Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 03/25/2021City of Fort Collins Page 1 March 25, 2021 Alan Cram, Chair Tim Johnson, Vice Chair Brad Massey Katharine Penning Eric Richards Justin Robinson Staff Liaison: Mark Teplitsky Rich Anderson Chief Building Official Meeting Minutes March 25, 2021 A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held virtually on Thursday, March 25, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cram called the meeting to order at 9:03 a.m. Mr. Anderson read a statement regarding authorization and procedures for remote meetings. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Cram, Johnson, Massey, Penning, Richards, Teplitsky ABSENT: Robinson STAFF: Anderson, Manno, Havelda, Schiager AGENDA REVIEW No changes to the published agenda. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. DISCUSSION AGENDA [Timestamp: 9:07 a.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 28, 2021 MEETING. Mr. Richards moved to approve the minutes of the January 28, 2021 meeting. Mr. Teplitsky seconded. The motion passed 6-0. Building Review Board City of Fort Collins Page 2 March 25, 2021 2. PROPOSED CHANGES TO WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENT CALCULATIONS DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to provide information on the proposed changes to Water Supply Requirements Calculations, Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, and the potential impacts they will have on the Building Review Process. STAFF: Abbye Neel, Interim Water Conservation Manager Staff Report Ms. Neel presented the staff report, explaining that water supply requirements refer to irrigation needs. She explained the formula that is currently being used is based on lot size, but staff has determined it would more accurately be calculated based on outdoor area. She talked about the process changes that would be needed to make this change and explained that this change would mean properties with no outdoor area would not have any water supply requirements. She also explained the pros and cons of the proposed approach noting it allows for indoor-only taps. She noted an analysis of single-family developments built between 2015 and 2019 showed 10% of the time, the proposed new system would have cost more and 90% of the time, it would have cost less. She stated staff is seeking a motion from the Board in support of the changes. Board Questions and Discussion Mr. Richards asked if all hardscaped areas will be removed from the lot size calculation. Ms. Neel replied in the affirmative but noted sidewalks are not included as they are not consistent throughout the city and can easily be changed. Mr. Richards asked if the City reviews whether the developer or homeowner actually installs proposed hardscaping and calculations are therefore accurate. Mr. Anderson replied some type of process will need to be implemented depending upon what Council decides. He stated he has worked in communities wherein impervious cover surveys were required as part of final documents and that type of model could be used. Ms. Neel clarified the difference between impervious and pervious surfaces noting the building footprint, garage footprint, driveways, and those types of structures are deemed impervious. Mr. Richards asked if there are benefits to the developer for xeriscaping. Ms. Neel replied in the negative as there is no way of ensuring xeric landscaping will remain in the future. Ms. Penning asked about the current requirements for identifying impervious and new impervious area based on modifications to a site. Mr. Anderson replied he would need to do research on those specific requirements regarding the building permitting process and get back to the Board. Ms. Penning asked if that process may only occur during the planning and development process. Ms. Neel replied she believes that is correct but noted it would need to be required as part of the building permit process should these changes be implemented. Ms. Penning commented determining new impervious area should be readily attainable though the cost of having a finalized survey may be a deterrent for custom home builders. Mr. Anderson replied the policy that would be implemented would likely not require the survey unless it couldn’t be verified. Public Input Mr. Hill asked how things like necessary water for maintenance of turf lawns and the placement of aggregate material is taken into account. He commented on challenges with establishing xeric-style grasses. Ms. Neel replied there is a great deal of opportunity to refine the current proposal to take those kinds of issues into consideration. She commented on the need to refine calculations and create a more formalized process to take into account