City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Building Construction Codes Commission

Conference Room 1C

Monday, January 22, 2024

4:30 PM

I. CALL TO ORDER

CALL TO ORDER

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: We are calling the Building

Construction Code Commission to order. This is the

January 22, 2024 meeting.

I'm going to call roll, and I'm going to do the

best I can. So I'm going to go ahead and say

because there are ten of us, everybody is voting,

so there's no question about that as we go around

the room. So, Mr. Weber?

MR. WEBER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: You are here and you are

voting. Kyle Sanders.

MR. SAUNDERS: Saunders. Here.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Saunders. Sorry. You are

here. Rob Jackson?

MR. JACKSON: Yes.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Yes. Brian Connell is here.

Jonathan Trunk.

MR. TRUNK: Here.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Rick Shanker?

MR. SHANKER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Scott Wallace?

MR. WALLACE: Here.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Kas Carlson is.

MR. CARLSON: Yes.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: John Page?

MR. PAGE: Here.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Doug Muzzy.

MR. MUZZY: Here.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: All right. Ten accounted for.

10 -

9 -

Present:

Kas Carlson, Brian Connell, Robert Jackson, Douglas Muzzy, Richard Shanker,

David Weber, Jonathan Trunk, John Page, Scott Wallace and Kyle Saunders

Excused:

Jay Creasy, Fred Malicoat, Matthew Young, John Neyens, Christopher Howe, Ray

Kaisher, Trevor Kilgore, William DeYoung and Jim Dove

II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: I need a motion and/or a second

for approval of the agenda. Has everybody had a

chance to review the agenda for this evening?

MR. PAGE: Motion to approve.

MR. CARLSON: Second.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: We have a motion and a

second. All in favor say aye.

Any opposed, say nay. (Unanimous voice vote for

approval) All right.

Hearing none, the agenda is approved.

Motion to approve.

III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: These are from the meeting on

December 18. I know everybody had a chance to read

these in detail.

MR. PAGE: Motion for approval.

MR. CARLSON: Second.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: We have a motion and a second.

All in favor of approving the minutes, say aye.

All opposed, say nay? (Unanimous voice vote for

approval. Hearing none, those are approved.

Motion for approval.

Attachments: Meeting Minutes 12-18-23

IV. NEW BUSINESS

Attachments: Storage Units-Sprinkler System-4501 Peabody Rd

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: We move right into our public

hearing, which is titled Storage Unit Sprinkler

System, 4501 Peabody Road. Commissioners may

remember that we heard this -- this appeal in the

last meeting, and the appeal was denied based on

the way it was presented. The applicants -- I'm

summarizing here -- have dropped back, worked with

staff, and came back with an amended appeal, which

I am going to read.

So -- and this is lengthy and I apologize.

Notice of Appeal from the decision of code official

in regard to the following described property in

the City of Columbia, County of Boone, State of

Missouri, legally described as Lot 2A1 of Ewing

Industrial Park, Plat 2A, and known as 4501 Peabody

Road. Applicants request a variance or a ruling

with respect to the above described property.

On the 2nd day of November, code official

disapproved the continued construction of a

multiple self-service storage mini-storage

buildings after the permit was issued.

The reason he gave for such action was that plan

reviewers overlooked the proper application of

Section 903.2.9, item number 5. IFC

interpretation 20-14 attached of Section 903.2.9

requires self-storage facilities to be sprinklered

in an area that is larger than 2,500 square feet

due to potential storage of upholstered furniture

and mattresses. A copy of said notice -- of notice

to said official was hereto attached. The basis

for this appeal as permitted by the International

Building Code is adopted by the City of Columbia

is, and the box that is checked is undue hardship

was created by strict appliance of the letter of

the code and has no significant effect on the

health, safety and welfare of the public or any

individual. And then it says attached a cost

estimate for hardship encountered. Applicant is

requesting a variance or a ruling or both in the

way of carrying out the strict letter of the code

because building permits were issued and

construction had commenced before this

interpretation was brought to light. The water line

has been installed already and may not support the

flow required to fully sprinkler the building.

