Indiana Building Code Committee Meeting Minutes
August 21, 2012
Sterrett Center – Lawrence, IN
Participants
Denise Fitzpatrick, Legal & Code Services
Tim Moehl, P.E., Moehl Engineering
T.J. Burns, IFD
Craig VonDeylen, IBA
Ed Rensink, RTM Consultants
Dr. David Kish, Purdue University
Michael Koppes, Purdue University
Jim Markle, South Bend Code Enf. tmoehl@moehleng.com
tj.burns@indy.gov
rensink@rtmconsultants.com
djkish@purdue.edu
Bobby LaRue, Monroe Co. Code Enf. mjkoppes@purdue.edu
blarue@co.monroe.in.us
Ralph Gerdes, Ralph Gerdes Consultants rgerdesconsultants@ameritech.net
jmarkle@southbend.in.gov
craig@deylen.com
Michael Arany, White River Twp F.D. marany@wrtfd.org
Kyle Gottschammer, Lawrence Code Enf. kgottschammer@cityoflawrence.org
Dan Gagen, PDMI dan.gagen@pdm-i.com
Daniel Sheposh, Noblesville Code Enf. dsheposh@noblesville.in.us
Scott Perez
Jeff Dean, City of Indianapolis
Kathy Reynolds
Michael Gentille scott@arxtheon.com
jeff.dean@indy.gov
klreynolds@gmail.com
Michael.gentille@philipchun.us
John Hawkins, Commission john.hawkins@koverthawkins.com
Lonnie Lagle, State Code Enforcement llagle@dhs.in.gov
Tim Puls puls@lilly.com
Dean Illingworth, State Building Commissioner DIllingworth@dhs.in.gov
Dave Zellner
Kent Pinaire
Matthew Brown
Bob Harmeyer d.zellner@jtleng.com
k.pinaire@jtleng.com
mattb-energydiagnostics@hotmail.com
rjh@msktd.com
Summary
1. Denise Fitzpatrick, Chairperson, opened the meeting and issued a sign-in sheet.
Quorum established initially with 14 voting members.
2. Denise introduced Dean Illingworth, State Building Commissioner.
3. TJ asked that it be noted in the July minutes that the fire code committee did not have a vote. Moved by Ralph to approve on that condition, seconded by Mike K.
Motion carried.
4. Discussed Jim Schmidt’s concern about the wording “and located accordingly” in
PC 09-13 that this was not an ascertainable standard. A discussion took place regarding the possibility of adopting local ordinances, that some jurisdictions do not have full time code enforcement at the local level, the pros and cons of the current

“consultation requirement,” and concern about Attorney General review creating a roadblock later in the adoption process. Some wanted more local control over the location, while others felt the current code was adequate. Jeff Dean suggested that we wait until the Fire Code finishes their work. Jim Markle noted that the code should be uniform statewide, but that safety should be the priority. John H. will confer with Jim Schmidt for wording suggestions that prevent ignoring the local fire department after consultation.
5. Discussed carry over amendments in the Draft LSA. a. Discussed carry-over amendment to 1007.3. Motion by Bobby second by
Mike A. to strike amendment 6A, since exception 2 in model code covers this.
Motion carried. b. Discussed carry-over of press-box exception to 1009.7 (stairway construction requirements). After discussion, a motion was made by Mike A. to re-number as section 1009.0.2. Seconded by Dan Sheposh. Motion failed to carry 7-7.
Denise asked for a code change proposal to be submitted. c. Discussed carry over amendment 1012.3. This does not appear to be needed.
Mike K. moved to delete amendment (18), second by Jeff D. Motion carried. d. Motion to keep carry over amendment (22C) regarding seating on platforms, by Ralph, second by Mike K. Carried unanimously. e. Discussed carry over amendment to detectable warning definition. Mike K. moved to delete current amendment and use model code language.
Seconded by T.J. Motion carried. f. Discussed carry over amendment to 1108.2.7.3. Jeff Dean moved to delete amendment (1108.2.6.2.1), seconded by Ed. Motion carried.
6. Brief discussion regarding ANSI A117.1-2009 vs. 2003 version. Dean advised that he, David Hannum, and Jim Greason desired to adopt the updated version of the
Standards. Michael G. has code change proposals addressing this. Denise will review with Mara. Moved by Ralph to use the 2009 A117.1, seconded by Mike K.
Motion carried.
7. PC 03-01: Withdrawn, as determined to be unnecessary. New code addresses accessory use requirements.
8. PC 05-05: Revised code change to clarify that podium construction is still an option. Bobby noted that the word “Table 503” should be amended to say “Section
503,” and change “allowable area” to read “allowable height and area.” Intent is to allow a Type 5 building with an R-2 occupancy to be located at grade and be attached to an otherwise compliant open parking garage, while still being limited to overall height and area if separated by fire barriers. In other words, an overall limit

