Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1995S .wd; l 1��,►R ��Ji�1 d K � }+i �'� • ff 4 a r ,� ,y;• 14r'I i k. t �-sy ri •�.y2i`.: � ii ,. r brMUTES PROPERTY SERVICES BOARD TUESDAY, MARCH 149 1"S EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 2404 MEMBERS PRESENT: P. Siegal, J. Twombly, T. Rosengren, L. Blair, A. Graff MEMBERS ABSENT: J. Ridd, D. Jeffers STAFF PRESENT: C. Smith OTHERS PRESENT: Quentin Bruhn, Gabor Zsolnay, Jeremy Wilmm of Northwestern University and Louis Hartman of Harley Ellington Pierce Yee Associates, Inc. Chairman Blair declared a quorum and called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. Chairman Blair asked for a motion to approved the minutes from the meeting of October 11, 994. Graff motioned approval, which was seconded by Twombly and unanimously approved (6-0). DISMISSION Chairman Blair recommends to the Board that they change the order of the agenda to hear the New Business items before the Communications. This was agreed to by the Board. NEW BUSMffM Quentin Bruhn introduces the people in attendance. Mr. Bruhn briefs the Board on the Technological Institute reconstruction project. It is a 9-Phase project, that began in 1990. The project is to bring the Technological Institute in the current cra of technology. The University seeks relief from the requirements of the 1990 BOCA Plumbing Code, as it relates to the plumbing future calculations. They propose to use only the State of Illinois Plumbing Code for these calculations, and not use the BOCA Plumbing Code. Mr. Bruhn distributes a package of information with regard to the project, including occupancy information. 1•Ls➢d. raLd.�.��r....F �._. w�Y .� SAW .!I —a .Yl �.�iWtaYii<teu uEwaYYrJ .. r PROPERTY SERVICES BOARD Meeting Minutes - 3114/95 Page 2 Mr. Bruhn goes on to say that the Architect's calculations of the fixture count, based on the BOCA Plumbing Code, would result in a "somewhat onerous number of fixtures" based on the use. Inn building of this size, this is a major issue. Mr. Bruhn goes through the handout, coming that the majority of square is dedicated to h?boratory use (245,694 3S1) . Assembly and office space accounts for a majority of the other space. Then, Mr. Bruhn then goes through the Tech. Institute population calculations, indicating the total population is somewhere around 3,070 people. These are reasonable estimates based on enrollment, payroll, and also the programming portion of the reconstruction project. The actual population is difficult to calculate without turnstyles at all the doors. Tom Rosengren questioned if other populations beside those of Tech, would be using the facility. Yes, but they are very transient in nature, coming into the building for maybe one class for example. Mr. Zsolnay comments that the entire population of the student bossy at the Evanston campus is 12,000. Some discussion ensued regarding the populations using the building. Mr. Hartman states that all of the BOCA Codes use populations based on the tables in the Building Code, which are geared toward life safety concerns, as opposed to plumbing needs. John Twombly questions what is required at other universities, such as the University of Chicago, for example. Mr. Zsolnay responds that the Chicago Building Code is in effect there. Twombly asks how does the Chicago Code compare to the BOCA or Illinois Codes with regard to plumbing fixtures? Peter Siegal responds that in his experience, it is less than BOCA, but more than Illinois and that they have exempted themselves from using the State Plumbing Code. Mr. Hartman states that in calculating the number of plumbing fixtures that one needs for this building, following the Illinois Plumbing Code table, and you could work backward and have 1 fixture for every 40 persons, based on the current fixture count and the total estimated population. Mr. Hartman continues, this is a multiphased project, currently Phase 5 is under construction and they are in the planning of Phase 6. Today the Building has 176 water closets and urinals. This has :;erved the building adequately for the last 50 years, probably because many of the student population is in and out of the building. Based on the current demographics, the codes are adjusting to allow for more women's fixtures in all use groups. Northwestern is planning a very significant increase in the women's facilities. About SO women's water closets are proposed to be added. - Peter Siegal asks if they are having any problems getting the distribution of the plumbing fixtures that the Code requires. Mr. Hartman responds that the highest concentration of people is on the first floor, and in Phase 6 planning, they are locating the majority of new fixtures there. He cannot fully respond, as the future Phases are not yet in planning. saw ti _� a fr�areoi�`ri_ui 3I uY�IGtl�I - - „. l,r .. i . -` PROPERTY SY.R'IIICEB BOARD Meeting Minutes - 3/14195 Page 3 Mr. Wilson Appeals to the Boards senst of reasonableness. 