The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLetter Re Variance Request ~ OJHKOfH City of Oshkosh Division ofInspection Services 215 Church Avenue PO Box 1130 Oshkosh WI 54903-1130 ON THE WATER July 25,2006 Kathleen Gross Customer Service Rep 141 NW Barstow St 4th Floor VVaukesha, VVI53l88-3789 RE: Petition for Variance Our office has had numerous discussions related to this variance with Henry Kosarzycki, who has instructed us to have the applicant submit this variance application to your attention, and asked that once the application has been entered into the system that you contact him, and he will work with you to educate the assigned reviewer on what has taken place in our discussions with him. Any effort to expedite the review process would be appreciated, as the petitioner is working under a tight time frame for completing this project before the beginning of the school year. If you or anyone else have any questions, or I can be of any assistance in helping to complete this review please don't hesitate to contact me. Building Systems Consultant Email-bnoe(G)ci.oshkosh.wi.us Phone - (920) 236-5051 W~J1c!!n Safety & Buildings Division Bureau of Integrated Services n.r r Llvn. 1 lVI'll rvI'.. I\...C v IC W rc 1111Vr'l rUK VARIANCE SBD-9890X -Complete all pages- 1. Facility Information Complete for confirmed appointments*: Facility (Building) Name: ~\-\.\LOS\A Wes"t \-\\.<:'\-1. Se,,",,-ool.- Transaction 10: Number and Street 315' 1-1. E~GU= ~T. Zio: S4Qo\ Previous Related ,Trans. 10: Commerce Site Number (if known): Assigned Reviewer: Legal Description: Assigned Office: County of: W\\.,)L)E. eA60 Review Start Date*: (i(J City () Village ( ) Town of: OS"-':~D5~ *Submittal must be received in the office of the appointment no later than 2 workina days before the confirmed aDDointment NOTE: . Personal information YOU provide mav be used for secondary purposes Privacy Law s. 15.04(1)(m), Stats.! 2. Owner Information Customer # 3. Desianer Information Customer # l1TH7BS" Name Designer ~t-4.~ K,-rM.6< ..,) A\A. Company Name O$\Jt~S~ ~ Se~\.. D.$T1tl.CT Design FirmKE €12. P~TMA-~ ft.Qc.w,I 1tCTS LLC. 6"MPI U6 Number and Street 215 S. cAGt.-E S~ Number and Street 23cto S-rlmi {2J:)A-O 44 - So I TG" A- City, State, Zip Code O::>r\ ~s~ I ~\ 54'10\ Ci~ State, ziSijode SfqOJ../. SA t:c OJ ( Contact Person BRAID C!A\:lFif kA-~ Contact Person JAMes f(;H1-1A1U Te~hone ~mber I Fax Number Telephone Number I 4"ax Numbes 4 '20- 24- O\'=-o 920 - 235" - '33/0 2D - za - 00'2. This page may be utilized for fax appointments Complete and indicate date plans will be in our office 4. Plan Review Status _ Plan submitted with petition _ Plan will be submitted after petition determination _ Requesting revision ~ Other: ~\L. Q\") ~QL.~ Commerce Transaction Number Plan previously ~eview by (please enclose a copy of review letter) _ State _ Municipality _ Approved _ Held _ Denied Code Being Petitioned X Building _ HVAC _ Plumbing _ Private Sewage System _ Swimming Pool _ Electrical 5. State the code section being petitioned AND the specific condition or issue you are requesting be covered under this petition for variance. /Se. 2'-03. if. 71/fmJ.14-L B.4/Z-l2.tEf<. t:620IVkl.1:f:1VC'? 6. Reason why compliance with the code cannot be attained without the variance. :5PGel FIE:D /c-S I :s !2csOC.:TS C"'OOt..D !lOT Be OI3Tl!rlVeD. 8. List attachments to be considered as part of the petitioner's statements (i.e., model code sections, test reports, research articles, expert opinion, previously approved variances, pictures, plans, sketches, etc.). ~G A-~ LEI1f::::r2 AND PHoTOS. . VERIFICATION BY OWNER - PETITION IS VALID ONLY IF NOTARIZED WITH AFFIXED SEAL AND ACCOMPANIED BY RJ;VrEW FEE Note: Petitioner must be the owner of the building or system or credential applicant for a Comm 5 petition. Tenants, agentS, designers, contractors, attomeys, etc., shall not sign petition unless Power of Attorney is submitted with the Petition for Variance Application. ~yc, L CktA~~1 Pet' loner's Name ( pe or print) ) P titioner' ture , being duly sworn, I state as petitioner that I have read the foregoing petition and I believe it is true and that 1 have si nificant ownership ri hts to the sub'ect build in or pro'ect. . Subscribed and swom Notary Public My commis'Si'O'iiffl{pires to before me this date . III _ . on .Jrd.,. / .:Ju 2.1 2" () lLR...A.L<UL CJ.e. . c.i r !