponents Threatening Safety In Your State?” Apparently, at least a dozen states in the U.S. have proposed state legislation that would restrict a community’s ability to make its own decision about whether to enforce the requirement to provide fire sprinklers in all new one-and-two family dwelling units. These states include Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah. In Kentucky, a circuit court recently rejected a bid to allow local governments to mandate the installation of fire sprinkler systems in new home construction.

The NFPA Building Construction (5000) and Life Safety (101) Codes have required sprinklers in all new one-and-two family dwellings since 2006. However, for the first time the 2009 International Residential Code (IRC) now contains a section R313.2 stating that “Effective January 1, 2011, an automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in one-and-two family dwellings.” This provision was passed at the 2008 International Code Council hearings in a somewhat controversial manner (many fire officials were at the hearings only to vote on this particular issue) and attempts were made prior to the code’s publication to rescind this requirement, to no avail. Much of the current legislation mentioned above would specifically prohibit the inclusion of one-and-two family sprinkler provisions statewide, rather than allow each municipality to enact “more stringent” provisions than enacted by the state, as has been normally and traditionally allowed. In addition to the states already mentioned, Ohio has postponed adoption of the 2009 International Building Code (IBC) and IRC until at least June of 2011. Minnesota has decided to skip the adoption of the 2009 edition of the codes altogether.

Now, this reaction is clearly an attempt by legislation to ease the perceived threat to initiating new home construction in a slow economy. At the same time, it brings up questions regarding the very essence of why the model building codes are written in the first place. Shorty after this NFPA update appeared, David Collins of The Preview Group sent out a questionnaire to several architects asking them to weigh-in on the issue by choosing one of three possible responses:

• A. I don’t see this as any different from any other modifications that states and local jurisdictions make to the codes.
• B. This is the type of political pressure that a powerful group can exert locally to prevent change (regardless of whether it is right or wrong).
• C. We (as design professionals) should work with our partners and ICC to see that codes don’t wander too far from a path where consistent regulations can be supported and adopted.

The consensus from this small group wat that ‘C’ was the best answer, since the extraordinary efforts being mounted by opponents regarding one sentence in a building code clearly negates ‘A’, and ‘B’ is just a passive acceptance. The discussion then became one of suggesting that design professionals become more actively involved in the code making process. However, none of these responses, it would appear, gets to the heart of the matter – does this provision in the code actually make sense?

The general argument for providing sprinkler systems in homes is that most fires occur there and a significant reduction in fire loss and fire deaths would be accomplished if sprinklers were mandated in the code. One community that has had this sprinkler provision mandated for several years is Scottsdale, AZ. Their figures show that fire sprinklers in single-family homes reduced potential fire loss by 95% in the period between 1986 and 2001, saving at least a dozen lives. Another study, recently released by NFPA, entitled “U.S. Experience with Sprinklers and Other Automatic Fire Extinguishing Equipment“, concludes that the death rate per fire in sprinklered homes is lowered by 83% and that damage per fire is lowered by 40-70%. As far as increased costs are concerned, a 2008 report by Newhouse Partners concluded that the average cost of installing sprinkler systems by home-builders was only $1.61 per sprinklered square-foot.

The opposing side points to potential accidental sprinkler activation, the failure rate of non-maintained residential sprinklers, as well as issues related to the challenges faced by rural areas and limited water availability. Another school of thought is that passive fire resistance (construction using better fire-resistive materials and compartmentalizing floors of a building into fire areas) is superior to relying on active sprinkler systems. This has certainly been expressed in Chicago, for example, where it is unlikely that sprinklers will ever be mandated for any buildings under five stories, much less single family homes – this despite the fact that recent residential high rise fires (especially the Streeterville fire last December) have brought some question as to whether the City’s Life Safety Evaluation system for pre-1975 buildings has allowed too many existing residential buildings to be left without sprinklers. Ironically, politicians voted to extend the deadline for installing improved communication systems in residential high rises from 2012 to 2015, again as part of a perceived need to save taxpayer money.