Applicant is proposing installation of a partial

sprinkler system per Section 4.1.2.1

of NFBA 13 Sprinkler System would be located in

the hallways only. The owner would also be willing

to install heat and smoke vents in the roof per IBC

910.3.3. The code does not require these vents for

this occupancy and size of building, but would

increase the health, safety, and welfare of the

first responders. The name of the applicant is

Andrew Marcy. The name of the business is

Missouri Self-Storage, LLC, addressed at 1495 Old

Highway 40, Columbia, Missouri. Unless there are

any questions, the applicant has the floor, and I

guess that we need to swear in anybody.

(The Court Reporter swears in the applicants.)

MR. TEGARDINE: So as stated in the

application, the building permits were issued in

this somewhat of a phased permitting process due

to some other issues that were brought to light

during the permitting process. So the buildings

were permitted originally. And then it was

determined that we weren't in compliance with the

IFC interpretation for this type of mini-storage

facility needing a sprinkler system

of this size. So we were here a month ago

requesting that construction be allowed to

continue as originally permitted without any

automatic sprinkler systems. Today we're here

proposing to partially sprinkler the building as

indicated in the application. Yeah. I'm kind of

hashed through this quite extensively the last

time we were here. I don't know what else to add

to this conversation that we haven’t already had.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: So, Jason, to be clear,

you are proposing to install sprinkler systems

throughout the hallways?

MR. TEGARDINE: Correct.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: And then you are proposing

to install heat and smoke vents per the section of

the IFC?

MR. TEGARDINE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Okay. Can you elaborate

on where you would install the smoke vents?

MR. TEGARDINE: The section of the code

requires them to be evenly distributed throughout

the roof area, and there's a minimum area required

for those vents. So the intent would be that they

be equally spaced throughout their opening area.

MR. PAGE: For those of us that don't know,

can you tell us about the smoke vents; what do

they do? What are they and so forth?

MR. TEGARDINE: So there are openings in the

roof that would be controlled via tube link, so

if there's heat detected, they open to release

that heat, and the build-up of the smoke in the

event. I guess they are kind of represented in

this plan with the dashed rectangles, so they're

mostly in the multiple -- the hallway areas.

MR. PAGE: I see them there. Got you.

MR. TEGARDINE: So what we're proposing is

that sprinkling be the hashed area, the hallways

of the enclosed portion of the storage facility,

and then installing the vents in that area, as

well.

MR. PAGE: I was wondering if maybe we could

hear from the fire department.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Do you want to make that

part of the question?

MR. PAGE: Yeah. If the fire department, if

they can tell us about - I’m not familiar with it.

MR. BAUER: With the heat smoke vents?

MR. PAGE: Yeah.

MR. BAUER: My question with the smoke vents

in relationship to the sprinkler system is what

type of sprinkler systems are going to be

installed?

MR. TEGARDINE: They would be a NFBA 13 system.

MR. BAUER: So what type of sprinkler heads

will be used; fusable links or --

MR. TEGARDINE: Fusible links would be the

intent there.

MR. BAUER: So the trigger for a fusible link

is heat, so if you're -- if you are allowing that

heat to escape, the sprinkler system is not going

to go off unless your fusible link is set off

higher than the sprinkler at temperature.

MR. TEGARDINE: Correct. The code section

for the heat and vents section deals with that by

requiring a higher temperature for that -- that

fusible link on the vents so that, theoretically,

the sprinkler system would be set off before the

vents are opened.

MR. BAUER: Okay. And that sprinkler system

is going to be suppressing any fires that's in the

hallway?

MR. TEGARDINE: That is the only location that

the sprinkler has to be located, yes.

MR. MARCY: Andrew Marcy. Also the sprinklers

is hitting the corridors to separate, and it -- it

implements essentially creating a fire barrier to

prevent the spread, breaking up each section less

than 2,500 square feet, also. So, essentially,

sprinkling the hallways in that point will create

fire barriers from the spread of it. So --

MR. WEBER: I have a question, because it's

been a long time since December apparently. The

code requires this and it was not caught on the

review or something; is that right? And so then

the -- the code requires all of it needs to be

sprinklered, right? Is that correct? I'm just --

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: I'm going to paraphrase

and the applicant can correct me if I'm wrong.