~ 200ltJ uests from Comm 20-25 and Comm 61-65 CHECKS PAYABLE TO DEPT. OF COMMERCE check here. TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ SCO.OO SBD-9890X (R, 11/2005) (Check our website at htto://www.commerce.statewi.uslSB/SB-DivFom\s.hrml for the most current version ofthis form) Owner's Name Project Location Page20f _ Fire Department Position Statement To be completed for variances requested from Comm 61-65, Comm 10, Comm 16, and other fire related requirements. I have read the application for variance and recommend: (check appropriate box) )ii( Approval 0 Conditional Approval 0 Denial 0 No Comment Explanation for recommendation including any conflicts with local rules and regulations and suggested conditions: The Oshkosh Fire Department recognizes the equivalency of "Tectum" roof decking to convention wood decking to act as a thermal barrier. The panels are "tongue and groove" where joined together. The panels also have sealed joints with grout on the top and the metal strip on the underside of the joint or the joints fall on structural members. The "Tectum" roof deck with the present installation would be sufficient to prohibit fire spread through the required 15 minute fire rating. Telephone Number 920 236-5240 Date Signed 7/25/2006 MUNICIPAL BUILDING INSPECTION RECOMMENDATION To be completed for variances requested from Comm 20-23. Also to be used for Comm 16 electrical petitions, if Comm 61-65 plan review is by municipality or orders are written on the building under construction; optional in other cases. Please submit a copy of the orders I have read the application for variance and recommend: (check appropriate box) j(APproval 0 Conditional Approval 0 Denial 0 No Comment Explanation for recommendation including any conflicts with local rules and regulations and suggested conditions: Sa- A77Ac.#en SJ.-JEF/ - /'1UNIG/YAL ReCPMMENDATJoNS- Municipality Exercising JUriSdictione I e;>r Name and Address of Municipal Official (type or print) 23RIPN u v Signature of Municipal En Official S~9'a3 Telephone Number of Enforcement Official 9' Date Signed SBD-9890 (R. 11/2003 Safety and Buildings Division Bureau of Integrated Services -Municipal Recommendation- p.N. Based on the specific conditions that exist in this installation we recommend approval. Chapter 26 of the Wisconsin Enrolled Commercial Building code, essentially requires that a thermal barrier complying with the provisions ofIBC 2603.4 be provided between the interior of the building and any foam plastic, unless one of the exceptions in sections 2603.4.1 and 2603.7. Exception 2603.4.1.5 Roofing, allows for installation of foam on a roof separated from the interior of the building by a wood structural panel sheathing not less than 0.47 inch in thickness bonded with exterior glue, with edges supported by blocking, tongue-and-groove joints or other approved type of edge support. While the Tectum deck that exists in this installation is not a "wood structural panel" it is installed with tongue-and-groove joints, and the bottom side of the panels has either the joints falling on structural members, or a metal tee that covers the joint. These conditions reduce the chance that melted foam would flow from the roof into the building in the event of an interior building fire. Additionally the Tectum deck is evaluated for span, and load conditions similar to that of a structural wood panel, so while not being a "wood structural panel" it has been evaluated for many of the same qualities. The 2nd part of section 2603.4.1.5, eliminates the requirement for a thermal barrier if the foam insulation is part of a Class A, B, or C, roof-covering