Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/28/2022 - Building Review Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingPage 1 Alan Cram, Chair Location: Tim Johnson, Vice Chair This meeting will be held Shaun Moscrip remotely via Zoom Eric Richards Mark Teplitsky Staff Liaison: Vacant Seat Marcus Coldiron Vacant Seat Chief Building Official AGENDA April 28, 2022 9:00 AM Building Review Commission Pursuant to City Council Ordinance 079, 2020, a determination has been made by the Chair after consultation with the City staff liaison that conducting the hearing using remote technology would be prudent. This remote Building Review Commission meeting will be available online via Zoom or by phone. No Board members will attend in person. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 8:30 a.m. Participants should try to join at least 15 minutes prior to the 9:00 a.m.. start time. ONLINE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:  You will need an internet connection on a laptop, computer, or smartphone, and may join the meeting through Zoom at https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/92888094308. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). Keep yourself on muted status.  For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to comment. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BY PHONE:  Please dial 253-215-8782 and enter Webinar ID 928 8809 4308. Keep yourself on muted status.  For public comments, when the Chair asks participants to click the “Raise Hand” button if they wish to speak, phone participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Board. When you are called, hit *6 to unmute yourself. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE ONLINE OR BY PHONE: Individuals who are uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or participate by phone may: 1) Email comments to abrennan@fcgov.com at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. If your comments are specific to any of the discussion items on the agenda, please indicate that in the subject line of your email. Staff will ensure your comments are provided to the Board. 2) Come in person to 281 N. College Avenue to utilize City technology to participate in the meeting. Please arrive 15 minutes prior to the meeting and ring the doorbell at the north entrance so that staff may escort you into the building. Masks and social distancing will be required. To participate this way, it is strongly recommended that you contact us at least 24 hours prior to the meeting so that arrangements for proper social distancing and appropriate technology can be put in place to protect the health and safety of the public and staff. Contact Aubrie Brennan at abrennan@fcgov.com or 970-416-4390. Documents to Share: Any document or presentation a member of the public wishes to provide to the Board for its consideration must be emailed to abrennan@fcgov.com at least 24 hours before the meeting. Packet Pg. 1 Page 2 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.  CALL TO ORDER  ROLL CALL  AGENDA REVIEW  PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA  DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2022 The purpose of this item is to consider approval of the minutes from the February 24, 2022 regular meeting of the Building Review Commission. 2. LEGACY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION, INC - VARIANCE REQUEST TO COMPLETE WORK OUTSIDE OF CURRENTLY HELD LICENSE CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION: Mr. Mike Snyder of Legacy Design and Construction, Inc. is requesting a variance to his current license to complete work that falls outside of his license classificiation. STAFF: Marcus Coldiron, Chief Building Official Shar Manno, Contractor Licensing 3. STAFF PRESENTATION - GRAY WATER ORDINANCE DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to inform the Building Review Commission on the development of a proposed graywater ordinance and request a recommendation to the City Council on this policy direction. Development of a graywater ordinance is a Council Priority for 2021-2023. Staff presented information to the Council at a November 23, 2021, work session. Council directed staff to develop a draft ordinance that meets the State’s Water Quality Regulation 86 (graywater standards) and is in accordance with local water rights. STAFF: Mariel Miller, Water Conservation Specialist Marcus Coldiron, Chief Building Official Eric Potyondy, Assistant City Attorney  OTHER BUSINESS o Discussion of Appeal Hearing Rules and Procedures  ADJOURNMENT Packet Pg. 2 Date:Roll CallJohnson Moscrip Richards TeplitskyVacantSeatVacantSeatCram VotePresent Present Present Absent - - Present4 Present, 1 Absent1 – MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2022TeplitskyVacant SeatRichardsVacant SeatJohnson MoscripCram - - Yes - Yes Yes Yes4-02 - LEGACY DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION - LICENSE VARIANCE REQUEST -APPROVALVacant SeatRichardsVacant SeatJohnson Moscrip TeplitskyCram - Yes - Yes Yes - Yes4-03 - GRAY WATER ORDINANCE - MOTION TO RECOMMEND ORDINANCERichardsVacant SeatJohnson Moscrip TeplitskyVacant SeatCramYes - Yes Yes - - Yes4-0Roll Call & Voting RecordBuilding Review Commission4/28/2022 Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY April 28, 2022 Building Review Commission STAFF Aubrie Brennan, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 24, 2022 BRC MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes of the February 24, 2022 meeting of the Building Review Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. BRC February 24, 2022 Minutes – DRAFT Packet Pg. 3 DRAFTCity of Fort Collins Page 1 February 24, 2022 Alan Cram, Chair This meeting was Tim Johnson, Vice Chair held remotely Shaun Moscrip Eric Richards Mark Teplitsky Staff Liaison: Vacant Seat Marcus Coldiron Vacant Seat Chief Building Official Meeting Minutes February 24, 2022 A regular meeting of the Building Review Commission was held on Thursday,February 24, 2022, at 9:00 a.m.via Zoom. •CALL TO ORDER Chair Cram called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. •ROLL CALL PRESENT: Cram, Moscrip, Richards, Teplitsky ABSENT: Johnson STAFF: Coldiron, Manno,Guin, Brennan, Hilmes-Robinson •PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. •DISCUSSION AGENDA [Timestamp: 9:04 a.m.] 1.CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 16, 2021 MEETING. Member Richards moved to approve the minutes of the December 16, 2021 meeting. Member Teplitsky seconded. The motion passed 4-0. Building Review Commission ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 4 DRAFTCity of Fort Collins Page 2 February 24, 2022 2. BLACK TIMBER BUILDERS NEW LICENSE CLASSIFCATION REQUEST WITHOUT CURRENT EXAM DESCRIPTION: Mr. Meyer of Black Timber Builders is requesting a new license classification using an ICC testing certificate that is of an older code year than is currently required. Disclosure of Conflicts None. Appellant and Parties-in-Interest in Support of Appeal Arguments Kyle Myer, the Appellant, presented his argument in favor of upgrading his license. He had spoken with Chief Building Official (CBO) Coldiron and had been told the appeal process was the best way to address his issue. The City had no upgrade function for licensing, even on the appeal form. He wanted to upgrade his license to a D-1 from a D-2. His testing was a Class A from 2012, and the City was accepting 2015 and newer. He was told he would have to re-test and apply for a new license. He needed the D-1 because he had been asked to build townhomes. He also needed to do some upgrades on his downtown office to meet Code, including putting in headers. The Class E license he had possessed when applying for permits did not allow him to do headers and had since expired. He worked in surrounding jurisdictions and felt the licensing process was difficult. He believed the Licensing department had not been responsive to his calls and requests. Staff Presentation Admin Services Manager (ASM) Manno presented the staff report. Mr. Myer was requesting a D-1 license based on 2012 testing, older than what was currently required. He had a D-2 and an expired E based on the old W-11 testing. Updated testing was the only missing piece of his D-1 license application packet. His project verifications matched the level required for a D-1. The E commercial is a non-structural license, so he would need a higher classification to do the headers in his office. Appellant Rebuttal Mr. Myer believed ASM Manno had covered his case well. He would like to get a D-1 license so he did not have to upgrade again. He had talked to CBO Coldiron about the headers because he would not be able to perform them with the E license. He was hoping to get permission to install them. He wanted to have the E license reinstated but it was lower priority. Opponent Rebuttal ASM Manno pointed out reinstating the E license would require new testing, as required by Code, because it was past the 60-day grace period. The staff recommendation was that new testing be required and the appeal request be denied. Once the 2021 International Codes were passed by City Council and the ICC was offering the 2021 test, newer testing would be required. The City was currently accepting 2015 and 2018 testing. The BRC could agree to the Staff recommendation and pass a motion to require updated testing or the BRC could pass a motion to issue a Class D-1 license and supervisor certificate to the Appellant. Assistant City Attorney (ACA) Guin reminded the BRC about the requirements of City Code. In order to approve the request, they would have to find strict application of the licensing standards would result in a peculiar, exceptional or practical difficulty or exceptional or undue hardship on Mr. Myer, the BRC could find Mr. Myer had additional training and certifications that made him qualified for a D- 1 license or if the request were granted it would not be detrimental to the public and impair the intent and purpose of the licensing Code. Board Questions of Staff and Parties-in-Interest Member Teplitsky asked if there was anything in City Code about updated testing. It seemed impractical to require 2018 testing when the City is about to adopt 2021. He asked if the BRC could temporarily grant a license and give him time to pass the 2021 test when available. ACA Guin said the BRC could do so, but they would have to find the deviation from the strict application of the Code would not substantially impair the purpose of the licensing Code. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 5 DRAFTCity of Fort Collins Page 3 February 24, 2022 Member Teplitsky stated it seemed impractical to ask Mr. Myer to test on 2018 if the City was about to adopt the 2021 Code; he asked if they could give him a temporary license to give him time to pass the 2021 test. ACA Guin said the BRC could do that, but they would have to find the deviation from the strict application of the Code would not result in a substantial detriment to the public good and strict application would result in undue hardship to the Appellant. Member Teplitsky pointed out a large amount of cases before the BRC are people that do not want to test. Precedent would be affected by a decision in Mr. Myer’s favor. He wondered why not take the test because he had passed before. It would be the easiest way to get things done. Mr. Myer tested on 2012 in mid-2015 when the 2015 exam was not available yet, so a similar scenario to current. He tested into a Class A, and he is a custom residential home builder. The point of the test was to update Code knowledge. Studying for the test gave a narrow window of knowledge and he had sought out education in a wide variety of areas since. He was not afraid of extra work but felt the testing did not increase his knowledge. Member Richards asked if ASM Manno knew when the 2021 testing would come out and if 2018 would be sufficient for a D-1. ASM Manno did not know when the 2021 test would be released by the ICC. For the D-1 license, the test required was the G-13, the ICC National Standard General Contractor Level C exam, which is strictly residential. He was not required to know the entire breadth of knowledge for an A, just residential. ACA Guin commented if a BRC member wanted to grant the request, the BRC would need to find Mr. Myer had certain qualifications, training or experience that rose to the level of D-1. If the BRC had further questions for Mr. Myer, they should ask those. Member Richards asked what other education and certifications Mr. Myer had. His entire team had voluntarily gotten a Green Code certification. He was building the first fully passive house certified development in the country in Larimer County. The houses recently blew a 0.4 on the blower door test and were airtight and well-designed. He and all his carpenters had gone through the training to understand how buildings work, breath, health of the air, quality construction, and longevity. His current project was 80% beyond Code minimums. He felt that had grown him as a builder more than anything, and his knowledge spanned more than building houses. Member Teplitsky asked if Mr. Myer had a D-1 he would be allowed to build the planned 75 townhomes. Ms. Manno said a D-1 would be sufficient. Member Teplitsky asked if the appeal was denied, would Mr. Myers have time to study for and take the test. He would have to look at testing schedules and his workload to see what made sense. The other jurisdictions in which he worked required the A Class level testing, so he would just go ahead and do that if necessary to update all his licenses. Member Teplitsky clarified if there was a tight timeline for the projects, and Mr. Myer said no, he was a month out from submittals. Chair Cram commented the purpose of testing was to be current on standards. Even though the 2021 test would be coming out soon, if Mr. Myer upgraded to a D-1 he would be fine with the 2018 test as long as he did not seek higher licenses afterward. Mr. Myer commented if he wanted to grow professionally in Fort Collins, he would have to test again. There should be an avenue for growth in the contractor licensing program. He was also frustrated he could not work within the City to gain project verifications for higher licenses, either. Member Teplitsky said if testing was done, exceptions could be made to project verifications for other experience and training. It was very often successful. Member Richards commented based on precedent and everything presented, he would move to deny the upgrade without required testing. He thanked Mr. Myer for his presentation and said they had heard him and understood him. Member Teplitsky would second that motion, the easiest way to get things done was to take the test. ACA Guin asked for more detail on a motion presented. Motion Member Richards moved Based on Staff’s report, analysis, and recommendation and the testimony and record in this appeal, I move to DENY AND REJECT the applicant’s request for a variance from the licensing standards in this Appeal in accordance with Section 15-156 of the City Code. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 6 DRAFTCity of Fort Collins Page 4 February 24, 2022 I find that the strict application of the licensing standards would not result in peculiar or exceptional practical difficulties to the applicant, nor would it result in exceptional or undue hardship upon the applicant. Member Teplitsky seconded. Board Discussion No discussion. The motion passed 4-0. [Timestamp: 9:45 a.m.] 3. REKAIVERY, INC./RIMU CONSTRUCTION, LLC NEW LICENSING REQUEST WITHOUT PROJECT VERIFICATIONS DESCRIPTION: Audrey Welsh of ReKaivery, Inc is requesting a new Class C license classification for their subcontractor Willie Steel of RIMU Construction, LLC and would like to have the project verification requiremnt removed. Disclosure of Conflicts None. Staff Presentation ASM Manno presented the staff report. Appellants were asking for a Class C-1 license without project verifications. A Class C-1 license would allow a contractor to build or demolish buildings not larger than 20,000 square feet and/or three stories in height. To qualify, an applicant must have completed three full buildings of this type from dirt to a certificate of occupancy. RIMU and ReKaivery wanted to build temporary structures with shipping containers; because it was a commercial project, C-1 was the lowest class available. Ms. Manno had no knowledge of Mr. Steele’s knowledge or experience because she had not received a contractor licensing application packet for him. Staff was recommending denial due to the important information verifications included on experience. The BRC could approve the recommendation and require the Appellant to provide the required project verifications to receive the license and supervisor’s certificate or the BRC could grant the request to allow a new Class C license and supervisor’s certificate without the project verifications. Appellant and Parties-in-Interest in Support of Appeal Arguments Mr. Steele presented on his behalf. He had licenses in Cheyenne and Laramie, WY, as well as Westminster, CO. Those jurisdictions required 7 years of verified experience, Class A testing, and three character references. He had 2015 testing. That spoke to his ability to do these projects. He had begun a 30,000 square foot project in Laramie and could get a letter from the owner to verify it. He had recently applied for a Larimer County license, which had similar requirements to the City. Larimer County required two years of experience for a previous employer, and he had provided three. Ms. Welsh explained the project was to renovate a shipping container located in Weld County and move it to Fort Collins so farmers could sell produce outside farmers’ markets. She had discussed Mr. Steele’s qualifications and the project with former CBO Rich Anderson. They had been waiting a few months for the new CBO so they could discuss it and obtain approval. They had been trying to work with the City and provide transparency since the beginning. Opponent Rebuttal ASM Manno stated because no information was submitted by Applicant, the record was insufficient to make a decision. In the past, the City had given a limited license which limited a license to a specific type of building only. The City would need to see experience from the past of a fully built commercial building, which would not be too far from the project verification. She had no more information to work from and could not speak to Mr. Steele’s experience. She recommended denial based on lack of information for the record. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 7 DRAFTCity of Fort Collins Page 5 February 24, 2022 Appellant Rebuttal Ms. Welsh commented she would have submitted evidence of Mr. Steele’s experience had she been asked. She asked for direction on what to submit to obtain a license, and ASM Manno directed her to the Contractor Licensing website for the information and how to submit it. Ms. Welsh stated they were also appealing the three-project requirement. Board Questions of Staff and Parties-in-Interest Member Teplitsky pointed out she had stated Mr. Steele had lots of experience, so he should be able to submit a full packet to contractor licensing. It would be easier to make a decision with a complete application, including the verifications showing his experience. Member Richards noted Mr. Steele had an F-11 test and asked if that was sufficient for a Class C-1 license. It was and would be accepted. He asked if Mr. Steele’s verifications from outside the City would be accepted. ASM Manno said yes, in the past she had accepted verifications from as far as Saudi. He asked if Mr. Steele had other verifications to submit, other than the Laramie project he mentioned. Mr. Steele said he would not have three verifications to submit. He was from New Zealand and had been in business in the United States for only three and a half years. His other licenses were obtained because his verifications were accepted due to the similarities in building standards between those jurisdictions and New Zealand. Member Richards asked if Mr. Steele had similar projects from New Zealand he could submit. He had done similar projects with concrete, steel, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing. Member Richards said it sounded like he had the information the City needed to license him, it just needed to be submitted. Member Moscrip asked if the limited license would be for one building or one type of building. ASM Manno replied it would be for a very specific type of building, for example one-story commercial buildings that were 1,000 square feet. In this case, the license could be limited to small, container- size, moveable structures. ASM Manno had accepted verifications from the world over, so she would accept his project verifications. She just needed to put eyes on them. Ms. Welsh apologized for not having Mr. Steele submit his application previously. She asked if a limited license to shipping containers would be possible after Mr. Steele submitted his international project verifications. Chair Cram asked if would be appropriate if the BRC were to approve a limited license for shipping containers but made it contingent on submittal of an application with verifications. ACA Guin said the BRC should look to past precedent. The Code allowed a variance for three reasons: 1) some kind of undue hardship or practical difficulty, 2) if the Applicant has demonstrated additional certification or training, or 3) there is not substantial detriment to the public. They could ask for verification within a certain period of time. The BRC might be able to do the limited license, but they would have to meet the requirements. They would have to set up contingencies to make sure the information submitted was sufficient for approval. Chair Cram asked CBO Coldiron’s thoughts on granting a temporary license limited to shipping containers contingent upon receiving approved project verifications. He would support it because it follows the general process to which Building Services is accustomed. Chair Cram asked if ASM Manno could craft something along those lines. She could, but she needed some information to go on because the Applicants had not submitted any paperwork. ACA Guin pointed out the BRC likely did not need to move forward with the temporary license, because Mr. Steele could likely obtain a license through the normal process, but they should discuss contingencies if they wanted to opt for the temporary license. Member Richards asked if the temporary license status was something ASM Manno and CBO Coldiron could do within their normal duties and power. ASM Manno answered the CBO had the authority to issue a 45-day temporary license. Member Richards commented it was possibly a moot point for the BRC. He asked if they would table the item and move to Item 4. The outcome of the shipping container could change his opinion on this item. Chair Cram said they could temporarily move on, but he felt they needed to deal with the licensing issue first. Member Teplitsky thought a 45-day temporary license would not work for this situation. The design and permitting for the shipping container would not be done in 45 days. Member Teplitsky would rather make a decision on a limited license after seeing the project verifications. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 8 DRAFTCity of Fort Collins Page 6 February 24, 2022 ACA Guin commented aside from tabling this issue, the BRC could postpone it. Tabling meant waiting to take up the issue at a future, possibly indeterminate date, and postponing meant the BRC would wait to take up the issue until a condition happened. The BRC needed to figure out what needed to be done first. Member Teplitsky commented a temporary license could be granted and a full decision made at the next meeting if Mr. Steele’s paperwork had been submitted. Chair Cram commented if the verifications were not sufficient for a C-1, the issue was moot. ACA Guin explained postponement and tabling again. Ms. Manno explained once Mr. Steele had a license the permitting process would be smoother. It sounded to her like Mr. Steele had the experience, she just needed to see it. Because he had the experience, she recommended requesting a full C-1 instead of a limited license. Member Richards felt there were two options: 1) deny the license or 2) postpone to the next month to give the Applicants time to get together their paperwork. ACA Guin clarified if the BRC was ready to make a decision today, Appellants would have to re- submit another appeal, but if the issue was tabled, it would automatically be considered at the next meeting. CBO Coldiron thought it sounded like Mr. Steele had the bona fides to be licensed through the normal process which would not involve the BRC’s future participation. Ms. Welsh asked if they would have to reapply if postponed and submit another fee. ACA Guin stated it would not make sense under the procedure because this appeal would not have been resolved. Ms. Welsh asked if the BRC needed to approve international project verifications. ASM Manno clarified no, she would review and approve them if they meet the standard. Motion Chair Cram closed discussion and asked for a motion to postpone or table. ACA Guin suggested tabling to the next meeting was the best option to wait and see if the Applicant’s paperwork was sufficient for a license. Member Richards moved to table this discussion until the next meeting. In the meantime, we will get more information so we can better discuss the issue. Member Moscrip seconded. Board Discussion None. The motion passed 4-0. [Timestamp: 10:40 a.m.] **Secretary’s note: The BRC took a break from 10:41 a.m. to 10:46 a.m. All were present when the meeting resumed. 4. REKAIVERY, INC REQUEST TO BUILD A TEMPORARY STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to approve use of section 3103 Temporary Structures of the 2018 International Building Code which is currently ammended out of the 2018 IBC. Additionally, this requests to approve a 180 day extension to the stated maximum 180 days in section 3103.1 General. Disclosure of Conflicts None. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 9 DRAFTCity of Fort Collins Page 7 February 24, 2022 Staff Presentation Chief Building Official Coldiron presented the staff report. This was a request to build a temporary structure that could turn into a permanent one. The 2021 IBC, which would be passed by City Council in April, would include this Code section that was amended out of the 2018 Code and would be re-included in the 2021 Code. Due to time limitations on Appellant’s part, CBO Coldiron had asked them to submit the appeal. However, after discussing with ACA Guin after the appeal was submitted, the BRC did not have the authority to authorize this request. Staff recommendation was to deny the request. Applicant was informed the day before the hearing but wanted to go forward for documentation purposes. CBO Coldiron suggested the BRC could refund the $50.00 appeal fee on this item. ACA Guin pointed out the 2021 Code would be before Council and likely approved in April. The missing code piece had been raised at the first reading in February. The 2021 Code had passed at the first hearing in February. Nothing in Code gives the BRC the authority to reinstate a part of the Code that Council removed. Chair Cram commented there was nothing for the BRC to do and he agreed with refunding the appeal fees. ACA Guin said the motion should be to table the application indefinitely and move to refund the appeal fee. Ms. Welsh asked if there was language in Code saying the BRC could not bring back the piece of Code or a lack of language saying they could bring it back. ACA Guin directed the BRC its powers and responsibilities are enumerated in Code Sections 2-173 and 15-156, to which they are limited. He had found nothing in Code that would authorize the BRC to reinstate Code eliminated by City Council. Chair Cram told Ms. Welsh they could hear her comments but could not make a decision, and she agreed it was fair. Appellant and Parties-in-Interest in Support of Appeal Arguments Ms. Welsh spoke to explain her pilot program, partnered with the Larimer County Farmers’ Market. Time was of the essence, because they were trying to open in the Spring at the same time as the market. The idea was to promote equity, affordable food, and use of underutilized lots in line with the City Charter. She had started speaking with the City when Rich Anderson was CBO and had a several month delay waitng for a new CBO for guidance and direction. Farmers were very interested in selling produce in their structure, which would help them sell for equitable profits. They were working with the USDA to model a plan for other cities. Other cities had contacted her to launch the project there, but she wanted to stay in Fort Collins because it was funded by 130 interested community members from the City. She did not understand how to proceed forward, because she could not take this item to Council without a denial from the BRC. She wanted the BRC’s advice for how to move forward. Parties-in-Interest in Opposition to Appeal Arguments None. Appellant Rebuttal None. Opponent Rebuttal None. Board Questions of Staff and Parties-in-Interest Chair Cram asked ACA Guin if there was any way Ms. Welsh could take her modification request to City Council without a decision by the BRC. ACA Guin said no, the BRC would have to rule against the appeal for that to happen. The Building Codes did not allow for temporary structures and had not for years. Although Ms. Welsh had talked with the previous CBO, the CBO does not have authority to contravene Code passed by Council. The next reading of the 2021 Codes was April 5th. The period for getting on the agenda for the next Council meeting had passed, and the meeting after that was the April 5th meeting. It was up to the BRC to decide if they wanted to rule on an item for which they had no authority or deny it. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 10 DRAFTCity of Fort Collins Page 8 February 24, 2022 Senior Plans Examiner (SPE) Russ Hovland stated the permit was submitted the day before but he could not approve it based on Code, as it would have to be approved as a permanent building and was missing key parts like a foundation. He could wait until the 2021 Codes were approved in April or they could process it now with the potential problems it would present. Member Teplitsky would be OK with denying the request based on lack of authority if it was best for Ms. Welsh. Chair Cram commented it was the best the BRC could do. Member Teplitsky was not sure if there would be time, regardless of the action taken, and it might be easier for her to wait until the new Code was adopted. ACA Guin pointed out there would be a number of requirements to meet for an appeal to City Council, including a $100 appeal fee. Ms. Welsh thanked ACA Guin for his explanations that helped her understand her path forward. She asked if a denial would be a rejection that would allow her to elevate her question to City Council. She did not want to have to wait for the April passage of 2021 Code. ACA Guin said the BRC had the option to table the item until after Council’s April 5th meeting or make a decision that it lacked authority on this item and allow Applicant to follow the appeal process. ACA Guin pointed out Sections 246-256 of the City Code. If the BRC made a decision to deny an appeal, the Applicant could proceed to appeal before Council according to those sections. Ms. Welsh asked if the BRC made a decision it lacked authority, would she be able to take her appeal to Council. Chair Cram said he could not give legal advice but it sounded to him like a denial meant she could. Member Moscrip asked if the BRC should hear out both sides for the record so there could be an appeal to Council. ACA Guin said it was not necessary, the Applicant could craft her argument and could appeal if she wished. SPE Hovland pointed out Council would likely cancel one of the March meetings, so if Ms. Welsh appealed it would likely be heard in April. Member Teplitsky pointed out the BRC had no authority to judge the appeal because that section had been amended out of the Building Code. He preferred not to hear it and move on to the next item because it would not help Ms. Welsh. Chair Cram suggested a simple motion to deny the appeal because the BRC lacked the authority and to refund her BRC appeal fee. ACA Guin suggested Ms. Welsh be able to state the purpose of the appeal. She pursued the temporary structure route because the structure would be stationary, not mobile. She wanted to avoid wheels to be more ADA-friendly without a ramp. Former CBO Anderson had suggested the temporary structure based on what was previously in the Code. Ms. Welsh was trying to work with the City as much as possible due to the short timeline. Motion Chair closed the hearing and asked for a motion. Member Teplitsky moved to deny Ms. Welsh’s request based on the fact that this Commission does not have the authority to approve it, and in addition to refund the appeal fees that she paid. Member Richards seconded. The motion passed 4-0. [Timestamp: 11:33 a.m.] 5. ADDITIONS AND SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT CODE CHANGE FOR FEMA FLOODPLAINS DESCRIPTION: Fort Collins Utilities is conducting outreach related to a proposed regulatory change to Chapter 10 of City Code to come into compliance with minimum regulations from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regarding additions and substantial improvements in FEMA floodplains. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 11 DRAFTCity of Fort Collins Page 9 February 24, 2022 Staff Report Floodplain Administrator (FA) Hilmes-Robinson presented the staff report. She was conducting outreach for a proposed Code change that would go before Council in April. The point of the Code change was to minimize property damage. The City and FEMA had different designated floodplains. A building was considered substantially improved if the cost of improvement was greater than or equal to the market value of the structure. A structure that had been substantially improved must come into compliance with City Code. Member Teplitsky asked how the value would be calculated, and FA Hilmes-Robinson replied the Assessor values were the first step. If the value was over, the Applicant could pay for an appraisal to challenge the value. FEMA required the cost of an addition to be included as part of the substantial improvement calculation unless it was a standalone. The City had convened a stakeholder committee to meet the FEMA minimum standards but make them as user-friendly as possible and communicate the new standard. The Code change gave applicants two choices: 1) Design and certify the addition as “structurally independent” and elevate the addition. The cost of the addition would not be included in the calculation of substantial improvement; or 2) Include the addition in the calculation of substantial improvement, and the addition would be elevated. If the value of improvements, including the cost of the addition was more than 50% of the value of the structure, the existing structure would be considered substantially improved and need to be elevated. A structurally independent addition had to meet four criteria: 1) involved no alteration of load-bearing structure of the existing building; 2) was attached to the existing building with minimal connection; 3) had a doorway as the only modification to the common wall; and 4) would not transfer loads exerted on the addition to the existing building and would not share a foundation or other elements that would create a load path between the two. Member Teplitsky asked if the doorway was a standard size doorframe or if a larger one would be permissible. FA Hilmes-Robinson had tried to engage with FEMA and could not get an answer, so it would come down to the architect or engineer willing to certify the addition as structurally independent. The City had to come into compliance with FEMA floodplain regulations. A minimal number of permits would be impacted as in the FEMA floodplain, based on historical data. She asked the BRC to recommend to City Council to adopt the Code Change. Board Questions and Discussion Member Teplitsky commented it made sense to him. Member Richards asked what the implications would be if the City did not come into compliance with this requirement. FA Hilmes-Robinson answered FEMA could put the City on probation from the National Flood Insurance program and ultimately, the City could be expelled from the program. New buyers of homes in the FEMA floodplain would not be able to purchase flood insurance, which would likely stop the sale of those properties. He was pleased to see not many homes would be affected because as a homeowner, he would be concerned if he found out he had to meet all the requirements. He agreed that standalone additions should certainly be protected as demonstrated. Board Deliberation Member Teplitsky moved the Building Review Commission recommends City Council adopt the proposed changes to Chapter 10 of City Code regarding additions and substantial improvements in FEMA floodplains. Member Richards seconded. The motion passed 4-0. Chair Cram commented the requirements in the proposed Code Change were better than the alternative, which was to tear out houses and clear the floodplain. Some communities have had to consider that, because if a house was flooded out, it could not be rebuilt. [Timestamp: 11:54 a.m.] ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 12 DRAFTCity of Fort Collins Page 10 February 24, 2022 • OTHER BUSINESS None • ADJOURNMENT Chair Cram adjourned the meeting at 11:58 a.m. Minutes prepared and respectfully submitted by Aubrie Brennan. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on _________________________________ ______________________________ Marcus Coldiron, Chief Building Official Alan Cram, Chair ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 13 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 28, 2022 Building Review Commission STAFF Shar Manno, Contractor Licensing Marcus Coldiron, CBO SUBJECT VARIANCE REQUEST TO COMPLETE WORK OUTSIDE OF CURRENTLY HELD LICENSE CLASSIFICATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Mr. Mike Snyder of Legacy Design and Construction, Inc. is requesting a variance to his current license to complete work that falls outside of his license classificiation. BACKGROUND Mr. Snyder holds a Class D1 Residential Single-family license and supervisor’s certificate with an original issue date of October 9, 2019. The license has been renewed and without incident since the inception date. Testing received covered the ICC F13 – National Standard Residential Building Contractor (C), which is over the 2015 code year cycle and residential only. The project verifications submitted consisted of 3 new single family home builds, one single-family addition, one new small commercial build, and one commercial tenant finish. At the time of the licensing request, review and verificiation was completed and found that proper testing and project verifications were received for the licensing classificition requested by Mr. Snyder. On October 20, 2020 then Chief Building Official Rich Angerson granted a 30-day exception to complete a commercial general alteration located at 4825 Lemay Ave. for Council Tree Covenant Churach. The project description on the permit was; tenant finish for Council Tree Covenant Church - Remodel existing women's bathroom with new finishes and moving plumbing to current code requirements. Widening spaces between toilets and sinks, new lighting and partitions. Job Contact: Mike Snyder: 307-761-1962. PER RICH ANDERSON, LEGACY DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION (D-862) AUTHORIZED UNDER 30 DAY LICENSE TO PERFORM WORK. The permit application submittal date was October 19, 2020, final building