But, essentially, he would have two options

under this situation. One would be to

sprinkler the entire building, or subdivide

it into fire areas that are less than 2,500

square feet?

MR. MARCY: So essentially sprinklering the

hallways would be an implementation of breaking it

up into under 2,500 square feet and preventing the

spread of fire.

MR. WEBER: But the code says the separations

are a fire separation.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: It would be a two-hour

fire separation.

MR. WEBER: Yeah. Two hour. So this is

different than the last time, right? Because the

last time, there was nothing. And this time it's

the hallways are sprinklered.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: At the last meeting, the

request from the applicant was to be allowed to

proceed with this as permitted, which involved no

fire barriers and a sprinkler system. This time,

they're proposing sprinklering the hallways and

providing the heat and smoke vents.

MR. JACKSON: When you say that, you're

talking no fire barriers and that's what I’m

hearing from you, sir, but am I hearing from you

guys correctly, fire barriers?

MR. TEGARDINE: No. No. We're not proposing

any additional fire barriers than the one that

will be installed to subdivide the building into

overall areas less than 12,000 square feet as the

base requirement in Chapter 5 of the IBC. And

item number 5 that was overlooked originally, and

requires further subdivision for mini-storage uses

because of the potential storage of upholstered or

mattress furniture. So we're not proposing any

additional walls, fire resistant rated walls to be

constructed in the facility, just sprinklering of

the hallways, which doesn't separate those areas

as we're talking about as required by the code,

but it does somewhat separate them to the extent

by preventing or helping limit the spread of fire

in one area to the other.

MR. WEBER: Nothing has been built yet,

has it?

MR. TEGARDINE: We are nearly complete with

construction.

MR. WEBER: So construction is nearly

completed, and it was -- what I heard was it was

overlooked by the design team and the reviewers.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Yes.

MR. WEBER: And so that is the contention that the

fault is the reviewer's or it was just -- it was

overlooked in general? I'm trying to figure -- I

just --

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: That would be a question

for the applicant.

MR. TEGARDINE: We're not trying to establish

fault anywhere, we're just trying to come to a --

MR. WEBER: Got it.

MR. TEGARDINE: -- reasonable solution that's

going to work with what's been constructed on site

already and --

MR. WEBER: So it’s built, basically?

MR. TEGARDINE: Yes.

MR. WEBER: It’s hard -- I know we went

through this last time. I'm sorry.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: I have a question for

staff. Did the applicant reach out to you, fire

marshal, and the building official to discuss this

modifying appeal?

MR. SIMON: Yes. It was discussed, and it was

determined that the building construction code

potentially would have to review the case. So

I'll -- in other words, we did -- we did not say

that we would approve it. Staff would get

approval without using this body.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Well, I'll ask you guys

separately. I'll start with -- with the fire

department. How do you feel about a partial

sprinkler system with heat and smoke vents under

the circumstances?

MR. BAUER: So the fire would have to grow in

each compartment large enough to set off the

sprinkler head, which is usually about 155 degrees

at the sprinkler -- at the ceiling level. So it

would have to grow large enough to escape that

space and set off the sprinkler head in the

hallway, in which case the sprinkler system is not

suppressing fire, it's just creating a cooler

space in the hallway. The fire is going to

continue to grow from space to space throughout

the entire area until we get there. Sprinkler

systems will add an hour to a one-hour fire

separation given the two, but by themselves,

hopefully, they would provide a one-hour fire

separation. Of course letting the heat escape,

heat and smoke escape could prevent spread to

other fire areas.

MR. MARCY: So on the units, all the units

are open to the hallway areas. On the roof there

is about a foot of opening where the air comes in

and out of the hallways because they are climate

controlled. The other three sides of every unit,

the walls -- the metal walls do go all the way up.

So, essentially, fires breathe. All your heat and

air should be going back and forth to the hallways

where the sprinklers are. So the walls do go all

the way up on the other three sides of all the

units.

MR. JACKSON: All the way up to the ceiling?

MR. MARCY: Yes.

