Coppell commission tables adoption of 2024 international codes; staff to provide comparative amendments

The Coppell Building and Standards Commission on the meeting night tabled consideration of adopting the 2024 International Codes and the City of Coppell construction chapter to its April 3 meeting and asked staff to provide a comparative document showing what would change from the current code and staff’s recommended local amendments.

Steven Schubert, chief building official, presented the staff recommendation and an outline of proposed local amendments. Schubert said the city has operated under the 2015 International Building Code since 2017 and that the 2024 code cycle contains a mix of changes that may increase or decrease construction cost depending on the provision. He summarized several examples for the commission: new limitations on sleeping loft area, added requirements for rooftop occupiable spaces (which may trigger elevator requirements for some commercial projects), and plumbing solutions for expansive soils. Schubert also said staff consolidated disparate ordinance language into a single construction chapter to make requirements easier to find and attach to permits.

Schubert noted the regional North Texas Council of Governments (COG) typically issues recommended local amendments; those 2024 recommendations were not yet finalized. He told the commission he had reviewed past COG recommendations (2015–2021 cycles) and said some COG items were appropriate while others are less consistent with modern code practice. Schubert recommended adopting the 2024 international codes with a set of local amendments and offered to provide a section‑by‑section comparative package showing (1) current Coppell language, (2) the 2024 code text, and (3) staff’s recommended edits with strike‑through and underlines and brief rationales.

Commissioners expressed a desire to review the strikethroughs and the staff rationales before voting. One commissioner noted the city’s ISO rating (insurance‑grading program) and the fire department’s timeline for review; staff said agency review and code adoption would affect the ISO review schedule if delayed. After discussion a commissioner moved to table the adoption to April 3 and to require staff to provide the comparative documentation by the Friday following the meeting so commissioners could review it in advance. The motion passed.

Schubert said he would prepare the comparative package (and a cloud link for large files) and include reasoning for each recommended amendment; the commission will reconvene the item at its April 3 meeting.

Ending: The commission postponed formal code adoption pending members’ review of detailed comparative materials from staff and left the item on the April 3 agenda.