'There is no provision in the Codes for a "rcaidential university". The sted_nts have a residence, a union, a library, etc. Each time we build a building, of ccwrm, we mat consider the population and provide toilets. We are not asking for finawlal relief. We would like to actually spend more money on laboratories, not on toilets that will not be used. Tech. Institute contains about 8 lecture rooms. When you look at the number of seats In those rooms, you have in enormous number of seats. The classes in those rooms never fills those rooms, The California standard for use of any classroom, which they never achieve, but would like to achieve, is 80% occupancy of a seat, and 60% of time used. If you multiply that out, it results in approximately half of the seats being used at any given time. At a university like Northwestern, where they tolerate their facility not teaching from 8 am. through S pm., so the best we can achieve is 60% of the seats occupied, 44% of the time. It is very, very seldom that there would be anything approaching the number of people that the codes imply. The student body uses the facilities quite differently, than say an office employee who is in one place for 8 hours a day. It is an absolute rarity that anyone of us encounter more than I other user in any toilet room in Tech currently. Northwestern is asking for the Boards reasonableness in allowing only the use of the Illinois Code, which requires an increase of 50%, is a reasonable standard. 'fhe BOCA Code would double it, If you would agree, then the Building Department could allow us to use only the Illinois Plumbing Code. If these toilets were in demand, we would certainly be willing to comply, but we do not feel the need is there. The Department would prefer to use that square footage for research and educational functions. Chairman Blair questions if the University is basically saying that the University will never obtain full capacity. Mr. Zsoinay confirms that this is the case. They do not anticipate substantial growth. Between 1968 and now, the student population grew approximately by approximately 1,000 students. The chart presented represents the final total number of fixtures when all phases are complete. Mr. Wilson states that the Northwestern's undergraduate population has the highest percentage of women in engineering in the country, so the code required increase in facilities for women is desirable. Siegal respond.% that the Illinois Plumbing Code was developed as `a minimum standard for those areas of the State that do not choose to adopt their own code. Evanston has adopted a Code that is more stringent, but the way in which it is written is clearly not appropriate for the occupancy when one considers plumbing fixtures, as opposed to means of egress. R en motions to approve the appeal to use the State of Illinois Plumbing Code only, and not use the 1990 BOCA Plumbing Code specifically for the determination the number of plumbing fixtures. This Is motion is based upon the occupancy load tables in the BOCA Plumbing Code as being inappropriate for this occupancy. This motion was seconded by Slegal and unanimously approved (M) - +. y , ■ PROPERTY SERVICES BOARD • Meeting Minutes - 3/14/95 Pale 4 With regard to amending the Rules of Procedure to include public notification, the discussion centered around who would be notified. Chairman Blair suggested that the staff indicate or give a recommendation to the Board about who should be notified in each case. C. Smith suggested that this would present the potential for delays in the time frame in which the appeals could take place. Siegal suggested that if the Board is required to respond back to staff by a certain date with their individual opinions of who should be notified, the Board would not be acting as a Board, but as individuals. tt should be voted upon for the decision to be a Board decision. The Board commented that it was really in the first case, of the chair lift, that the Board felt that notification would have been helpful. The other 4 cases that the Board has heard, notification would not have been critical. The idea of the notification is to eliminate the hardship of applicants having to reappear if the Board felt that the notification was critical to the case. Chairman Blair stated that with the issue of notification, it is apparent that we cannot come up with a simple answer to this question. Each case varies considerably. The consensus of the Board is that if the Board feels that notification is required, the Board will decide at the meeting who should be notified, and by what means. There being no other business, the Board motioned for adjournment at 9:25 p.m.. The next meeting of the Property Services Board is scheduled for Tuesday, April 10, 1995, at 7:30 p.m., in Room 2404 of the Evanston Civic Center. Carolyn Smith, Assistant Director, Building Division Community Development Department cc: J. Wolinski S. Janusz W ■ uui Ali r .r rl. it . u rr rr •r4 .. Y. . ui i� u... r. YW r .