MR. JACKSON: On -- on every individual

compartment, but yet there is space to the

hallways?

MR. MARCY: Yes.

MR. JACKSON: And the only sprinkling option,

is it going to be in the hallways with these vents,

and what powers the vents to open them?

MR. TEGARDINE: I think you were speaking of

interior air circulation, so the wall between the

hallway and the individual unit does not continue

to the roof area.

MR. JACKSON: Yes.

MR. TEGARDINE: There is a gap between the

roof and the bottom and the top of it.

MR. JACKSON: Okay. I believe I gathered

that, okay? But the vents going out to the roof

that you're saying you're going to want to vent

heat and smoke, what -- what powers those to raise

and lower?

MR. TEGARDINE: It's mechanical, there’s no

power associated with it. It's --

MR. JACKSON: And how do you -- how does that

open when there is a fire?

MR. TEGARDINE: The fusible link would

release the latch mechanism.

MR. JACKSON: Spring loaded or motorized?

MR. TEGARDINE: I -- well, I would assume

spring loaded, but I don't know the details off

the top of my head.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: John, the same question.

Under the circumstances --

MR. SIMON: And so at this juncture, I really

need to defer to the fire official. When I first

heard the proposal, it seemed intuitively to make

sense to me to separate spaces. It seemed like a

reasonable assertion. But, again, the official

has much more expertise in that area.

MR. SAUNDERS: So reading the sheet that you

read at the beginning, it said that on November

2nd, the code official disapproved continued

construction. The permit that was issued was a

conditional permit, it wasn't a full permit, to

my understanding; is that correct?

MR. SIMON: At that juncture, it was a full

permit.

MR. SAUNDERS: Okay. But that on November

2nd, they were told to stop building?

MR. SIMON: Correct. And it essentially had

already been erected. So there's a lot of moving

parts here, if I may. They have eight or ten

outdoor buildings that are all accessed with

outdoor overhead doors. And it was determined per

the 21 code, those could continue being built.

Honestly, it was in an effort to keep the project

going that we issued footing and foundation, and

then sought -- we discovered the fact that the

sprinkler system wasn't included in the plans --

unknown, what, a month after we had issued the

permit to several weeks, because the applicant was

concerned about the cost, and that's when I

figured out that it hadn't been included on the

plan. And my letter’s in here from November 2nd,

I think you said. So it was essentially already

built, unfortunately.

MR. SHANKER: Before I ask Mike what his

opinion of granting or not granting this, are you

guys able to tell us, and you don't have to tell

us, the total cost of this project and also, more

importantly, that I would like to know, is what

would the price be if you had gotten the permit

and you knew you had to do this, how much would

it have cost to do it from the get-go versus how

much it would cost to make it right now. In other

words, a lot of times when we have the hardship

that's a monetary thing, so if we're -- a lot of

times we like to figure out what's the total cost

of the project. What would the cost have been if

you had known that you had to do it, and then

what's the cost now to do it the correct way?

MR. MARCY: Yeah. I know for a fact,

essentially, your first price of 25,000 wouldn’t

be in question, because there would be no concrete

cut up. You wouldn't be replacing another water

line. We've got another water line in there

already. And that will be another deal to talk to

the City about, because I know talking to the water

department, they only like one tap per business.

And this water line for the sprinkler system would

have to come in at a different spot for a

sprinkler room and to be close to the fire hydrant.

Well, if we're only allowed one tap, then we have

to cut up the other line and route it around, too.

So that price, if we're only allowed one tap,

that price will go up, also.

MR. SHANKER: What would the price be if you

knew about it from the get-go?

MR. MARCY: To do just the sprinkler system?

MR. SHANKER: Just to do it the way -- let's

say he came in, they caught the problem --

MR. MARCY: To sprinkler the whole building,

it would be that 47,000.

MR. SHANKER: And so to do it now the correct

way would be what?

MR. MARCY: You're adding about 30,000, so

almost twice as much, two-thirds as much more.

MR. SHANKER: T hirty thousand.

MR. JACKSON: Thirty thousand to the 47,000?

MR. MARCY: Yeah. On top of that, yeah.