specific landscaping details and possible future changes thereto for single-family homes. She noted there is a process in place commercially and for HOAs and that does include incentives for xeric landscaping. Mr. Hill asked if landscape plans are required for residential projects. Ms. Neel replied that is not required there are currently no landscape or irrigation standards for single-family lots; however, staff is discussing moving forward with some type of standards for those items moving forward. City of Fort Collins Page 3 March 25, 2021 Mr. Hill asked if a percentage of landscaping is required to be installed in order for a single-family project to get a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Anderson replied there are zoning requirements, particularly commercially; however, those standards are not as restrictive for single-family homes and backflow preventers are the only item inspected for single-family homes. Board Questions and Discussion (continued...) Mr. Teplitsky asked about the average cost of a single-family water tap and approximate range of savings if this were to be implemented. Ms. Neel replied she would share that information with the Board upon doing additional research. Mr. Teplitsky asked if the fees are being paid to the City. Ms. Neel replied they are being paid to Fort Collins Utilities. Mr. Teplitsky asked if these changes would mean less revenue for the Utilities. Ms. Neel replied in the affirmative but noted that would be offset by the lack of need for the water. Mr. Richards stated it would be helpful for the City to implement a rebate program or system that would require a homeowner to reapply every couple years for water rate reductions based on maintaining xeriscaping and that type of thing. He asked if developments could opt for no exterior water taps. Ms. Neel replied in the affirmative and noted those fees would be dropped to zero should a building be able to prove no outdoor tap is in use for irrigation purposes. She noted this helps to account for scenarios wherein the only irrigation is occurring in common spaces. Ms. Penning asked if there is a conservation benefit of this proposal from the City’s point of view. Ms. Neel replied in the affirmative and noted it is much more cost effective to conserve than acquire new supply. Mr. Teplitsky commented on the high cost of water in Fort Collins being linked to housing affordability. He concurred with the idea of continuously refining this program. Ms. Neel commented on Fort Collins being serviced by different water providers who have differing charges. Chair Cram stated he is uncomfortable with the number of details that have yet to be addressed and he noted full build-out of the city’s lots will likely occur in the not-to-distant future. Given this only applies to new developments, he questioned the future of the program. Ms. Neel replied she would be willing to come back before the Board with additional detail and noted there is currently an extensive incentive and conservation program for existing developments. She also commented briefly on existing programs that address redevelopment. Mr. Johnson stated he likes where this is headed; however, he was unsure about supporting the suggested broad-ranging motion that may be too substantial of an approval at this point. Ms. Neel stated she would be open to recrafting the motion and stated she would like to return before the Board with specific responses given there is ample time to do so before the consideration of this item goes to Council. Ms. Neel commented on the City’s desire to not necessarily require xeric landscaping, but rather to incentivize its use by lowering maintenance costs. Chair Cram suggested common areas be more specifically addressed in this presentation. Ms. Neel replied she did not include that as it is not included in the building review process; however, she noted the development review process requires an improved landscape plan and matching irrigation plan for common areas which allows staff to determine an estimated water use for the landscape. Mr. Anderson noted the Board does not appear to be ready to take any formal action at this time. Chair Cram suggested tabling this item until additional information could be provided. Members agreed with that approach. [Timestamp: 10:07 a.m.] 3. RUCKER HILL MENTORSHIP PROGRAM REQUEST DESCRIPTION: The purpose for this item is for the Board to consider approval of a request by Rucker Hill to enter into a Contractor Mentorship Agreement in order to gain credit toward the project verifications required to qualify for the license level he seeks. STAFF: Rich Anderson, Chief Building Official City of Fort Collins Page 4 March 25, 2021 Disclosure of Conflicts Mr. Richards stated he had a