of 50,000 s.f., within the limits of Section 503 allowable height and area. Jim M. noted that this would be beneficial for re-use of existing buildings. This allows an open parking garage of type IIB to be adjacent to type V, R-2 apartments at grade, and adjacent to and above the parking garage. This would allow small infill lots to be more usable. Ralph noted that the entire building would be required to be sprinklered. Kyle moved to approve as amended, with second by Ed. Motion carried.
15. Discussed PC 02-04 Townhouse definition. Craig noted that IBA is agreeable with the change as approved. The motion strikes the phrase class 1 structure.
16. PC 03-02: Withdrawn. Not needed with approval of 02-05.
17. PC 09-06: Carbon Monoxide alarms. John discussed studies which showed homes had lowest incidence of CO deaths. The greatest number of CO deaths were from suicide and gasoline powered tools, and the total annual number of nonsuicide deaths is in the range of the number of people who die annually falling from trees. Jeff noted that cost should not be the only mitigating factor. Kyle noted that the code required detector was a minimal detector. David Z. noted that death is not the only concern, but also illness. Jim M. noted the ironic fact that there are no statistics regarding the number of lives saved by detectors, and stressed the importance of saving an individual life. Craig noted that poor maintenance causes the risk, and detectors require good maintenance. Lonnie noted that CO detectors have been known to increase false alarms at Thanksgiving due to cooking. Mike A. noted the number of false alarms have decreased in the last 5 years. Motion to table by Jeff, seconded by Lonnie. Motion approved.
18. PC 09-07: Mike K. moved to table, seconded by Craig. Motion approved. (Same issue as 09-06.
19. PC 10-08 Panic Hardware: To be revised to apply to E occupancies only. Moved to table by Bobby, second by Craig. Motion carried.
20. PC-02-06 Add Energy Code to definitions: Ralph moved to approve, seconded by Craig. Motion carried with one absention.
21. PC-07-07: Proposal clarifies when flexible ducts are allowed near fire barriers.
Ed moved to approve. Ralph seconded. Motion carried.
22. PC 07-08: Corrections to shaft duct penetrations to clarify carry over amendments with new code. Cleans up language. Ed moved to approve, second by
Lonnie. Motion carried.
23. PC 07-09: Similar to 07-07, except for fire partitions instead of fire barriers.
Motion by Ralph, seconded by Ed. Motion carried.

24: PC 07-10 Supporting construction: After discussion motion to table for further study by Jim M., second by Ralph.
25. PC 07-11: Supporting construction. Motion to approve by Tim M. second by
Ralph. Motion carried.
26. PC 07-12: Labeling of fire walls and fire barriers above ceilings. Mike A. noted that he has seen many unintentional breaches that could have been prevented by labeling. Some questioned the effectiveness. Others noted that adoption in other jurisdictions has apparently resulted in improved maintenance of the fire rating.
Ralph noted that as written, this would apply to floors in addition to walls. Some questioned the cost impact as underestimated. Tim Puhls said he prefers to rely on life safety drawings, and not markings on walls. He felt the jobsite marking was less reliable. Jeff D. agreed. Bob H. noted that this is standard practice in projects types such as hospitals, and felt the cost was nominal. Kyle pointed out this would only be required in new construction. T.J. felt we should follow the model code, since this is to help firefighters, as well. Mike A. moved to approve, Kyle seconded. Motion carried 7-6. Subsequent motion to approve with the change to add the word
“vertical” before “fire barriers” by Kyle, seconded by T.J., motion carried 7-6.
27. PC 09-21: Furniture stores: Mike A. pointed to a NIST study that points to high fuel loads in group M occupancies with furniture and mattresses. He said these were large, dangerous fires. His proposal limits this to fire areas in M occupancies.
John noted that sprinkler pricing on a recent 7,000 s.f. downtown type VB retail building was around $4 per s.f. including the underground work and main tap. Jeff
Dean’s concern was that the proposal did not distinguish between stores with small fuel loads and stores with large fuel loads. As written, one piece of upholstered furniture would trigger the sprinkler. Mike G. noted high pile storage provisions may apply to some occupancies, for example where mattresses are stored in racks over 12’ high. Suggestions that the wording be changed to “exclusive or predominant inventories.” Craig and Jeff questioned the trigger being too wide open.
Mike A. moved and Craig seconded to approve with wording changed to “. . .used predominantly for the display . . “ Motion carried 8-5.
28. PC 11-01: Amend 1104.4 to state that Elevators are not required in facilities that are three stories or less. Mike G. noted in Chapter 10, elevators are triggered at
4 stories or more. He stated that new ADAAG matches Chapter 10. Jeff noted that legacy Indiana accessibility codes matched ADA, and we should match ADA. Ralph felt ADA clearly requires elevators in 3-story buildings. Mike K. moved to deny.
Michael G. withdrew the proposal.
29. PC 11-02: Fair Housing Act option. Jeff suggested that this be a change to 12-6-
11 of the GAR, and noted that 12-6-11 (12)(d) needs to be updated to current ADA.
Ralph felt that the change should be in the building code, as many designers do not reference the GAR. John noted that the amendment should read “Fair Housing Act, and where applicable, the ADA.” Bobby said he spends about 50 percent of his time