There are no easy answers to these questions. However, the debate does bring into focus the fact that codes are laws and laws are made by politicians, whether appointed or voted into office. The idea that model codes are always based on good judgment and common sense for the common good and are enacted to save lives, or that they are always accepted without question, is simply not the case. The residential sprinkler issue is a prime example of where the prescriptive method of code compliance and the adoption of model code language appear to fall short of stated intentions. That being said, many believe that it should be up to design professionals and specifiers to look beyond the minimum requirements of the codes and, in some situations, to take some responsibility and recommend a higher standard by which to apply these requirements.

About the Author:
Christopher E. Chwedyk, CSI, AIA is a licensed architect, Director and Chief Code Consultant of The Code Group at Burnham Nationwide in Chicago. He was previously the principal of Gage-Babcock and Associates; a firm specialized in fire protection engineering. With more than 32 years of experience in the architectural field, Mr. Chwedyk has performed numerous code compliance plan reviews for the City of Chicago and other municipailites. He has a BArch degree from UIC and a Masters of Project Management (MPM) from the Keller Graduate School of Management. An adjunct faculty member of Harper College since 1998, Chris teaches courses on building codes and construction drawings.

Related Posts:

• Are Open Stairs Permitted in Chicago?
• >Burnham Takes a Bite Out of the Big Apple
• Burnham Celebrates It’s 20th Anniversary!
• Sprint Chicago Service Outage?
• What the Deck? Wood that is ‘Noncombustible’

By Christopher E. Chwedyk, CSI, AIA

Back in October 2008, this column contained information on “Keeping Up with Energy Conservation Codes in Illinois – Which Code Applies to Your Project – and Why.”  The main point of that article was that there are two Energy Conservation Codes in Illinois: Chicago’s and the rest of the State.  Since then, there have been some significant changes that design professionals should be aware of when preparing drawings and specifications for municipal review in Illinois.

As of April 22, 2009, Chicago has adopted an amended version of the 2006 International  Energy Conservation Code (IECC) for use on both residential and commercial projects in the City.  The main differences between the model version and Chicago’s is that it contains provisions for roof reflectance, and the Climate Zone was deliberately changed from Zone 5 to Zone 6, making certain features of the Chicago version more stringent.  Although compliance with Chapter 18-13 (as the IECC is referenced in the Chicago Code) is mandatory, enforcement is still reliant on the certification of a Registered Energy Professional (REP), trained by the International Code Council (ICC) at special classes for this purpose.  The City maintains on the Department of Buildings (DOB) website a list of everyone who has ever attended this class and received REP status.  It is interesting to note that, although the Code has significant changes to many of the previous requirements, the retraining of REP’s was not made mandatory by the City.

Therefore, actual enforcement of the IECC in Chicago is still strictly by the honor system for the purpose of obtaining building permits.  There are no Energy plan reviews.  The DOB only asks that a statement be placed on the drawings to indicate whether the project is required to comply or not.  The only time that an Energy Code review is conducted is if the project is audited by the DOB.

For the rest of Illinois, Public Act 093-0936 (Illinois Energy Conservation Code for Commercial Buildings) has been in effect since August of 2004.  The Illinois Energy Conservation Code for Commercial Buildings became effective April 8, 2006, and on October 9, 2007 the Law was revised to mandate the latest published edition, excluding supplements, of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC).  That means the current Illinois code for energy conservation is the 2009 version of the IECC.  The Illinois Energy Efficient Commercial Building Act can be found in Chapter 20 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes, Act 3125.

Municipalities and Counties throughout Illinois issuing building permits are therefore required to enforce the 2009 IECC for Privately Funded Commercial Construction Projects, effective after November 28, 2009.  Note that per 20 ILCS 3125/45 regarding Home Rule – Chicago is not exempt from regulating energy efficient building standards for commercial buildings that are at least as stringent as the 2009 IECC.  Therefore, it is recommended to use 2009 IECC COMcheck (Zone 6) when performing energy compliance analysis, and also conform to the 4/22/09 Chapter 18-13 where it may be more stringent than 2009 IECC.  Note that preliminary estimates from U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) suggest the 2009 IECC are at least 18 percent and possibly even 22 percent more energy efficient than the 2006 IECC.