�Y rW -7}�i�ae� � t�. '�;. e SL'�..ti�' � •.y;; .'Cr;. ;., � =.lr DRAFT NOT ApPROV -D M0[N`U TES PROPERTY SERVICES BOARD TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 199S EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 2404 MEMBERS PRESENT: P. Siegal, J. Twombly, L. Blair, A. Graff, D. Jeffers MEMBERS ABSENT: J. RWd, T. Rosengren STAFF PRESENT: C. Smith OTHERS PRESENT: Steven R. Johnson- President and attorney for Epsilon Omega Corporation, William Glastris, Jr. - Treasurer Epsilon Omega Corporation, Cary A. Jacobson - Architect, CAJA, Ltd. Chairman Blair declared a quorum and called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm. A. Graff requests clarification of the meeting minutes of March 14, 1995. She states that the last sentence of the last paragraph on' page 4 should read "if notification is required, the matter will be continued ` pending notification. The Board will decide at the meeting who should be notified and by what means." D. Jeffers also wishes to clarify that he was not in attenda= at the meeting of 3/14/95, and requests that the minutes reflect that fact. A. Graff motions that the minutes of 3/14/95 be accepted with the above amendments. The motion is seconded by P. Siegal and unanimously approved.(5-0) PSR 925-02 620 Lincoln Architect Cary Jacobson presents the case. He states that the building was constructed in 1968 of a poured concrete frame with concrete block interior partitions. The exterior is limestone and i precast concrete. Mr. Jacobson presents building sections and floor plans, colored to delineate 3 the construction materials. He states that the 1st floor is 1/2 level below grade and the second floor is 112 level above grade. There is also a 3rd floor. He indicates that with this project, no _ walls defining any spaces have changed from the original plan. On the 3rd floor, a revision to the location of the end of a corridor has change, but this is an improvement to the length of the corridor. Aside from this, no other changes have been made. The Board inquires about the building "link" to the west. Mr. Jacobson responds that it is another fraternity house, built at the same time, with a common open area at the third floor and common mechanical space below, The Board asks if the adjacent building has been sprinklered. Mr. - �'-rr�„a-'4.-.x $�'li�+i Property Services Board Meeting Minutes - 8/8/95 Page 2 Jacobson responds that to his knowledge, it has not been sprinklered and he does not believe any changes have been made to that building. Mr. Jacobson goes on to say that the work that is being done at Psi Upsilon is being done to improve. the building from a safety standpoint. It is remedial work. Neglected maintenance on mechanical systems, replacement of broken plumbing futures, a new kitchen exhaust system, replacement of some of the stair risers and nosings where they were corroded, etc. Chairman Blair comments that it sounds like alot of work is being done and he questions how much money is in the scope of the project? Mr. Jacobson responds that the contract amount is for $314,000.00, although there are a few extras from the contractor. J. Twombly comments that much of the work appears as differed maintenance, and at this point, the City is saying that a sprinkler system would be required? P. Siegal states that from a use standpoint, it appears that you changed a student room to a library on the third floor. Are you changing any other spaces? Mr. Jacobson responds no, the impetuous for the project was maintenance. A. Graff comments that the scope of the work appears to be more than just housekeeping. At this'point, the Treasurer of the organization, Mr. William Glastris, introduces himself to the Board. Mr. Glastris states that he lived at the house during 1978-1982 and knows what the conditions were like. The building needed repairs even then, and they had to defer this for years based on lack of money. It is only now that the financial aspects are such that the house is finally in a position to accomplish these repairs. D. Jeffers questions if the house has been cited by the _ City? Mr. Glastris responds no, only for this requirement. Northwestern University has a staff that is dedicated to life safety issues. Mr. John Jacoby of NU was responsible for the installation a few years ago, of the automatic Fire Alarm system. P. Siegal questions