MR. SHANKER: And the 47,000 was the - would

be the price to do it if you were to have known

about it from the get-go?

MR. MARCY: Yeah. From the get-go, yeah.

And then something there's -- you can't really put

a price on is, you know, the time, you know,

scheduling now, because this would have already

been done, you know, through summer and when all

the ground work was done. Now we're getting back

on the schedules and dealing with weather, so

whatever down time and loss of lease would be,

too.

MR. WEBER: So kind of circling back to what

I've previously said. So it's not the job or the

responsibility of a municipality to make sure

everything gets built by code, it’s the contractor

and the owner that's responsible to build by code.

And so the process is unfortunate, it really is,

but it's the contractor and the owner that are

responsible to build by code, and that's

immediately clear in the code and it has been

since before IBC existed. And all three of the

codes, the Southern and the BOCA and the UBC is

really clear that it’s the owner and the

contractor are obliged to comply with the building

code. And so I think we have to parse out the

City's involvement with this and look at does the

owner -- is the owner obliged to comply with the

code or not. Because I think that muddies the

waters. That's why I went there. And I don't

care about blame, I'm just saying everyone should

know that the contractor and the owner have to

comply with the code. That's really clear in all

code supplices I've ever seen, all three cycles

and IBC, that that should be sort of jettisoned

from the conversation because it's unfortunate,

but, you know, the reality is the contractor and

the owner have to comply with the code.

MR. SHANKER: My other question was for Mike,

with -- if he was going to recommend approval of

this or not.

MR BAUER: I'll recommend NFPA 13 compliance

sprinkler system.

MR. SHANKER: Okay. Does that mean you

agree with --

MR. BAUER: Throughout the building.

MR. BAUER: The sprinkler system will require

a monitoring system, so we'll have a horn strobe

for the water flow and an alarm panel that dials

out and essentially calls the fire department.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: So there is no requirement

for smoke detectors in this building

MR. BAUER: Right.

MR. SAUNDERS: So just from looking at, you

know, kind of the way the -- there was a design

and it missed something and it was permitted and

construction started. You know, the -- someone is

doing this to make money, right? They're building

a structure to rent it out, and they've gotten

approval and completed the outbuildings. This

main building that's the hiccup for it is either

going to cost some more to get it to meet code,

or we can vote to move one way or the other, but

as a contractor with many projects where you lose

money when you don't see something, you find your

way through it. There is no reason it can't be

just ignore this one building, or change this one

building so that it meets different regulations,

right? You don't have to put a sprinkler system

in. You can tear that building down and build

something else, or just tear that building down

and make it a parking space, right? There's

other ways through if you can’t financially meet

code compliance, build something else there or

don't build something there. No one is going to

make you, you know, put in a sprinkler system if

it's too expensive, stop that part of the

construction and finish the rest of it, start

renting the rest of it, and make that a parking

or put in a few more smaller structures, get rid

of your bad -- you know, there’s -- just saying,

there's -- there's more ways than to say, well, I

can't afford this part of the construction phase,

just cut the loss and move on. But I don't

recommend we build something that could put people

at risk.

MR. MUZZY: So as a residential contractor,

I'm not familiar with, you know, to build a

building while, you know, the permit is not

completely approved. We can't start anything

until -- you know, so this whole situation they're

in is completely unusual for me. You know, we

can't start footings, can’t dig, technically, you

know, until we get our permits. But it seems like

in this case that's contributed to some confusion

and getting into a spot that I would like to think

because of that could be worked out, you know,

with the sprinkler systems that they’re -- they're

suggesting it's -- it's -- I guess you have to

figure out how safe is it, you know. Is it safe?

Do you put a sign and say this is not completely

safe, you know, for a sprinkler system? But I

just -- I guess from what I've seen, I'm not -- I

mean, if it has sprinkler systems in the hallway,

I think a lot has been accomplished to meet the

fire department and the inspections requirements,

hopefully, just because of the way this thing has

gone, so --

MR. PAGE: And again, to kind of reiterate

something I -- we haven’t talked about again.

There would be this building -- I want to make

sure this is right. I think it still is -- would

not have to be sprinklered if there were not

furniture and mattresses in it, correct?

