Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 03/25/2004Minutes approved by the Board at the April 29, 2004 Meeting FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting — March 25, 2004 1 00 .m. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Felix Lee 221-6760 Chairperson: Charles Fielder hone: 484-0117(W), 207-0505(H) A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday March 25, 2004, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: David Carr Charles Fielder Leslie Jones Gene Little John McCoy Bradley Massey • BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Smilie STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Building and Zoning Director Brian Woodruff, Natural Resources Delynn Coldiron, Contractor Licensing Administrator Stacie Soriano, Staff Support AGENDA: 1. ROLLCALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Fielder, and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Carr made a motion to approve the minutes from the February 26, 2004, meeting. Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed. 0 Periodic Review BRB 03/25/2004 Page 2 Lee explained the questionnaire that was put into board packets. Board members can either return it to Building and Zoning or the City Clerk's office. Fielder asked if the questionnaire was a collective effort. Lee said it was for individual feedback. Lee said he would seek further clarification from the City Clerk's office and inform board members. 4. IRC Update Lee said the purpose of the meeting is to garner a recommendation by the Building Review Board for the purposes of adopting the draft codes. Lee said that the proposal is in draft form and he did not expect any changes to the document other than minor editing issues and that the content is intact. Carr stated that he had two dozen editing clarifications and asked if he could give those changes to Lee after the meeting. Lee said yes and that he appreciated Carr's efforts. Fielder asked Lee whether the Board had comments to discuss with Lee. Lee replied that comments are welcome. Lee said he invited individuals from the Task Group and others. Brian Woodruff from the Natural Resources Department was present. Lee provided a presentation on the City of Fort Collins 2003 International Residential Code • (IRC) and Draft Amendments. He noted that the first reading by City Council is set for April 20, 2004. Lee stated that there is ample time to make comments and opinions known to staff and City Council. Lee noted that the IRC included provisions related to radon, energy, and general construction (administrative and miscellaneous). He indicated that staff is suggesting a transition period after Council adopts the ordinance and before it becomes effective. Comments following Lee's presentation Carr asked about the exposure to smog compared to radon. Lee said that smog affected everybody and that was why it was not filtered out. Lee stated those types of things were difficult to identify. Lee noted that his job was to supply information. Lee asked Woodruff to add any comments. Carr stated that one reason why individuals have lung cancer might be exposure to smog and smoking. Carr said that smog affected everybody, and radon exposure presumably only affected people that had radon in their homes. Woodruff said that the health effects of smog (referred to as ozone) are not carcinogenic and therefore they are not comparable with a cancer causing agent like radon. According to Woodruff, the types of effects from breathing ozone were temporary death of lung cells that are generally reversible, unless one was exposed to high levels of ozone. Woodruff did not feel the two were comparable. • McCoy asked Lee if he sought a recommendation from the Board on the draft by itself with the radon component separate. Lee responded that the Board is able to do whatever they wished. BRB 03/25/2004 Page 3 • Lee said that he would like to have a recommendation that day because there would not be another opportunity to meet prior to the first reading. McCoy and Massey have been involved in the majority of the meetings crafting the draft of the residential code. McCoy proposed that the Board recommend adopting the draft of the IRC without the radon component. McCoy commended Lee for trying to draft the IRC with affordability. Massey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Fielder, Massey, and Carr. Nays: Little and Jones. Michelle Jacobs, representative for the Homebuilders Association of Northern Colorado (HBANCO), addressed the Board. Jacobs said that the basement wrap material that was discussed caused tumors and cancer only when injected --not inhaled. Jacobs wanted to make sure that there was not any confusion about the different hybrids of radon systems. She advised the Board that builders are installing the passive radon system, but the HBA does not support it. Jacobs went on to note that the builders who were installing passive radon systems were using it as a marketing tool and that the homes built with passive radon systems are typically custom built homes, not entry level homes. Jacobs commented that there are not definitive studies showing at what level radon was a health risk and that the health issue will always be debated. According to Jacobs, the studies that she looked at refer to the original EPA study, which she felt • was flawed. Jacobs expressed hope that the radon controversy in Fort Collins would instigate a new study pertaining to radon. According to Jacobs, there are only five communities across the country that are mandating radon mitigation systems, are not within the same risk zone as Fort Collins, and are on the East Coast. Jacobs stated that the EPA study related the risk of radon cancers to other household accidents such as ladder and stair accidents is not valid. Jacobs said the Board was previously presented with the New Home Choices Colorado brochure. Jacobs felt that houses built as a system perform better. Jacobs stated that a building code is a minimum standard, and that a local municipality did not need to mandate lifestyle choices. She expressed her belief to local government's role is to protect the health and safety of the community. Jacobs said that Fort Collins is a major player with the New Home Choices Colorado campaign, and she wants to give the market a chance to see if the campaign was going to work. The campaign is state-wide with funding from the State and E-Star. Jacobs said the energy portion of the IRC is very expensive, but that the HBA strongly supported the building code