inspection was completed on 11/24/2020. On January 28, 2022, Mr. Snyder requested a second license classification variation from Russ Hovland who, at the time, was acting CBO as Chief Building Official Coldiron was out on paternity leave. Mr. Hovland approved a 30-day license variance to complete a secondary restroom at the same address 4825 Lemay Ave. Mr. Snyder submitted a permit application on February 14, 2022. Plan review for permit issuance was completed on March 3, 2022, however; the license variance request had expired as of February 28, 2022, and the electrician selected for the permit had an expired master electrician registration as of March 2, 2022. There was close proximity to the permit application submittal by the applicant to the variance expiration date, plan reviews 2-week turnaround time and an expired registration by the electrician were all contributing factors to the 30-day varience originally not meeting the mark. Packet Pg. 14 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a 30-day temporary varience to Mr. Snyder’s Class D1 license and supervisor’s certificate based on the past project varience request at this same location, as well as, the secondary granting of a variance by then acting CBO Hovland. If the Commission agrees with the recommendation, the Board may pass a motion to allow a variance to Mr. Snyder’s residential Class D1 license and supervisor’s certificate to complete a commercial Class E(C) project. If the Commission disagrees with the recommendation, the Commission may pass a motion to deny Mr. Snyder’s request for a variance to his residential Class D1 license to complete a commercial project. ATTACHMENTS 1. Appeal form Packet Pg. 15  &RQWUDFWRU/LFHQVLQJ 1&ROOHJH$YH32%R[ )RUW&ROOLQV&2 3KRQH)D[ ZZZIFJRYFRPQEVFRQWUDFWRUSKS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD APPEAL FORM &RQWUDFWRU+HDULQJ  $SSHOODQW1DPHGED $GGUHVV 3KRQH0RELOH $FWLRQ5HTXHVWHG …([DP:DLYHU …/LFHQVH8SJUDGH …/LFHQVHDSSURYDO GHQLHGE\VWDII …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±$SSHOODQW&RS\)LOH $SULO DP I am requesting a variance on my current residential license in order to remodel a bathroom at Council Tree Convenant Church. I remodeled the Women's Bathroom August of 2020 Permit #B2011718. I was granted a variance on my license by Rich Andersen for that project. I have submitted the plans for the project and it is my understanding that they were approved and the permit is available as of 3/24/22 - Permit #B2200916 The scope of this project is simple, we will remove and reuse the existing toilet and urinal. We will demo the old partitions, tile and sink. We are eliminating one of the sinks as the location is hindered by the hand towel dispenser. We will replace the old florescent lighting with new LED lighting. We will repair the drywall, retexture, and repaint. We will retile, and install new partitions. We will install a new single bowl sink in free floating countertop. Signed/ Mike Snyder 3/24/22 xx 307-761-1962 2936 Brookwood Drive Fort Collins Co 80525 Legacy Design and Construction IncMike Snyder The fee to appeal to the Building Review Board is $50 ,7190436Ā-6:25782Ā/,)Ā-(!'-($$Ȁ",. Ȁ#*,*Ȁ+"(*Ȁ+##+% &*#.#!ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 16 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 28, 2022 Building Review Commission STAFF Mariel Miller, Water Conservation Specialist Marcus Coldiron, Chief Building Official Eric Potyondy, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT GRAYWATER ORDINANCE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this memo is to inform the Building Review Commission on the development of a proposed graywater ordinance and request a recommendation to the City Council on this policy direction. Development of a graywater ordinance is a Council Priority for 2021-2023. Staff presented information to the Council at a November 23, 2021, work session. Council directed staff to develop a draft ordinance that meets the State’s Water Quality Regulation 86 (graywater standards) and is in accordance with local water rights. BACKGROUND If adopted by Council, the graywater ordinance under development would align with the State’s Water Quality Regulation 86 and local water right limitations by providing for the following:  Enabling water from bathroom and laundry sinks, clothes washers, baths, and/or showers to be reused for toilet flushing.  Graywater use within Fort Collins Utilities’ water and wastewater service areas, with the possibility of graywater extending to other service areas, within city limits, depending on acceptance by other service providers within city limits (Boxelder Sanitation District, East Larimer County Water District, Fort Collins- Loveland Water District, South Fort Collins Sanitation District, and West Fort Collins Water District).  Graywater use in single-family and multi-family residential and commercial developments (both new and redevelopment properties). Please reference the attached Council Work Session document, dated November 23, 2021, for more details on graywater and the proposed ordinance. Progress To-Date: Q1 2022:  Drafted ordinance.  Drafted memorandum of understanding (MOU) for water and sanitation districts whose service areas include areas in the city limits.  Started communications with water and sanitation districts to determine geographic scope of the ordinance.  Coordinated with Larimer County to discuss alignment with the County’s draft graywater ordinance.  Attended the State’s monthly Regulation 86 stakeholder meetings, as the State plans to update its regulations in 2023. (Staff will continue to attend these meetings throughout 2022 and into 2023.) Q2 2022:  Created an Our City (ourcity.fcgov.com/graywater) forum to inform the public and collect and respond to feedback. Packet Pg. 17 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 2  Enacted plumbing codes required for graywater, in accordance with Regulation 86 (Council adopted on 2nd reading on April 5, 2022). Planned Tasks: Q2 2022: Engagement:  Continue engagement with water districts and sanitation districts – finalize MOUs.  City Boards and Commissions – April.  Presentation to Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce – 5/27.  Stakeholder presentation – 6/16. Communications:  E-newsletter to building industry-related contractors, developers and trades – 4/11.  Utility bill insert – June.  E-newsletter to building industry related contractors, developers and trades – July. Q3 2022:  Finalize ordinance.  Council Regular Session (1st reading of the ordinance) – 8/16. RECOMMENDATION Staff requests that the Building Review Commission consider the policy direction and make a recommendation to City Council for its consideration at 1st reading (currently planned for August 16, 2022). Staff recommends the following motion: Motion to recommend the City Council approve of a local graywater ordinance in accordance with the State’s standards, as outlined in Regulation 86, and local water rights. ATTACHMENTS 1. November 23, 2021 Council Work Session Agenda Item Summary and Presentation CC: Theresa Connor, Interim Utilities Deputy Director, Water Resources and Treatment Gretchen Stanford, Utilities Deputy Director, Customer Connections Packet Pg. 18 DATE: STAFF: November 23, 2021 Liesel Hans, Interim Deputy Utilities Director WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Exploring a Local Graywater Ordinance. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to provide an overview of graywater systems and consider the option for the City to adopt a local ordinance, which is necessary to enable installation of graywater systems. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. What general questions or feedback does Council have on the proposed direction? 2. Does Council have specific feedback on the proposed: a. Graywater application b. Legal Boundary c. Timeline BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION What is graywater? In Colorado: • Graywater is a portion of the water used in a residential, commercial, or industrial building that is collected after the first use and put to a second beneficial use. • Graywater can only be collected from bathroom and laundry room sinks, bathtubs, showers, and laundry machines. • Wastewater from toilets, urinals, kitchen sinks, dishwashers, and non-laundry utility sinks is not graywater and cannot be used for a second beneficial use; this flow cannot be captured and must continue to the wastewater collection system. • Graywater is allowed (instead of or in addition to, potable water) in use cases of toilet and urinal flushing and subsurface irrigation of non-agricultural plants. Subsurface irrigation is different from most common irrigation systems which instead dispense water above ground. • Here is a short video illustrating graywater: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8kipgTJDUw> Why allow the use of graywater? The Colorado Water Plan (2015) sets a goal to achieve 400,000 acre-feet of conservation in the municipal and industrial sectors by 2050. Further, the Fort Collins Utilities Water Efficiency Plan (2015) sets a goal to reduce average water use to 130 gallons per capita per day by 2030. This requires an additional 8% reduction from the current 5-year average over the next eight years. Both plans suggest exploring graywater as a potential strategy to reduce water use. Also, City Plan (2019) points to encouraging greater efficiency in new and redevelopment. Fort Collins is expected to grow significantly, with a potential for 30,000 new dwelling units in the Growth Management Area (GMA) with about 30 percent expected to be single -family dwelling units and about 80 percent ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 19 November 23, 2021 Page 2 of all additional dwelling units expected to be outside of the Fort Collins Utilities water service area. An estimate from Denver Water when they adopted their ordinance in 2016 suggests that for every 1,000 graywater systems installed in new single-family