MR. BAUER: Correct.

MR. PAGE: That's my understanding. I think

that's correct. The way this building is

built, it would not have to sprinklered if

there were no mattresses or furniture in

there.

MR. BAUER: With the fire wall that’s

existing.

MR. PAGE: So -- but the unfortunate part of

it, there is no way to monitor somebody -- to keep

somebody from putting in furniture and mattress.

So we're all sitting here assuming that there's

going to be mattresses and furniture, at least if

it's in one of them, it’s in violation, but we have

no way of monitoring. They’d have no way of

monitoring, which that's unfortunate.

MR. WEBER: I kind of heard that as if it’s a

storage, it could have, therefore, that trips a

trigger, so I'd just say, you know, if they store

whatever and it's the fire load, if it triggers

the trigger, and so since it's variable --

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: I think what makes this

difficult -- I'm going to jump in here for a

second. Under the building code, you can have an

S1 moderate hazard storage facility, a warehouse,

a distribution center, pick something, and you can

have up to 12,000 square feet before you either

have to subdivide it into fire areas or sprinkler

the building. And I think that's the path that

perhaps the design team and the ownership went

down in the beginning. Underneath that

requirement, there are these caveats for certain

special kinds of storage, including upholstered

furniture and mattresses, commercial vehicles, I

can't think of any of the other ones right off

the top of my head, but there are more restrictive

circumstances where the 12,000 feet is reduced to

either 5,000 or 2,500. So therein lies part of

the problem. The other -- the other thing that I

want to point out, although it's not applicable

typically in this situation, the building codes,

the family of building codes does allow for

compliance alternatives on occasion. Now,

typically, those are applied to existing buildings

where you can say, look, I don't have this, but

I'm going to give two of that as a really silly

analogy. Or more exits, more smoke and heat

detectors, more -- more fire ratings, whatever.

If you're trying to avoid having to sprinkler a

building, for example, there are alternatives that

are available to you under other circumstances.

This is an unusual circumstance. It came before

this commission because the project was permitted,

fully permitted, and allowed to proceed before

City staff, City inspectors realized that they

missed something. That's why we're here. So in

my mind, the question is --

MR. WEBER: Brian, I think they missed

something.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Oh, I don't -- I didn't

mean to suggest they didn't.

MR. WEBER: Yeah.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: But at this point, I think

there are two options. One is clearly to say

comply with the code, or the other one is, is

there an alternative that meets Mike's

requirements, that meets building -- the building

official's requirements. I don't know that we've

heard it yet, but I'm asking the question.

MR. SHANKER: We could change -- Brian, we

could change the code. We could tell the

commission that we need to change the code. I

mean, there's another alternative, if you want to

keep going with alternatives.

MR. WEBER: Well, I think one of the things I

heard you say is that maybe we can consider this

an existing building.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: No. I'm not implying that

at all. I'm just saying under other circumstances,

there would be the opportunity to take advantage

of compliance alternatives. That's all I'm saying.

It would be up to the applicant to come back and

say we have -- we have a fire marshal that's

saying that he wants compliance with NFBA 13. What

they've proposed doesn't do that.

MR. WEBER: Well, they proposed it compliant

or an alternative in that they have these

water curtains, and so they're asking us to

weigh in on a water curtain in the hallways.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Yes.

MR. SHANKER: John, if this board at this

time or any other time rejects an appeal, what

are the options for the -- for the applicant, not

this applicant, but any applicant after this?

MR. SIMON: They could come back with a

different appeal or, in this case, we only have

ten commissioners here, so they can bring that

back to this body with the same appeal because we

don't have a full eleven commissioners.

MR. SHANKER: Okay. And let's just say

everybody is here and it's voted down. Isn't there

another option?

MR. SIMON: Let's just change the code.

MR. SHANKER: No. No. No. No. Besides that.

MR. SIMON: There is. They can bring a

different appeal and ask you to look at a

different appeal.

MR. SHANKER: No. No. No. No. No. Besides

that, there is another option.

MR. SIMON: What’s that?

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: They can take it to court.

MR. SHANKER: That's correct.