portion of the IRC. Jacobs felt the energy component of the IRC was far and above other Northern Colorado community standards. Jacobs recognized that the energy conservation techniques are important because energy sources are depleting. Jacobs asked if the radon label requirement in the draft amendments reading, "SOS Radon," could be replaced with numbers. Jacobs said it was a minor change, but an appreciated one. Lee agreed to change the wording. Jacobs said that steel prices will be going up by 20% in April and wanted the Board to take inflation costs into consideration. Jacobs attended a study session on • Tuesday regarding street oversizing fees and noted the street oversizing fees would be increased by $922.00. According to Jacobs, the City has added $15,000 in fees within the past year for the BRB 03/25/2004 Page 4 is cost of a home. Jacobs asked if the measures are really needed, and restated her aim to maintain affordability in Fort Collins. The Board asked Jacobs questions pertaining to radon. Jacobs deferred HBA member, Gil Paben, to answer questions. Paben said that when the testing of soils is done prior to construction, there is no guarantee of what the radon levels would be in the house until after the house is built. He noted there is a potential for higher radon levels due to the soil being disturbed. Paben said the average level of radon prior to mitigation was ten, and the average level after mitigation was two pCi/L. Paben said that the HBA installed radon mitigation systems at a competitive price. Regarding passive radon systems, Paben said that all the phases have to be installed according to the passive system checklist. He noted the cost included the sub -slab, caulking and sealing the slab and joints, and running the vent pipe from beneath the slab up through the framing and out through the roof. Paben added that if there is a crawl space, the customer is charged an additional fee, which is sometimes doubles the price. The average cost according to Paben was $1388.00 for the passive radon system. Paben stated that 70-75% of the houses were above the four pCi/L guideline. Paben noted that radon was detected throughout Fort Collins, and levels can vary from house to house. The Board wanted to know what the HBA supported. Jacobs said the HBA supported the IRC, but not the energy or radon components. Jacobs stated that she liked what Larimer County is is efficient by not implementing the 2x6 construction due to the expense. Jacobs felt that the 90% efficient furnace trade-off was still expensive. According to Jacobs, the County will have a $3000 increase versus a $6500 increase per home in the city. McCoy said the energy code had the opportunity to pay for itself even though there was an initial increase in cost. Jacobs replied that the energy conservation measures do save on the monthly utility bills, but it was not significant ($15-20 a month), and further that an individual would have to stay in a home 20 plus years to recoup the cost. According to Jacobs, market studies have shown that families move every three to five years. Massey asked if her statement contradicted her statement of letting the market take care of energy conservation measures. Jacobs replied that the New Home Choices Colorado campaign was a market campaign. Massey was not concerned with people moving because the home would still exist. Jacobs agreed with Massey and stated that it was the builder who would have to justify the cost of the home to the original home buyer. Jacobs said by the City enforcing energy conservation measures and radon, a marketing tool would be taken away from builders. McCoy asked how the monthly energy bill was configured. Lee replied that he did an analysis based on components, and used the study that the City did versus the high performance home used by the New Home Choices Colorado campaign. Lee said he would dispute the $10420 savings, and said it was a 20% minimum savings. Lee felt the cost savings were significant. Lee asked E-star of Colorado to perform a detailed analysis to back up his argument. Jacobs explained where she received her numbers. BRB 03/25/2004 Page 5 40 Jones said that in the late `70s he used these techniques such as 6" walls. Jones remarked that they were more efficient, although not cost effective. Jones said the cost of fuel was another factor. Jones said the most important factor is the price of energy, which is terribly unpredictable. Jones said that the homeowner regulated his own heating and cooling temperatures with a thermostat and felt the adoption of the IRC and its energy upgrades are unnecessary. Jacobs noted that in order to achieve many of the energy conservation levels certain products are needed which are not readily available on the market, although will be in the future. She went on to say that manufacturers of the products know that the code is changing and that builders and homeowner are relying on the manufacturers. Jacobs expressed her belief that the cost will rise due to low product availability. McCoy said that he came up with approximately $7300 per home to meet the new energy code at worst case. McCoy examined the monthly energy bill and there is a possibility of saving $20.00. McCoy said that according to his calculations, a mortgage payment would be increased by $30.00 a month and a homeowner would need to increase their yearly income by $1000 year to have an IRC home. McCoy agreed with Massey's comment regarding the house still existing despite the sale of the home. Jacobs was not convinced of the municipality's duty to mandate "lifestyle choices" in her words. • Massey wanted to breakdown the differences between IRC and energy code. Jacobs said that it is the exterior wall assembly that added the greatest cost. Massey wanted to know what the HBA is endorsing. Jacobs replied the stairs and moisture backing for the siding. Lee clarified that the IRC has chapters for energy, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical. He explained the energy portion coming out of the model IRC calls for R-18 wall insulation and windows that are .35 U- value. Lee noted the items being added are radon and the thermal energy provisions in the wall and that the differences are the following local amendments: (1) air conditioning that meets the 2007 standard; (2) City offered trade-offs for 90% efficient furnace; and (3) a fully sealed duct system or testing. Jacobs remarked that other communities have excluded said items from the IRC. Massey asked what communities in Northern Colorado have