assembly, provided the assembly with the foam plastic insulation satisfactory passes FM 4450 or UL 1256. While the specifications for the project indicate that the roof system will comply with FM 4450, to date no documentation has been provided showing that the roof system being installed complies with either FM 4450 or UL 1256. This has lead to attempting to review the Tectum roof deck to see if it could meet the requirements of an equivalent thermal barrier as permitted in section 2603.4. This section required the material meet ASTM E 119 requirements, as well as be installed in such a manner that it will remain in place for 15 minutes based on FM 4880, UL 1040, or UL 1715 test standards. While I have been able to obtain a copy of an August 30, 1976 Thermal Barrier Fire Test Evaluation from Tectum, serial No. 16738.143, I have not been able to locate, and no one has been able to provide documentation showing compliance with the 2nd part of the equivalencyrequirement--':'meetingFM4880, UL 1040, UL 1715. I have had a number of conversations with Underwriters Lab, and spoke with Rich Walke, one of the senior Fire Protection Engineers at UL. While there is no listing for the Tectum product under the 1040, or UL 1017 standard, UL considers this product to be non-combustible, and if it met the requirements of the ASTM E-119 test, and if the supporting structure were non-combustible (which is the case) it would likely pass the UL 1040 or UL 1017 evaluation if tested. In summary, there are various provisions in the code that would allow for the omission of a thermal barrier, and still more that would provide for determining an equivalency of a thermal barrier. While in this case the specific provisions of the code have not been met, the combination of meeting various parts of those requirements would appear to provide an equivalent level of protection. The fact that the joints in the Tectum deck are tongue-and-groove, or covered from below, and the top side of the Tectum joints have been previously grouted as part of the original installation, combined with the product meeting the requirements of ASTM E-119, and being supported by non-combustible construction, lead us to conclude that a variance should be granted in this particular case. ~ Kempinger Putman Architects '" 2390 State Road 44 - Suite A (920) 235-3310 P.O. BOX 2903 OSHKOSH, WISCONSIN 54904 FAX (920) 235-4002 City of Oshkosh Application for Variance Reroofing Proiect for Oshkosh West High School 375 North Eagle Street Oshkosh, WI 54901 We submit for you the following items: 1. Explain your proposed plan and why you are requesting a variance. This project is a reproofing project for Oshkosh West High School. The project is a part of this summer's maintenance program. Work has been bid, contracts have been given and work has begun. The information submitted to the Oshkosh Inspections Department did not satisfy what was required in the specifications. Although the information submitted for review met some of the requirements, specific information which was requested by the Inspection Department was missing. This information was a requirement of the specifications and not additional information requested by the City. The required test data may not be available in a short amount of time. Site inspections showed positive conditions that warrant the possibility of a variance. The School District would favor a Petition for Variance to keep the project on schedule. 2. Describe how the variance would not have an adverse effect on surrounding properties. The project has been started and is currently on hold, pending further information. The longer the project is on hold, the greater the chance that the project will impose an adverse effect on the surrounding neighborhoods. The quicker the work is completed, the less effect it has on the surrounding properties. 3. Describe the special conditions that apply to your lot or structure that do not apply ,to surrounding lots or structures. There are no special conditions. This is a matter of conforming to project specifications and construction practices. Kempinger Putman Architects .. 