MR. SIMON: Oh. That's true. That's true.

MR. PAGE: One of the things, talking about what

you were saying; not pressing blame, but we've

heard this before, that our codes commission meets

the people that come here and appeal and say, well,

I've always done it this way and they've never

caught it before. Whether they've caught it or

not doesn't matter. It was never right. So just

because they didn't catch it doesn't excuse

anything. It does not, so --

MR. WEBER: Well, and I guess why I was saying

that, I think that that’s an emotional appeal

because the code is really clear on that, so that's

why I was bringing it up.

MR. SIMON: Sure.

MR. WEBER: And I haven't -- listen, I use

emotional appeals all the time. I mean, everyone

does. It's just I want to parse that out from,

you know, what we're talking about here. We --

the elements are, it doesn't comply with the code.

I know we could, with the water curtain and the

thing, not it’s because the City missed it. But

it’s not an element in this deal.

MR. JACKSON: Just a comment and then I'd be

ready for the question. These things, when they go

up, they turn into a huge maze of smoke. You can't

see anything. And I've been in those buildings,

and they become a hazard whether they're

sprinklered or not. And I’ve certainly been in

enough buildings on fire in my world to know that

when things can go bad, they can go bad, really

bad. You've got public coming in here. You have

no ability to control who is storing what at any

time. And irregardless of what compliances or

requirements you put in

there, I've opened storage buildings with gasoline

and all kinds of other stuff that, thank God, it

never went up, you know, kind of a deal. So I'm

thinking -- I apologize, and I know it stinks, and

I've been there before on that side of the permit,

but I'm thinking I've got to go with the public

safety on this one.

MR. SHANKER: Are you calling a motion?

MR. JACKSON: I’d call a motion for the

question.

MR. SHANKER: Second.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: So we have a motion and a

second to call the question. All in favor, aye?

MR. JACKSON: Aye for the question?

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Aye for the question. All

opposed? Hearing none, call the question. So if

I can state it properly, the motion is to deny the

appeal.

MR. SHANKER: That is correct.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Does everybody understand

that? Is there any discussion? Okay. Mr. Weber?

MR. WEBER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: So you are -- you're

voting to deny the appeal?

MR. WEBER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Mr. Saunders?

MR. SAUNDERS: Yes.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Mr. Jackson?

MR. JACKSON: Yes, to deny.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Yes. Mr. Trunk?

MR. TRUNK: Yes.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Mr. Shanker?

MR. SHANKER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Mr. Wallace?

MR. WALLACE: No.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Mr. Carlson?

MR. CARLSON: Yes.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Mr. Page?

MR. PAGE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Mr. Muzzy?

MR. MUZZY: No.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: So we have eight yes votes,

two no votes, Appeal denied. Again, as was stated

before, we

don't have a full commission, so if you choose to

do so, you can bring this appeal in the hopes

that we will gather a full commission.

MR. TEGARDINE. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CONNELL: Thank you.

MR. SIMON: We can go off the record.

(The meeting concluded at 5:12 p.m.)

Motion to deny the appeal.

8 - Carlson, Connell, Jackson, Shanker, Weber, Trunk, Page and Saunders

2 - Muzzy and Wallace

Yes:

No:

9 - Creasy, Malicoat, Young, Neyens, Howe, Kaisher, Kilgore, DeYoung and Dove

Excused:

V. GENERAL COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, MEMBERS AND STAFF

VI. NEXT MEETING DATE FEBRUARY 26, 2024

VII. ADJOURNMENT

Members of the public may attend any open meeting. For requests for accommodations related to

disability, please call 573-874-CITY (573-874-2489) or email CITY@CoMo.gov. In order to assist staff in

making the appropriate arrangements for your accommodation, please make your request as far in

advance of the posted meeting date as possible.

USB DRIVES PROHIBITED: Due to cybersecurity concerns, flash drives and other media devices

are no longer permitted for delivering files or presentation materials. A speaker who desires to

display a presentation must upload the presentation, in advance, to the city network using an

upload portal. To upload your files and learn more, visit CoMo.gov/upload. (Effective Jan. 1,

2023)