officially adopted the IRC. Jacobs said Evans, Weld County, and Longmont. Lee said there were several other state jurisdictions that have adopted the 2003 IRC. McCoy stated that Fort Collins was only two or three years ahead of some items being federally mandated. Jacobs was concerned with product availability, especially for windows and insulation. McCoy reiterated his comments pertaining to cost. Lee clarified that the 1600 square feet requirement did not include the basement. Jones felt that many of the proposed IRC changes were currently being used. Jones did not feel that everyone should meet the high end market • standards. McCoy asked Jones if a 1600 square foot home was too small to exempt the increases BRB 03/25/2004 Page 6 • in energy efficiency, and if the square footage should be increased. Jones commented that the proposed energy measures were not cost efficient. Jones said that he was not convinced. Lee introduced Brian Woodruff from the Natural Resources Department to address any further questions or comments regarding radon. Woodruff responded to Jacobs' and Paben's comments. Woodruff said Jacobs pointed out correctly that there are builders who are installing radon systems on a voluntary basis today and in the last three years, 10% of homes have had an active or passive system installed. He added that some builders do not offer the product. Woodruff does not believe that the market could provide a radon mitigation system for any customer who wanted it. Woodruff said that the passive system cost about $1300, according to Paben's estimation. Woodruff commented on Paben's comments regarding the installation of a radon mitigation system in a house that already has been built, noting that Paben would typically put in a fan at a cost of about $850. Woodruff said an active system has operating costs that continue for the life of the home ($62.00 a year for electricity and replacement of the fan every eight years). The benefit of the passive system, according to Woodruff, is that without adding any electrical expense, a homeowner would get a 47% reduction in radon and did not add any more cost over the life of the house. Massey asked if a passive system included the gravel under the slab, the pipe up through the roof, and the sealing of the joints. Woodruff responded that in order for the system to be effective the concrete joints would have to be sealed and that power would be available in the • attic either by junction box or outlet. Massey asked about the selling of a home requiring a radon test. McCoy responded that there was a City ordinance that required a prospective homeowner to be aware of radon. Carr asked whether the same dwelling could pass inspection and later fail inspection. Woodruff replied that it was possible, although unusual. Woodruff added that the source of the radon coming in is the soil around the home and, unless someone was excavating around the foundation, he did not believe that it would change the amount of radon coming in. Lee agreed. Fielder stated that people are intimidated when the see a passive pipe in a house and the pipe functions as a warning. Fielder stated that a lot of individuals did not understand the radon problem. Lee said there were other benefits such as odor control and keeping the sub -floor area dry. Lee said a radon mitigation system would be in all homes, not just those tested. Jones said that he missed the part where radon is a problem and asked how many pCi/L the EPA allows each person to have per day. Jones did not see anything definitive pertaining to radon being a problem. Woodruff responded that the health agencies at the national level agree that radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer after smoking (14% attributed to radon). Woodruff stated radon does cause cancer, but the risk can be reduced by limiting exposure. He . said the risk of getting cancer from radon over a lifetime is 1 in 100 based on 75 years of occupancy. Woodruff noted that even though people move, all houses have a certain amount of BRB 03/25/2004 Page 7 is radon in them. Woodruff said the duty of the municipality is to reduce the amount of radon in the housing stock. McCoy felt the current ordinance addresses Woodruff concern. Woodruff replied to McCoy's comment, stating that the current ordinance takes care of existing housing and believed that the ordinance should be continued. Woodruff said the City is taking advantage of an opportunity to install a radon system during construction that will get rid of half the radon without having to put in an active system at a later date. Woodruff pointed out that houses that have a level below 4 pCi/L still benefit from a passive radon system by reducing the radon levels further below four. Little wanted to know what would happen when 100% of homes are emitting radon into the air. Woodruff stated that radon is not trapped. The radon comes out of the soil everywhere and the level of radon in the air averages about 0.4pCi/L. Little asked if the problem comes from disturbing the soil. Woodruff replied that is not the case. Woodruff had to leave the meeting. Lee said that he is convinced about the need for a passive system and everyone has their own beliefs and is obligated, as the building official, to protect the health and safety of the community. Little was concerned with cost when home buyers were already struggling to obtain home ownership. Fielder was hesitant to regulate radon for the masses. Jones agreed with Little. McCoy felt the current ordinance is enough, and stated he could not recommend the radon component. McCoy made a motion to not add a radon mitigation system for new construction. Little seconded the motion. The motion passed. • Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Little, Jones, Fielder, Massey, and Carr. Nays: None. Fielder had a comment regarding section IFGC 614.1 which reads: Installation about closed dryer exhaust duct terminations shall not be located within three feet of openings into the building. Fielder thought that it should be further defined to say into conditioned space. Fielder asked whether it applied if the exhaust was next to the door to the garage. Lee responded that the idea was not to introduce moisture back into the building whether it was conditioned or not. The IFGC applied to both residential and commercial buildings. The change would be a local amendment and was consistent with the IRC. Meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m. Felix Lee, Building & Zoning Director Charles Fielder, Chairperson 0