Projects that receive any public funding for design or construction authorized by the General Assembly are also required to comply with a recognized energy efficiency standard in their design and construction.  The energy efficiency standard for engineers, architects, and contractors to follow is the 2007 edition of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers Standard (ASHRAE) 90.1.  If this project is located in Chicago, it is acceptable to use ASHRAE 90.1 as an alternative means to achieve compliance as applicable to commercial buildings.

In addition, Public Act 196-0778 was signed into law on August 28, 2009 amending the Energy Efficient Commercial Building Act by including Residential buildings for the first time and amending the name of the act to the Energy Efficient Building Act.  The new requirements for residential buildings became effective on January 29, 2010.  This brings the rest of Illinois into alignment with Chicago with regards to requiring energy efficiency for one and two family detached dwellings and low-rise residential.

Local governments are free to adopt stricter energy conservation Laws for Commercial buildings.  However, for Residential buildings, local governments may not adopt or regulate energy conservation standards either less or more stringent than the Illinois Energy Conservation Code.  Exceptions which would allow local governments to regulate energy efficient standards in a more stringent manner are municipalities or counties which meet one of the following three provisions (all of which sound like they relate specifically to Chicago):

• A unit of local government that on or before May 15, 2009 adopted or incorporated by reference energy efficient building standards for residential building that are equivalent to or more stringent than the 2006 IECC.
• A unit of local government that on or before May 15, 2009 provided to the Capital Development Board identification of an energy efficient building code or amendment that is equivalent or more stringent than the 2006 IECC.
• A municipality with a population of 1,000,000 or more.

In an effort to assist municipalities to review projects for the Energy Code compliance, training opportunities are being offered this Spring by the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity through the ICC.  You may visit http://www.iccsafe.org/IL-IECC for dates, times and registration information, but these classes are filling up quickly.  These classes are intended to address numerous provisions in the 2009 IECC where the code contains requirements applicable to Residential construction, but that are not regulated specifically by the International Residential Code, which many communities already enforce.  They are intended to help plan reviewers or building code officials responsible for plan review identify those areas where plan review will include compliance with the IECC.  Needless to say, architects, engineers and specifiers are also (strongly) encouraged to attend.

About the Author:
Christopher E. Chwedyk, CSI, AIA is a licensed architect, Director and Chief Code Consultant of The Code Group at Burnham Nationwide in Chicago.  He was previously the principal of Gage-Babcock and Associates; a firm specialized in fire protection engineering.  With more than 32 years of experience in the architectural field, Mr. Chwedyk has performed numerous code compliance plan reviews for the City of Chicago and other municipalities.  He has a BArch degree from UIC and a Masters of Project Management (MPM) from the Keller Graduate School of Management.  An adjunct faculty member of Harper College since 1998, Chris teaches courses on buildng codes and construction drawings.

Related Posts:

• NeoCon Presentation

By Leah Riley
Senior Code Consultant with The Code Group/Burnham Nationwide

You would not think that designing a simple kitchenette/pantry in an office space would be a challenge, but in those municipalities that reference ANSI A 117.1, 2003, these requirements can be daunting. IBC 1109.4 notes that where kitchens and kitchenettes are provided in accessible spaces or rooms, they shall be accessible in accordance with ICC A117.1.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) currently requires a kitchenette to be accessible only when serving the public or in specific uses. However, in cities such as Chicago, as well as, those enforcing the International Building Code (IBC) 2006 which references ICC ANSI 2003, a kitchenette/pantry is required to be accessible regardless of where it is located and who is using it, even if in an office or retail employee space. The proposed ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) also includes these requirements, but it will not be enforceable until passed.

ANSI Section 804 specifies requirements such as the minimum clearance between counters; heights of work surfaces and sinks as well as appliance and storage reach ranges. The following is a summary of these requirements:

Minimum Clearances: Depending on the layout of the kitchenette, it shall be designed to provide the minimum clearances between counters, cabinets and appliances. Pass thru kitchens where counters, appliances or cabinets are on two opposing sides shall provide a minimum clear width of 40 inches and there shall be two entries. U-Shaped kitchens that are enclosed on three sides shall provide clearances of 60 inches between all opposing cabinets, counter tops, appliances or walls.