2390 State Road 44 - Suite A (920) 235-3310 P.O. BOX 2903 OSHKOSH, WISCONSIN 54904 FAX (920) 235-4002 4. Describe the hardship that would result if your variance were not granted. To complete the project before the start of school is the main objective. The hardship is more of a safety issue for the school. Delaying the project would have roof construction when students are on site. Roofmaterials, workers, and construction traffic would be on the site. Tearing off existing roofing would create potential hazards with students on site. The noise from the work would be disruptive for teaching. Due to safety concerns, the need to complete this project may affect the start of school. Other school activities, which start before school is in session, may need to be postponed. Variance proposal. What is at issue is that the specifications indicate that the roof system meet either UL 1256 of FM 4450 tests. The problem is that the UL 1256 tests were for metal decks and the roof at West School is a tectum deck. The City Inspection department is guarding the safety of the students and faculty by upholding the intent of these testing requirements. In a fire, the potential for foam plastics (insulation) to bum will cause it to melt and when that melted material falls or drips into the building, other fires may ignite. A thermal barrier is required to separate the deck from the insulation to help prevent this from occurring for 15 minutes. An acceptable barrier is tongue and groove wood decking. Tectum is a cementitious wood fiber material and is considered non-combustable. Tongue and groove edges provide a tight fit and could be considered similar to tongue and groove edges of a wood deck. Although tectum edges at the ends of the panels are butt jointed, edges are typically grouted together. At West High School, the existing roof was observed as follows: · Stone ballast over · Membrane roofing material over · Expanded polystyrene insulation (wet) over · Original built-up roof with embedded gravel over · Perlite roof material over · Mastic adhesive over · Tectum deck. Visual inspection of the tectum deck found it to be in good condition. The joints were tight and sealed with grout and additionally with the mastic adhesive. The side joints of the tectum are tongue and groove joints in a back to back upside down "F". The end joints rest on the top flange .J Kempinger Pu1man Architects ~ 2390 State Road 44 - Suite A (920) 235-3310 P.O. BOX 2903 OSHKOSH, WISCONSIN 54904 . FAX (920) 235-4002 of beams. The tops of all tectum joints are sealed with grout and have adhesive on them. The bottom of all tectum joints are set on solid components. The existing conditions, as described above, were not submitted for the City to review. With conditions indicated, it is reasonable to conclude that an equivalent thermal barrier is installed in such a manner that it will remain in place for 15 minutes. This petition for variance is to allow the work on the roof to continue. The tectum joints will remain intact and as much as adhesive as possible will remain before the new roof is to be installed. Thank You. .,! -~ ltCTV IV\ D=-c~ N:"-KPA-OFFICE\Jim\Digital Photos\Oshkosh - West High School Roof\Oshkosh-West-High 005.jpg OR.\6IlJ~ ~ul€' AO~au::o \0 -rGeWt-'\ 1:)EC.~ !L)$IILJr..i1W BEloW f,.{a.t~~ f.A,9J.~IeA~E: 1<eoF (l.) \ 'r\1. ~ 12EMQlJEC otzl61 PAt.. -e,t7IL..T-Of> r<.oor- ~ln\ 8-A.~Dt:>CD 6Q.A.vG"L. '" f N:\_KPA-OFFICE\Jim\Digital Photos\Oshkosh - West High School Roof\Oshkosh-West-High OOB.jpg 1O)..)&e- ~ 6~w\J6 E'I:)6G Or 1C<:!.\t>l-'\ ~~ (ex.~c) ~ ,4D~E ~ 6ROOT ov~ ~ TeC'TUt--{ ~IJ \ ""1<3> 'EOD ~oltJi Ot: MTVI-'\ 012.t6\ ~ kL ~O<::>F\ ~s ~~~\kL.. .I: "" EtvD JoIDTS ~t== Th~J1.' H BE"" A12. 0 to Sot..l D TOP rl..tAt.J66 0 I==" BEArv\ N:\_KPA-OFFICE\Jim\Digital Photos\Oshkosh - West High School Roof\Oshkosh-West-High 011.jpg Eo\'\btJ\ ~tJ66 Ar S\ t>€ '1O~6\)e t 6R.ttkJ6 JOl\.)TS 0F'- 1Ec.ml--\