conflict of interest as he has worked for Mr. Hill and his company and they are also close acquaintances. Mr. Richards left the meeting. Staff Presentation Mr. Anderson presented the staff report as written in the agenda packet materials. He stated Mr. Hill is seeking the Board’s approval for the Building Official to allow him to construct a building for which he does not have a supervisor certificate or license. He is seeking a mentor for the project which would allow him to add this project to his list of completed projects and receive credit toward his project verifications required by the City’s contractor licensing code. Appellant Arguments Mr. Hill stated his name for the record and agreed to the remote format of the hearing. He explained his request and identified his chosen mentor as Paul Bruck of Bruck Enterprises. Staff Response Mr. Anderson clarified that the Board had previously approved Mr. Hill had for a mentorship arrangement on a different permit. If approved, this would be Mr. Hill’s third and final job verification needed to obtain his requested D1 license. Ms. Manno confirmed that was the case and stated Mr. Hill currently holds a D2 license. Board Questions of Staff and Appellant Ms. Penning expressed support for the mentorship program. Mr. Massey asked who is ultimately responsible for the project. Mr. Anderson replied the permit would typically be issued to the mentor, and Mr. Hill would be allowed to perform the work under that. Mr. Massey expressed support for the mentorship. Mr. Teplitsky expressed general support but wanted to ensure a fair and consistent approach. He asked with whom the contract to purchase the house is written. Mr. Hill replied this is a spec home and typically construction is completed before the home is sold. Mr. Teplitsky expressed concern about the mentee being encouraged to be the contractor, but his abilities are limited to the capacity of a supervisor from a City licensing standpoint. Mr. Anderson suggested this could be addressed by allowing a temporary assignment of another supervisory certificate to Mr. Hill’s license allowing him to obtain the permit. Mr. Teplitsky agreed with that approach and suggested looking at these situations on a case-by-case basis in the future. Board Deliberation Chair Cram closed the hearing and asked for a motion. Mr. Johnson moved that the Building Review Board approves the Rucker Hill request, allowing the Building Official to review, approve and implement this mentorship as discussed, and empowering the Building Official to monitor and revoke this privilege if the mentor or mentee are not performing their duties. Mr. Massey seconded. Mr. Teplitsky asked to confirm that the permit would be issued in Mr. Hill’s name, but the mentorship agreement would be in place. Mr. Anderson answered in the affirmative and stated Staff work out the logistics. Mr. Johnson stated he is comfortable with allowing the Chief Building Official to resolve the details. The motion passed 5-0. [Timestamp: 10:30 a.m.] Mr. Richards returned to the meeting. City of Fort Collins Page 5 March 25, 2021 4. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CITY’S CONTRACTOR LICENSING CODE – CHAPTER 15, ARTICLE V, SECTION 15-157 (e) DESCRIPTION: CBO Rich Anderson is seeking the Board’s support of the proposed changes to a sub-section of the contractor licensing code. Staff Report Mr. Anderson presented the staff report explaining the proposal. He read the proposed text for the Code section and noted if the Chief Building Official is granted this ability, his or her decision would still be appealable to the Building Review Board. Public Input None. Board Questions and Discussion Mr. Teplitsky asked why the examination requirement would be waived. Mr. Anderson replied the intent is to allow individuals the time to pass the exam while still allowing them to start their project. He noted that language could be stricken, however, and this could only apply toward project verification. Mr. Teplitsky replied he would prefer the aforementioned path with the exception of significant circumstances such as testing centers being shut down due to the pandemic, for example. Mr. Anderson read the code section as currently written and further detailed the proposed changes. Ms. Penning agreed with Mr. Teplitsky regarding testing requirements. Mr. Anderson stated he could amend the wording of a motion so that testing remains a requirement. He also noted all decisions are still appealable to the Board. [Secretary’s Note: The Board took a short break to allow Mr. Anderson to revise the code language. A roll call was taken upon resuming the meeting to ensure all members were present.] The revised Code language was displayed for the Board and read by Mr. Anderson as