what are the locations of the automatic detection devices and if the system is monitored? Mr. Jacobson responds that there are smoke detectors in all public spaces and pull stations at exits. Mr. Glastris states that the system sends a signal to an off site location, 24-hours a day. A. Graff states that smoke _ detectors can be tricky. Mr. Glastris responds that is a good point, with 18-20 year olds smoking, you tend to get some false alarms. P. Siegal states that in a residential use, smoke detection is the best type of early notification to have. Chairman Blair questions what problem does Psi Upsilon have with the installation of fire suppression sprinklers? Mr. Steven Johnson, President of Psi Upsilon responds that the organization simply does not have the funds available. Mr. Glastris adds that about S years ago, they came close to being insolvent. The organization would have gone bankrupt had the University not stepped in to loan them additional money. Chairman Blair asks if the University is aware of the requirement for sprinklers by the City. Yes, the University knows the situation. Psi Upsilon maintains a good relationship with the University. -MR., ... r �.4 xfl4t y 4,ra t J,' 1 property Services DoRrd Meeting Minutes - 818/95 Page 3 Mr. Jacobson states that he has signed and sealed the drawings, and if he felt in any way that this was not safe, he would not have been able to do that. He can honestly say that he does not think that this building is unsafe. Mr. Glastris and Mr. Johnson echoed this remark, and said that they would also be liable if any accident were to occur based on their negligence. A. Graff asks if with this work, are any of the ceilings being effected such that this is an opportunity that might not exist in the future. Mr. Jacobson responds that most of the ceilings are currently painted, exposed concrete, P. Siegal comments that there is no question that the installation of a sprinkler system would be preferred by everyone. C. Smith comments that it is the City's position to require current standards be met when extensive work is being done. It is the Boards decision tonight to determine if the work being done is extensive. A. Graff states that this work is more than standard maintenance, and that fire suppression sprinklers should be included in the program for life safety's sake. Chairman Blair asks if there is any point in the future at which time the organization would consider installing such a system. Mr. Jacobson responds that they will not have to do any further work on the building for another 30 years, and whatever is required at that time, they would be required to do. But, Mr. Jacobson continues, the Code is clear that such a system is not required at this time. I worked on another project several years ago, approximately $1.3 million, and it was a complete "gut". There was no question that we would be installing a suppression system in that project. Approximately 1 112 years later, we did another somewhat smaller project, approximately $200,000, where the subject never came up. Mr. Jacobson states that he is not against sprinklers, but he just does not think that his cloents are obligated to provide them at this time. Mr. Jacobson proceeds to go through the aspects of BOCA Article 32 for the members of the Board. After this, Chairman Blair comments that he doesn't believe the structure is unsafe, but if the system were to be installed and it would even save one life, it would be worth it. Mr. Johnson says that unfortunately, money does have to play a role in this decision. Mr. Jacobson reiterates that the purpose of this appeal is to ensure that all aspects have been considered. Chairnaart Blair inquires what the cost of the installation would be? Mr. Jacobson responds that a rough estimate would be $70.000. It could go as high as $100,000 if a new water servim would -_ - .. --- .. - - - - � -,-- -. -.„ -. r n. - -n e-u .,., _ . -ntr.�•r.r �.�Y'F+-ir.«.-nr-.-+-'r.-�-h "tip,-,.-rr—��•i. .- Property Services Board R' Wing Mutes - 8/8195 Page 4 be required as well. P. Siegal reiterates that there is no question that a sprinkler system would be an added life safety feature. At this point, A. Grab motions to deny the appeal. D. Jeffers seconds the motion. D. Jeffers states that when you review BOCA Article 32, it does give the Code Official authority to use judgement. This is a single tenant building. It does not have the opportunities that some other buildings have. That opportunity being at the time of the change of a tenant, they are continually able to update. The first inclination is that when you have the opportunity to install a system, you do it. But, I do understand the surprise in finding out a system will be required. Although, with the type of work that you are