homes, enough water could be saved to serve about 125 household per year. More empirical research and data based on real world behavior is needed to understand if this estimate is realistic and can be relied on for water resource planning. Graywater also relates to the larger context of exploring tactics to use water more sustainably. While much of the water used by the Fort Collins’ residents is treated to drinking water standards, not all of it needs to be. For instance, the City uses of raw water for irrigation of most parks, recent legislation allows the limited use of rain barrels, and some of the City’s wastewater effluent (what is treated and then discharged back to the environment) is reused by the City and Platte River Power Authority (PRPA). Graywater is potentially another area where water treated to drinking water standards is not required. Why consider graywater now? Here is the timeline of graywater in Colorado to illustrate why Fort Collins is considering graywater now: • 2013: Colorado Legislature enacted HB13-144 into law, creating a voluntary, opt-in system which gives each municipality and county local control and choice to authorize graywater use in their jurisdiction. This bill also directed the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) to create the specific requirements and the Colorado Plumbing Board to incorporate graywater into the Colorado Plumbing Code. • 2015: The CDPHE Colorado Water Quality Control Commission adopts Regulation (Reg) 86. The purpose of Reg 86 is to create the actual rules, requirements, and standards for a graywater control program. Their main goal is to ensure graywater systems are set up and managed in a way that protects and minimizes risks to public health and safety. • 2016: The Colorado Plumbing Board incorporates graywater into the Colorado Plumbing Code. • 2020: Northern Water operates the Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) project which is about half of Fort Collins Utilities’ water use and is part of Fort Collins’ water every day. CBT water is not reusable, but the Northern Water Board passes a resolution allowing use of CBT for only non-consumptive graywater uses, which is defined in the resolution as only toilet and urinal flushing. • 2021: Fort Collins Council adopts their Council priorities, identifying exploration of graywater as a priority. A graywater ordinance would enable those who voluntarily want to utilize graywater in all or portions of the City of Fort Collins. Although this technology is still largely in a “demonstrati on phase”, an ordinance would allow the option, which currently is not allowed today. Local note of interest: Colorado State University has been a big player in the research on graywater systems and installed a graywater for toilet-flushing system in a dormitory (Aspen Hall) as a research and educational laboratory. The legislation in 2013 impacted their ability to run this system, but House Bill 17 -1008 created a research exemption. They currently are permitted to run their system but have not pursued funding to reactivate operation. Water rights and water district considerations A graywater ordinance ultimately must conform with the water rights of the given community. Each community has different water providers with a different water rights por tfolio which dictates the ability and extent to which they can authorize the use of graywater. Based on the Northern Water resolution and the significance of CBT water to Fort Collins Utilities’ and the districts’ water rights portfolios, staff is only considering adoption of an ordinance that enables toilet and/or urinal flushing graywater systems. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 20 November 23, 2021 Page 3 Fort Collins has several water providers, each with its own, unique water rights portfolio and considerations. The largest water providers are Fort Collins Utilities, the East Larimer County Water District, and the Fort Collins - Loveland Water District. The considerations that apply to Fort Collins Utilities’ water rights portfolio may not apply to the districts and their unique portfolios. For example, most of Fort Collins Utilities’ water supplies are not allowed to be reused, and most of Fort Collins Utilities’ reusable water is already dedicated to existing plans. Fort Collins Utilities also relies significantly on CBT water. This puts Fort Collins Utilities at a disadvantage with graywater compared to other communities who have significant sources of reusable water supplies, such as Denver Water. Staff is approaching the potential use of graywater in the water districts’ boundaries from a collab orative perspective and intends to continue consulting with them. At this point, discussions with the water districts regarding graywater have not progressed to a sufficient level such that we can assure Council that the water districts are comfortable that graywater use would conform with their water rights portfolio. However, to keep this project moving, staff is proposing to move forward with considering graywater use in Fort Collins Utilities’ water service area, leaving open the option for the distr icts to join in the future as we continue to collaborate on this topic. WHAT WOULD IT TAKE? Below are a few of the key aspects of what is required for a local graywater ordinance and graywater systems. This list is not comprehensive. In order to enable installation of toilet/urinal flushing graywater systems, the City would need to: • Adopt CO Plumbing code (Done! Already in current City Plumbing Codes and planned for incorporation in the upcoming updates in early 2022) • Consult with local health agencies and water and wastewater districts o Ensure conformance with water rights • Create a local ordinance or resolution o Define legal boundary (ex: GMA vs. Fort Collins Utilities water/wastewater service area) o Consult with local health agencies and water and wastewater districts o Must meet minimum standards of Reg 86 • Determine staffing resources, roles, and responsibilities • Develop and implement program administration: o Design criteria document o Review and inspection system o Permit and tracking system o Operator compliance system The physical graywater system for toilet flushing would need to include, among other things: • National Sanitation Foundation/American National Standards Institute (NSF/ANSI) 350 standard certified treatment system with a disinfection system • Potable back-up system • Dual plumbing system (potable and graywater) • Min. 50-gallon storage tank (~4 square feet of space required) • Backflow prevention system, cross-connection control to protect public health ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 21 November 23, 2021 Page 4 A property owner would need to: • Conduct regular maintenance • Keep maintenance manual • Minimize exposure to humans and pets • Hire a certified operator for any non-single-family systems (Reg 86 Category D: multi-family and commercial systems) POTENTIAL IMPACT AND STRATEGY COMPARISONS How much water could a graywater program save? As noted, graywater, especially for toilet and urinal flushing is still largely a “demonstration” technology and there are limited manufacturers and limited information or studies on the actual upfront costs, maintenance costs and water savings. Table 1: Estimated costs and benefits across selected water conservation measures below includes information on a few selected existing water conservation measures and graywater for both a single- family and multi-family property. While the table below illustrates examples from the residential sector, the non -single-family categories of Regulation 86 do allow graywater systems in commercial settings. A few commerc ial examples that lend themselves well to consideration of graywater are recreation centers, gyms, and hotels. Commercial examples were not included in this table because there are fewer real -world examples, more variables that affect cost and impact, and less known about graywater systems in commercial settings. Table 1: Estimated costs and benefits across selected water conservation measures Estimated Costs Estimated Benefits Measure Averag e upfront cost to custom er or develop er Average annual maintenan ce costs Average annual water savings Average annual utility bill savings Return on Investm ent for Custom er Single- family homes (4 residents) High-efficiency toilet retrofit $175 $4 Up to 20,000 gallons $130 Instant Irrigation management $0 $0 11,000 gallons $40 Instant Xeriscape retrofit $3,800 NA 17,000 gallons $60 52 years Graywater (toilet flushing only) $4,500 $36 10,000-20,000 gallons $66-$132 46-150 years Multi-family (100 residents) Graywater (toilet flushing only) $90,000 $500 230,000- 500,000 gallons $1,500- $3,000 32-90 years Assumptions in this table: • The ROI for toilets assumes a $50 rebate to the homeowner. Without this rebate the ROI is less than 1 year. “Up to” for toilets refers to the fact that the gallon s used per flush for the original and the new toilet can vary. 20,000 gallons is based on an old 3.5 gallon per flush (gpf) toilet to a 0.8 gpf toilet. • Irrigation management encompasses the tactics employed in the Fort Collins Utilities Sprinkler Check-up Program, which includes adjusting the number of watering days and amount of water applied to better match the needs of the landscape. The ROI for irrigation management assumes the service is provided free to the resident. Without this, the ROI would likely be 1-2 years. • The ROI for the xeriscape landscape retrofit includes a $700 rebate, which is the average rebate ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 22 November 23, 2021 Page 5 amount awarded through the Fort Collins Utilities Xeriscape Incentive Program. Without this rebate the ROI becomes 63 years. • An estimate for maintenance costs for xeriscape are not available but are likely not zero. It is difficult to tease out increased maintenance costs, if any, compared to previous landscaping maintenance costs. • The maintenance