shown below. (e) The Building Official may grant a temporary upgrade to an existing supervisor certificate valid for thirty (30) days a specific project or a specific timeframe determined by the Building Official, without an examination or the Code required project verification. This approval shall be based upon specific individual extraordinary circumstances and upon finding that any petitioner for such certificate is otherwise qualified. The Building Official shall administer the provisions of this subsection and shall adopt reasonable rules and procedures for such purposes. Any person seeking such temporary certificate must submit a written request describing in detail the their experience, specific extraordinary circumstances, showing just cause for justification for such a certificate the request and a completed application for a supervisor certificate, including all necessary fees as provided in § 15-158. Board Deliberation Based on the Staff Report presented, Ms. Penning moved to allow Building Services to move forward with the proposed changes to City Code Chapter 15, Article V, Section 15-157(e) and that Chair Alan Cram draft a letter in support of these changes for Council consideration. Mr. Teplitsky seconded. The motion passed 6-0. 5. UPDATE ON THE JOINT ADOPTION OF THE 2021 INTERNATIONAL FAMILY OF CODE Mr. Anderson gave a brief update the status of this effort. Board Questions and Discussion Chair Cram thanked Mr. Anderson for the update and stated he looks forward to our codes being more aligned with those of our neighboring jurisdictions. City of Fort Collins Page 6 March 25, 2021 6. UPDATE ON CONTRACTOR LICENSING Ms. Manno updated the Board on the status of this effort and discussions with Loveland and Larimer County. Mr. Anderson detailed his request to examine current license levels and determine what is needed and what might be missing in licensing regulations by having discussions with Loveland and Larimer County. He noted this includes looking at what it might take to get landscape irrigation contractors and medical gas and vacuum contractors licensed. 7. UPDATE ON WATER HEATER PERMITS AND DORA REQUIREMENTS Mr. Anderson informed the Board he had recently learned that the City had been issuing permits to HVAC contactors for specific types of water heaters and boilers for which DORA requires a licensed plumber to do the work. The City has made process changes to remedy this issue to and has notified all HVAC contractors that these permits would no longer be issued to them. 8. ELECTION OF OFFICERS The Board will elect a new Chair and Vice Chair. Mr. Richards asked if Chair Cram was willing to continue as Chair. He responded in the affirmative. Chair Cram asked for any other nominations and there were none. The Board voted 6-0 to have Chair Cram continue as Chair. Chair Cram asked if Mr. Johnson was willing to continue as Vice Chair. He responded in the affirmative. Chair Cram asked for any other nominations and there were none. The Board voted 6-0 to have Mr. Johnson continue as Vice Chair. [Timestamp: 11:12 a.m.]  OTHER BUSINESS o In light of recent attendance issues, Chair Cram opened a discussion as to whether the current meeting time for the Board was the best time for everyone. Ms. Penning replied daytime is difficult for work schedules and either earlier than the current time or later in the afternoon would be better. Mr. Teplitsky replied evenings would work and daytime afternoons would be better for him than the current time. Mr. Anderson stated staff would prefer to keep meetings during normal working hours if possible; however, they would accommodate what is best for the Board and any necessary room scheduling requirements. Mr. Johnson stated he prefers daytime meetings, but afternoons are better. Mr. Massey also stated he would prefer keeping the meetings during business hours. Mr. Richards stated he would prefer business hours meetings as well. Members and staff had a discussion regarding the difficulty of scheduling in Council Chambers and other issues related to rescheduling. Members expressed a preference for continuing to meet online permanently as it is easier for everyone to participate. Chair Cram stated he will approach the Board’s Council Liaison, Ross Cunniff, to express this preference and discuss whether that would be possible. Mr. Anderson suggested any members who would like to continue remotely should also contact the Council Liaison. .5< 3< ,02+<6</3<5<<16<<-9<1/5 6!/,<,<66<74 <3--- 9/7(<<6'"-</83<6<5711/36<2/(<03<6</3< -, -<-:6<+/,6    3<4+<&/73-<6<+6 ,<6< < <<+ ! ##"#   #  ## !"#! #"#!##  -765<114/8<;<<8/6</<6</3< /-<   < < !<-35/-< <7 *$,< %(<     )-<4+<#3<  ### Rich Anderson Digitally signed by Rich Anderson Date: 2021.05.03 10:37:11 -06'00'