doing, its hard to imagine that some consideration wasn't given. J. Twombly comments that the City is sending out the wrong message with this requirement. They should be encouraging improvements. Although, in 1968-69, Twombly was in a fraternity when 2 people died. It was then that the University mandated sprinklers, A. Graff states that this is her point, she does not want a tragedy to happen and act afterward. People are sleeping and this is a preventive measure. Having beard all discussion, Chairman Blair calls for the vote of the motion to deny the appeal. D. Jeffers, A. Graff, and P. Siegal voted in favor, with L. Blair and 1. Twombly voting against the motion. The motion passes by a majority vote of 3-2, and the appeal is denied. C. Smith stated that there is a case pending for the September meeting, which will take place on September 12, 1995. A. Graff stated that she will not be able to attend that meeting. There being no other business, the Board motioned for adjournment at 9:10 p.m.. The next meeting of the Property Services Board is scheduled for Tuesday, September 12, 1995, at 7:30 p.m., in Roo 104 of the Evanston Civic Center. Carolyn Smith, Assistant Director, Building Division Community Development Department cc: J. 'Wolinsld, S. Janusz MINUTES %, PROPERTY SERVICES BOARD TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 12,1"5 EVANSTON CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 2403 MEMBERS PRESENT: P.Siegal, L. Blair, I Twombley, J. Rixkf, T. Rosengren ve MEMBERS ABSENT: D. Jeffers, A. Graff STAFF PRESENT: B. Fahlstrom OTHERS PRESENT Jeremy Wilson - Northwestern University Gabor M. Zsoinay - Northwestern University James Koolish - Northwestern University Craig Smith - Griskellis and Smith Architects Ltd. a MINUTES Chairmann, Blair declared a quorum and called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Chairman Blair tasks for questions on the minutes. There are no questions. Chairman Blair motions for approval of the Minutes and T. Rosengren seconds the motion which is approved unanimously (5-0). Chairman Blair states that no one could tell if the Board would achieve a full quorum for this meeting because there is no procedure in place to verify what Board Members will actually be in attendance for a given meeting. Chairman Blair states that maybe die City should place a confirmation call with all of the members of the Board before a meeting; to make sure who will be in attendance. B. Fahlstrom, states that he will review th_ possibility of implementing this procedure with C.Smith and J. Wolinski. Chairman Blair adds that perhaps the Beard size should be increased to 9 members which would famish a larger pool of prospective attending members so that a quorum would be easily attained on a regular basis. P. Siegal stated that the policy of a confirmation phone call should be implemented. NEW B LS SS PS)D #95-03: Lunt -Hall Jeremy Wilson of Northwestern University presents the case. He tells the history of Lunt Hall including its Landmark status as well as the fact that the building is fully sprinkled. He states that the University is performing a needed renovation of the 2nd floor offices to accommodate the needs of the Math Department this renovation will result in several improvements to the overall safety of the building including improved access to the existing fare escapes. However, the City's request for reconfigured exterior exit stairs in lieu of the existing fire escapes is well outside of the project's intended budget or scope of work. =J 7 4-5 16IuuIN, i iY N Wn'I'NiAh Ai IN i6WL wn u.J"AlI. ON a Jl,#Ak IdwW iiwWYr ,em1liiW 10W,Y.rr /V� "1 hy.t A� Pri (A��T f�jL��i! ..- 1 � i _ i� '.Y Y. � � Il�j..:�"•i�L�tY- 'Z v!'•�•, .. - � - _� r r 'rl Zvi r' a �P •.� •�.. ,�.•. Property Services Board Meeting Minutes - W12145 Page 2 to He also states his concern that replacing the existing stairs with new exterior stairs could bring the University into conflict with The requirements of the Preservation Commission if all of the requirements of the BOCA Code must be met. In conclusion, he states Northwestem believes that with the existing sprinkler system the building is safe and that the University would like relief from the City requirements for new exterior stairs. Craig Smith from Griskellis and Smith provides further elaboration concerning the code problems with the existing fire escapes, as well as a summation of the project budget. C. Smith states that the scope of the interior renovation will leave 50 % of the existing 2nd floor partitions standing and that mechanical improvements constitute a large portion of the budget. The new exterior stairs might cost as much as 5175,000 which appears to be a disproportionate major expense compared with the overall budget of S400,000 