costs for the graywater measures are very rough estimates and may likely be too low. All utility bill savings and ROI are based on the 2021 Fort Collins Utilities water and wastewater rates. For reference, a single-family home in the Fort Collins Utilities service area with 4 residents is estimated to use around 130,000 gallons per year on average. Key observations from Table 1: • Range in Savings: The graywater strategies are presented with a large range of savings. This is because there are not very many studies to demonstrate actual water use patterns. The other measures provided for comparison are widely adopted strategies that are informed by real-world research from other communities and our own programs and data. • Scale and Application: There is a benefit from scaling up graywater systems. Single-family homes have a limited amount of graywater whereas large facilities that have high uses of water from showers and laundry and a higher demand for toilet flushing such as hotels, recreation centers, gyms, multi -family residential, and dormitories, could realize more significant cost and water savings from graywater. • Retrofit vs. New Construction: The graywater values above assume the system is in a new construction setting. It is far more costly to retrofit existing structures than to incorporate a system into new construction. The existing limited data suggest more interest will take place in new development. • Reliability and Certainty of Savings: Not all measures are created equal; some provide more reliable and consistent water savings. There is the potential for graywater to be turned off within a home if the user bypasses treatment and continues to use potable water for toilet flushing, for example (providing a potable water system is required by Regulation 86, making it relatively easy to bypass the system). From the existing studies it is unclear how often this happens. • Multiple Benefits: Each measure can offer multiple benefits to a resident and/or property owner, not just water use reductions and therefore the ROI to the end user isn’t the only measure of importance. For example, replacing a toilet might be part of a larger bathroom remodel that improves the overall value of the home. A landscape transformation project might include a patio to allow additional usability like outdoor dining and entertaining and may include plants that attract and support pollinators and support City’s biodiversity goals. A graywater system, like the other measures, can represent a commitment to a conservation and sustainable water use ethic. • Other Graywater Applications: This table only presents information about toilet/urinal flushing graywater systems. The other option allowed by Regulation 86 is graywater for subsurface irrigation. These are commonly referred to as “Laundry to Landscape” programs. For other communities whose water rights portfolio are amenable for these systems, there is the benefit that these systems are cheaper and easier to manage, especially in the single-family context. PROGRESS TO DATE ACROSS THE STATE A local municipality or county is the authority that must adopt a local ordinance to enable a local graywater program. Within Colorado there are 64 counties and 271 incorporated municipalities. Each of these entities have one or more water providers, unique water rights and portfolios, one or more wastewater providers, different local environment and public health entities, and development patterns that influence adoption of a graywater ordinance. One combined City/County, one County, and two Municipalities have adopted graywater regulations. Two others are actively exploring the adoption of a graywater ordinance. Table 2: Colorado Graywater Comparisons summarizes information on the agencies that have adopted graywater regulations in Colorado based on publicly available information and interviews with staff from each ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 23 November 23, 2021 Page 6 entity. Of the five entities who have adopted regulations, two have seen some uptake (Denver and Castle Rock). These projects have exclusively been in new developments, and all w ere incentivized by the local agency. The early adopters are communities with a significant portion of reusable water supplies in their portfolios. Table 2: Colorado Graywater Comparisons Entity Year Systems Permitted Driver Uptake Incentive Denver City & County 2016 All Sustainability Goals 3 homes Denver Water paid for installation Town Castle Rock 2018 All Development community 29 homes Reduced Water Impact Fees Pitkin County 2018 All Sustainability goals 0 No City of Golden 2020 Subsurface Irrigation Sustainability goals 0 Plans for direct install pilot Broomfield 2021 All Community interest 0 No Thornton Under development. Larimer County Planned for 2022. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT Graywater is aligned to a variety of plans and strategic objectives that touch many areas across the organization, community, and state. This AIS has touched on a few already, but below are more about each. These include, but are not limited to: • City Strategic Plan (2020): The City Strategic Plan provides a vision and framework for the City. It outlines a variety of goals including: to provide a high-quality water supply, intensify efforts to improve resilience, and provide world-class municipal services through operational excellence and a culture of innova tion. Graywater can align to these objectives, and others, by creating an innovative tool for water planning that has the potential to reduce water use in new developments. • Utilities Strategic Plan (2021): This Plan bridges the larger City Strategic Plan and the work across all of Utilities. Graywater can support this Plan by supporting goals to ensure sustainable service delivery, leverage new and innovative technology, and meet customer needs, among others. • City Plan (2019): The City Plan provides a coordinated and cohesive set of policies to support ongoing climate adaptation and resilience planning throughout the community. Graywater can support these goals by responsibly managing water resources with the potential to reduce water use in new developments. • Municipal Sustainability and Adaptation Plan (2019): This Plan is the employee roadmap for operating and building a healthy and sustainable organization by 2050. This Plan formally addressed climate adaptation and resilience. Graywater supports this mission by enabling a new strategy to sustainably manage water resources. • Our Climate Future (2021): Our Climate Future outlines a roadmap to address climate, energy, and waste goals while improving our community’s equity and resilience. Graywater can support this mission by establishing new strategies to reduce water use in new developments and increasing our community’s resiliency. • Water Efficiency Plan (2015): The State- and Council-approved Water Efficiency Plan outlines a goal to reach 130 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) by 2030. The plan also outlines various levels of opportunity including greater integration of water efficiency into land use planning and building. Graywater falls into this category as a tactic to explore but historically has not been prioritized due to other cost -effective projects with reliable savings (e.g., fixture efficiency standards in building codes). ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 24 November 23, 2021 Page 7 • Water Supply and Demand Management Plan (2012): The Water Supply and Demand Management plan aligns to the Water Efficiency Plan and aims to ensure a reliable, safe, water supply for our Utility. Graywater can align with these goals by acting as a demand management strategy. The Water Efficiency Plan and this plan are scheduled to be updated soon. The effort will provide a comprehensive look at our water resources, supplies, demands, and potential scenarios to ensure a reliable water supply into the future, including further exploration of graywater and other uses of non-potable water supplies. • Housing Strategic Plan (2021): The Housing Strategic Plan is a strategy for “everyone in Fort Collins to have healthy, stable housing, they can afford.” The plan describes goals to achieve this vision, including addressing opportunities with water costs and housing. Graywater has the potential to reduce water costs for end users. • Colorado Water Plan (2015): The Colorado Water Plan is the State’s roadmap to sustainable water management. The plan outlines various objectives to meet future demand including sp ecific goals connected to adoption of graywater regulations across the state. Graywater aligns with these goals and others by encouraging municipal conservation, efficiency planning and land use water planning, and the idea of “right water for the right use.” ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Upcoming Regulation 86 Update: CDPHE shared that they expect to update Regulation 86 soon (estimated 2022-2024) after the NSF/ANSI 350 standard will be updated (expected 2021 -2022). Staff anticipates that a local graywater ordinance may need to be reviewed and potentially revised following an update to the regulation and may pose risks to any systems that are installed prior to the update of the regulation, if older systems don’t conform with any critical Regulation 86 updates that may be made to protect public health. Wastewater Impacts: Reducing indoor water use at a large scale can have significant impacts to wastewater utilities. Reducing flows can cause stoppages in the collection system which may require more frequ ent flushing or trouble-shooting. Further, at a large scale this could contribute to more concentrated flows at the reclamation facilities, which may require changes to the treatment process. These potential impacts can be greatly mitigated by improving awareness and minimizing behaviors such as flushing or disposing of materials and objects that do not belong in the wastewater system. This includes flushable wipes, feminine hygiene products, fats, oils, and greases (FOG), etc. Staff are in the process of expanding existing public outreach campaigns, such as “What not to flush” and FOG, by tying the messaging to water efficiency efforts to highlight the importance of eliminating certain items from wastewater stream to keep things flowing. This enhanced effo rt is likely to begin in early 2022. In the meantime, the current campaigns can be found here: • <https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-not-to-flush> • <https://www.fcgov.com/fog> Fort Collins has several wastewater providers. The largest water providers are: Fort Collins Utilities, the Boxelder Sanitation District, and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District. The above considerations may apply to these districts to some degree. As with the water providers, staff is approaching the potential use of graywater in the wastewater districts’ boundaries from a collaborative perspective and intends to consult with them. At this point, discussions with the other wastewater districts regarding graywater have not progressed to a sufficient level such that we can assure Council that they are comfortable with graywater. However, to keep this project moving, staff is proposing to move forward with considering graywater use in Fort Collins Utilities’ wastewater service area, leaving open the option for the districts to join in the future as we continue to collaborate on this topic. Upcoming Utilities Policy Updates: It is in the Utilities workplan to update both the Water Efficiency Plan and the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy, which together guide the decisions about water resources for Fort Collins Utilities. This process will evaluate planning scenarios and various strategies to ensure reliable water for our community. Widespread installation of graywater systems will be considered in that planning proc ess. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 25 November 23, 2021 Page 8 NEXT STEPS Based on research and interviews, staff recommends adopting an enabling ordinance for a toilet/urinal flushing graywater system within the geographic area that is with both the Fort Collins Utilities water and wastewater service areas. Estimated timeline: • Q4 2021 - Q1 2022: Draft ordinance and other related documents • Q2 2022: Internal and external stakeholder engagement, including Boards and Commissions • Q3 2022: Bring ordinance to Council for consideration • Q4 2022: Update website and create informational/education materials as needed ATTACHMENTS 1. Information Sheet (PDF) 2. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 26 Graywater Information Sheet January 2016 Background As a result of 2013 legislation, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment – Water Quality Control Division developed Regulation 86: Graywater Control Regulation (Regulation 86). In 2015, the regulation was adopted by the Water Quality Control Commission. Regulation 86 is only one component of a larger legal framework which must be in place for graywater to be used legally in the state. In addition to Regulation 86, the Co lorado Plumbing Board has a requirement for graywater piping within structures. Any graywater use will also need to comply with Colorado water rights, which is regulated by the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources. The 2013 legislation made graywater an opt-in program for local jurisdictions not a statewide program. To allow graywater use, local jurisdictions include a city, city and county, or county will have to adopt an ordinance or resolution to allow graywater use within their jurisdiction by developing a graywater control program that meets the requirements of Regulation 86. Please contact your local city or county to see if a local graywater program is in place. What is graywater? Graywater is a portion of water used in a residential, commercial or industrial building that may be collected after the first use and put to a second beneficial use. Graywater sources may include water discharged from: Bathroom and laundry-room sinks. Bathtubs. Showers. Laundry machines. Graywater does not include water discharged from: Toilets. Urinals. Kitchen sinks. Dishwashers. Non-laundry utility sinks. Graywater uses and treatment requirements Regulation 86 outlines requirements, prohibitions and standards for graywater use for non-drinking purposes. Allowable graywater use categories are summarized below. Please see Regulation 86 for more detailed information. Note that local requirements may be more stringent than Regulation 86 requirements and may not allow all use categories. Category A: Single family, subsurface irrigation Category B: Non-single family, subsurface irrigation Category C: Single family, indoor toilet and urinal flushing, subsurface irrigation Category D: Non-single family, indoor toilet and urinal flushing, subsurface irrigation Single family users. Design flow of 400 gallons per day (gpd) or less. For outdoor, subsurface irrigation within the confines of the legal property boundary. Non-single family users. Design flow of 2,000 gpd or less. For outdoor, subsurface irrigation within the confines of the legal property boundary. Single family users. Design flow of 400 gpd or less. For indoor toilet and urinal flushing and outdoor, subsurface irrigation within the confines of the legal property boundary. Non-single family users. No maximum flow for indoor use, design flow of 2,000 gpd or less for outdoor irrigation. For indoor toilet and urinal flushing and outdoor, subsurface irrigation within the confines of the legal property boundary. Regulation 86 outlines design criteria and control measures (aka best management practices) for each category. Please contact your local city or county to discuss local graywater control program requirements. ATTACHMENT 1ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 27 Exploring GraywaterLiesel HansInterim Utilities Deputy Director, Water Resources & TreatmentATTACHMENT 2ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 28 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 29 3Questions for Council1. What general questions or feedback does Council have on the proposed direction? 2. Does Council have specific feedback on the proposed: • Graywater application• Legal Boundary• Timeline ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 30 4What is Graywater?SourcesClothes washing machines Bathroom and laundry sinksBathtubsShowersToilet flushingUsed water is collected and reused.Treatment and dyeSubsurface irrigationUsesSettingsSettingsITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 31 5Strategic AlignmentCity PlanOur Climate FutureHousing Strategic PlanMunicipal Sustainability and Adaptation Plan“Right water, right use”Colorado Water PlanWater Supply & Demand Management PolicyWater Efficiency PlanCouncil PriorityCity Strategic PlanUtilities Strategic PlanExploring GraywaterITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 32 6Regulation 862013Colorado Legislature signed HB13-144 into Law2015CDPHE Colorado Water Quality Control Comm. adopts Reg 862016Graywater allowances effective in CO Plumbing Code2020Northern Water OKs graywater for toilet flushing only2021-22NSF/ANSI 350-2011 update2023-24?CDPHE to update Reg 86NSF = National Sanitation Foundation, ANSI = American National Standards InstituteCDPHE = Colorado Department of Public Health and EnvironmentITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 33 Growth Management Area (GMA)Fort Collins UtilitiesELCO Water DistrictFort CollinsNFort Collins Loveland Water DistrictWest Fort Collins Water DistrictWater Service Area7Legal boundary would need to be defined. Each water district has a different water rights flexibility and limitations related to graywater.ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 34 8What It Takes The City Would Need To:Adopt CO Plumbing codeConsult with local health agencies, water and wastewater districtsEnsure conformance with water rightsCreate a local ordinance or resolutionDefine legal boundary Must meet minimum standards of Reg 86 Determine staffing resourcesDevelop program administrationDesign criteria documentReview and inspection systemPermit and tracking systemOperator compliance systemToilet Flushing System Requirements:NSF/ANSI 350 standard certified treatment system w/disinfection system Potable back-up systemDual plumbing Min. 50-gallon storage tank (~4sq. ft)Backflow prevention, cross-connection controlProperty Owners Would Need To:Conduct regular maintenanceKeep maintenance manualMinimize exposure to humans and petsCertified operator required for non-single familyapplications ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 35 Potential Impact Considerations“How much water could a graywater program save?”Range of SavingsScale & ApplicationRetrofit vs. New ConstructionReliability & Certainty of SavingsMultiple Benefits 9ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 36 Golden (2020)Broomfield (2021)Denver (2016)3 homesCastle Rock (2018)29 homesPitkin County (2018)Thornton in progressLarimer County planned 2022Progress Across the StateITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 37 Proposed ApproachProposed Approach: • Create an enabling ordinance• Application: toilet/urinal flushing systems only• Boundary: Fort Collins Utilities water and wastewater service areasEstimated timeline:11Create draft ordinance and other related materialsQ1 2022Stakeholder engagement and revision Q2 2022Bring ordinance to Council for considerationQ3 2022ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 38 12Questions for Council1. What general questions or feedback does Council have on the proposed direction? 2. Does Council have specific feedback on the proposed: • Graywater application• Legal Boundary• Timeline ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 39 For Questions or Comments, Please Contact:THANK YOU!Liesel Hanslhans@fcgov.comITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 40