on accessibility review, noting that the requirements are confusing. Motion to approve as amended by Mike K, seconded by Ralph. Mike G. pointed out that the committee may have to adopt the Fair Housing Act as a follow-up and then Indiana would be reviewed for compliance to it by HUD. This is an issue for Mara to review.
Michael G. and Dave Z. asked for a requirement for the designer to declare which path is chosen. John suggested that this be treated as a separate code proposal.
Motion carried 7-5-1.
30. PC 12-01: Delete the requirement for a blower door test. Modify to read, “Delete the second paragraph in its entirety without substitution.” Mike K moved to approve. Jim M. seconded. Motion carried.
31. PC 12-02: Delete reference to building official veto power based on atmospheric conditions. Jim M. moved to approve, second by Mike K. Motion carried.
32. PC 12-03: Withdrawn.
33. PC 14-01: Clerical reference to IECC corrected. Ralph moved to approve, second by Mike K. Motion carried.
34. PC 14-02: Cleans up references to stud backing for stone veneer. Withdrawn.
Model code has addressed this.
35. PC 14-03: Deletes Chapter 17 special inspections for EIFS. Discussed special inspections and Chapter 17. Motion to approve by Bobby with understanding that we are not adopting Chapter 17. Seconded by Mike K. Motion carried.
36. GAR-01: Adopts official interpretation to 12-4-11 (b)(2)(B). Ralph moved to approve. Dan seconded. Motion carried.
37. GAR-02: Deletes 12-4-11(c) regarding sprinkler trigger where alcohol is being served. Archaic language. Motion to approve by Ralph, second by Dan G. Motion carried.
38. GAR -03: Adopts interpretation that small balconies may be added to existing buildings. Concern expressed about difference between deck and balcony. No definition in 2012 code for these terms. Under current code, a balcony is selfsupported, whereas a deck is attached to the building. Ralph moved to approve, second by Mike. Motion carried 7-2-4.
39. GAR -04: Exception to IECC for pre-1978 buildings. Motion carried.
40. GAR-05: Tourist cabin exception: Motion carried with one abstention.
41. PC-15-01 through 15-12: Withdrawn.

42. PC 16-01: Determination of Wind Loads: proposal to revise Indiana amendments to follow model code. Motion by Bobby to approve. Second by Kyle.
Motion carried.
43. PC 16-02: Jeff pointed out ASCE 7-10 has a large errata that has been adopted, that should be adopted by Indiana. Mike K. moved to approve on the condition that
ASCE 7-10 with errata be submitted for code adoption. Motion carried.
44. PC 16-03: Deletes the wind speed column of the chart from the Indiana amendments and uses the model code. Motion to approve by Mike K, seconded by
Mike A, Motion carried.
45. 16-04: Deletes Indiana amendments regarding wind loads and uses model code language. Motion to approve by Bobby, Mike K, carried.
46. 16-05: Brings forward and clarifies the loading analysis of existing buildings.
Motion to approve by Dan G., seconded by Mike K. Motion carried.
47. 16-06 and 16-07: Brings forward and clarifies seismic loading requirements.
Mike K. asked for time to review with Purdue’s Engineering Group. Motion to table by Mike K. second by Dan G. Motion carried.
48. 16-08: Withdrawn.
49. ANSI-01: Ambulatory stalls, 2009 ANSI A117.1 After discussion, moved to accept by Ralph, Mike K. seconded. Motion carried.
50. ANSI-02: Deletes Visitability requirements (Type C), due to fiscal impact: After discussion, Bobby moved to approve, second by Ralph. Motion carried.
51. ANSI-03: Deletes the chapter regarding recreation, due to fiscal impact. Motion to approve by Bobby, seconded by Dan G. Motion carried.
52. PC_11-03: Deletes Indiana amendment referencing accessible units. Language is not consistent with ANSI A117, Type A unit. Motion to accept by Ralph, second by
Mike K. Motion carried.
53. PC 05-06: Adds use group E to the one-story unlimited area section, consistent with the current code. Motion to approve by Ralph, second by Mike K. Motion carried with one nay.
54. Discussed Photovoltaic section of Fire Code. Fire Code committee wants this In the Building Code. David Kish argued that the GAR covers this as a new electrical service. The GAR covers any rooftop structures. Electric code already covers the electrical component. Mike G. said some roof systems have integral photovoltaic

panels. Concern is risk of shock to firemen trying to vent the roof. That appears to be an issue for the Fire Code. Tabled for discussion at next meeting.
Next Meeting is Tuesday September 18.
Prepared by,
John A. Hawkins, AIA