for the entire project. C. Smith then reviewed the floor plan of the existing building including the location of the fire escapes. Chairman Blair then asked C. Smith if he had taken the occupant load factor in account at the beginning of the project and was the original intent of the project to keep the existing fire escapes and interior stair without any modifications to this existing non -conforming exiting condition. C. Smith replies that Northwestern University and his ofice was aware that the existing fire escapes did not meet Code but their intent was to incorporate Code improvements into the renovation. These Code improvements include : new electrical wiring, illuminated exit signs, battery backup fighting, a new area of refuge. Chairman Blair notes that there were many extra code related items in the scope of the project, what is so difficult about adding new exterior stairs ? C.Smith restates his argument about the projected cost of the new exterior stairs being .. disproportionately large compared to the total cost of the renovation. Also, this renovation does not entail any change of use. P. Siegal asks if the fire escape located at the north side of Lunt Hall uses the low roofed portion at the rear of the building as part of its exit path? What is the parapet height ? C. Smith reviews the height of the parapet walls at this location. T. Rosengren queries are the existing fire escapes structurally sound? C. Smith replies that yes the stairs are structurally soured but they do not meet certain requirements of the NFPA Life Safety Code because they use diamond bar treads, and the stair tread and riser ratio is too steep. i - - �i -„r' e Y �t Z` 11- 'ri •—/.f "Irin'�Mfrl'iY/�iiN'!'�',.�ry"'i�yF'1�"11I.*�.ww.weiii n''r'^",• . Property Services Board Meeting Minutes • 9/12/95 Page 3 P. Siegal asks if Northwestern is forced to add the exterior stairs what are the implications to the building's exterior ? C. Smith replies that the following conditions would have to be met: these include 44" wide stairs, foundations for the stair structure, less fligm effect as the stairs would be bulkier and larger. At this time, J. Rizki stated that he was a friend and acquaintance of Craig Smith as they have known each other through meeting at organized activities for their children. He asked if the Board felt he should be reclused ? It was the opinion of the Board at this time that J. Rizki did not have a conflict of interest and that he should participate fully in the meeting. J. Rizki queried if it was the City who bestowed Landmark status upon Lunt Hall, were there any economic tradeoffs for this Landmark status that might come into play at this time? Jeremy Wilson stated, that Lunt Hall was designated as a Landmark by the City without Northwestcm,s consent. He added that the building cannot be tort down without the approval of The Preservation Commission. J. Rizki queries that if The City is the governing body requiring landmark status, then perhaps there is some kind of trade-off between the continued status of Lunt hall as a landmark and relief from the City's Code requirements in this case. At this time, Gabor Zsolnay from Northwestern University introduces himself to the Board. G. Zsolnay states that Northwestern university is committed to quality Historic Preservation and that the reasons for seeking relief for Lunt Hall from the City's code requirements are 30% economics driven and 70% aesthetics driven. It will be very hard to design new exterior stairs that meet code, are appropriate, and could be approved by The Preservation Commission. Furthermore, the old fire escapes conformed to the code at the time they were built _ and an occupant inside of the building could always use the open interior stair in an emergency. P. Siegal agrees that the old interior wood stair could be used in an emergency as a matter of common sense. He notes however, that the existing north fire escape is problematic and that the dead end corridor is design problem. G. Zsolnay notes that the issue at hand is to apply common sense when considering these code =s questions. He further notes, that the actual occupancy will be 20-25 occupants using the building on average at any given time as opposed to the occupant load calculation based on BOCA Tables of 70 occupants. T. Rosengren asks if the University is planning t reduce the occupant load for the building ? C. Smith replies that the occupant load will remain approximately the same after the renovation. IL.WII Y.,, 9Y 1Y�uW WYIW+M �Y.. J�L��YJIIE i�w dYl d.. e i AIJ,IYIN.i.jY.• u'N ,N ��a..,ua, u e w� yri, n w w. W a. • w w ■ '�r,{�3, :N 'f}'i.I'Ali ." :l f.Z� •. 'i•�_`7 'i��Y"^, ,F(���� .¢� _ _ —`'s e>: ''�. '!.�4 t �,R,_t f k .:1'',~t!e ;E ., c Wi v+.A��-�.r5'^��F7t d-!