Work Surfaces: All work surfaces shall provide for a clear floor space that allows a forward approach and a height between 28 inches minimum and 34 inches above the floor. However, an exception notes that in kitchens that do not provide a cook-top or conventional range, an accessible work surface is not required.

Sink: All sinks shall meet compliance with Section 606 with the sink set no greater than 34 inches above the floor with a bowl depth no greater than 6-1/2 inches. The hardware must be lever or equal and the piping under the sink must be insulated or enclosed. All operable parts including towel and soap dispensers and dryers must be within reach range. Clear floor space, positioned for a forward, approach shall be provided. However, an exception allows for a parallel approach at a kitchen sink where a cook top or conventional range is not provided.

Storage: It is important to note that at least 50 percent of shelf space in cabinets shall be accessible. All accessible storage shall be within reach range of 15 inches and 48 inches per Section 305. The height is measured to the top of the shelf surface. A 30-inch by 48-inch clear floor space shall be provided in front of the accessible storage area.

Appliances: Any appliance within the kitchenette/pantry shall be accessible providing a clear floor space and having elements (storage areas or controls and operating mechanisms within reach range).  For the refrigerator/freezer, a portion of each element shall be accessible. The best means to achieve this is to provide a side by side or model with the freezer on the bottom. The other option is to go with a smaller unit where the bottom of the freezer shelf is no greater than 48 inches above the floor. If a microwave or range/oven is provided, it shall be located where all the controls and operating mechanisms are within reach range. If there is a vending machine, an accessible model shall be provided.

While taking a quick look at these requirements, they do not seem too unreasonable until you have to figure out how to place 50% of the shelving within reach range. Adding a shelf to the base cabinet is the most logical location for meeting compliance. However, the area under the counter is often occupied with sink piping and a water heater. A dishwasher and trash and recycling bins or other elements are often also located here. This leaves very limited storage areas below. Therefore, the bulk of the pantry storage is provided above the sink. Note that the counter itself can’t be included towards meeting these requirements unless there are shelves sitting on it. Also, if storage is provided under the sink, even though a forward approach may not be needed, the piping should be protected.

In order to provide sufficient counter space for a microwave, coffee pot and other appliances, the upper shelving is typically set at above 50 inches and not within reach range. To determine the amount of accessible shelving required, the percentage of shelving available between 15 and 48 inches above the floor mush be calculated. As the depth of the lower cabinets is usually deeper than the upper cabinets, this extra area could also be included within the calculation. Therefore, the best method would be to measure the shelves based on square feet.

Sometimes adaptations, such as providing two shelves between 15 inches and the counter top within cabinets, as well as reducing the number of shelves in the upper cabinets may be needed in order to meet compliance. While this does not seem logical from a usage perspective, the current accessibility code drives this design.

We are not aware of how this is being enforced in other areas, but in Chicago, this is the accessibility correction comment often noted when a pantry is provided. It is also one of the top issues raised when Business or Retail use projects participating in the Self-Certification process are audited. Architects who were issued this correction or were audited indicate that this was the first time they have heard of requirements for accessible storage at the pantry, even though the code has been in effect for some time.

For this reason, it is recommended to check your local code requirements to determine whether or not IBC 2006 and/or ANSI A117.1, 3002 are the referenced standards. If so, your plans should clearly provide details confirming that Kitchenette/Pantry meets full compliance.

About the Author:
Leah Riley is a Senior Code Consultant with The Code Group/Burnham Nationwide, with over sixteen years of experience in interpreting and providing consulting services for a number of local, national and international building and accessibility codes.  Ms. Riley has gained recognition throughout the construction industry as one of the foremost experts in ADA interpretation through her years of service for the City of Chicago Mayor’s Office for Peoples with Disabilities.

Related Posts:

• Twenty Years Later…What Does ADA Mean to You?
• Emerging Green Code and Green Standard Join-Up for Successful Sustainability