�•>!;7 Property Services Board Meeting Minutes - 9/12/95 +. Page 4 J. Twombly asks how is this case different from the former Northwestern case (#95-02 - 620 Lincoln - Epsilon Omega where he Hoard voted to make Northwestern University add a Life Safety item to that renovation project. Chairman Blair responds that there is no difference, but in this case, the building in question is a Landmark and that is a consideration. P. Siegal queries if a roof covering for the proposed exterior stairs is required as it might pose an aesthetic or historic preservation problem. B. Fahlstrom states that the City does not require an exterior stair to have a roof covering as long as the stair is an open grate landing and tread design. The open grating is seen by the City as an effective means of dissipating accumulated snow buildup whereas a roof covering may not be effective if the snow is blowing at a steep angle. Chairman Blair notes that Northwestern has provided these kind of stairs in the past J. Wilson notes that the project budget for Lunt Hall is much smaller in this case than say University Hall where exterior stairs were modified. J. R,izki states that he is still very concerned with the historical Preservation Issue. What should the applicant do if the Property Service Board requires new exterior stairs but The Preservation Commission rejects their design for the new exterior stairs ? Jeremy Wilson states that if they must build these exterior stairs then they will need assistance with The Preservation Commission so that a reasonable solution may be achieved. Will the Property Services Board help us if we reach an impasse with The Preservation Commission? J.Rizki adds that maybe The Property Services Board should confer with the Preservation Commission concealing this building. Chainnan Blair replies that this is a Code decision which is the responsibility of the Property services Board. J. Riz i replies that if this building has high -- preservation significance maybe we should negotiate and trade -off Preservation versus Code concerns. Gabor Zsolnay restates that the issue is aesthetics and not a major renovation. J. Twombly notes that this case deserves a stricter interpretation than the previous Northwestern case. T, Rosengren states that he doesn't have a clear idea of a voting direction in this case. If The Board gives Northwestern their approval and an accident happens the Board would be on the hot seal However, economics is an issue because it will cost Northwestern more to arrive at an appropriate solution. T. Rosengren adds that a compromise solution might be appropriate in this case. P. Siegal disagrees. J. Twombly states that based on the last Northwestern case The Board should be consistent with that decision. ��• J��yuYY i��Y i•41,J on ,iiY MI• .• i .M i y "sr •+_" --'. s.�... .'� IV Property Services Board Meeting Minutes - 9/12195 Page 5 Craig Smith states once again that the proposed renovation will include many Code improvements. If this renovation were not taking place Lunt Hall could remain unchanged in terms of code compliance for the next 50 years. Chairman Blair and J. Twombly discuss the consistency issue with regard to the previous Northwestern Case. At the end of the discussion Chairman Blair notes that each case must be judged on it's individual merits. Chairman Blair also queries Ilic Board that if they don't have enough information perhaps they should table the issue. P. Siegal notes that the City of Evanston needs to work with The Board for the salte of consistency if The Board votes to require the new exterior stairs. Craig Smith adds that Northwestern would be willing to provide more sprinklers at the interior stair. P. Siegal states that he is very concerned about the existing fire escapes. He notes that he has reviewed other fire escape problems in the past, and that fire escapes are like ships ladders in that they require real agility to use especially, in a panic situation. P. Siegal then states that he wishes there was a compromise solution however, he moves for denial of Nlorthwestern's appeal for relief from the BOCA Code with the stipulation that this case would be open to re -review. If Northwest rn cannot satis f the Prese ation Commis on with a daign for new exterior stain the z Boarder V+tould then meet Jo work out a iointhniltu l solution, J. Rizki states that he would be satisfied with this solution. P. Siegal motion is seconded and passed by The Property Services Board unanimously. There being no other business the Board motioned for adjournment at 9:00 P.M. Robert Fahlstrom, Coordinating Inspector, Building division Community Development Department CC. J. Wolinski, S. Janusz q AW YII c _..lei J _ 'YuW Y�",�•, IrrJYs Jr,il ii.L'�IL �.y li„1l):r�r.� nip�7 ,r,`d..^_' �Y"K+'ti�Y '�'i�Te -