Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 11/21/19960 0 BUILDING REVIEW BOARD REGULAR MEETING November 21, 1996 1:00PM LCouncil Liaison: Ann Azari II Staff Liaison: Felix Lee Chairperson: Mike Sutton 490-2161(w) 484-1849(h) The regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, November 21, 1996 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building. The following members were present: Brown, Cotterman, Kreul-Froseth, Meleski Board members absent: Sutton, Hansch, Fisher Staff members present: Felix Lee, Building & Zoning Director Elain Radford, Building & Zoning Admin. Support Carol Goff, Building & Zoning Admin. Support The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairperson Meleski. The October 1996 minutes were approved with revisions (p. 7). APPEALS: None OTHER BUSINESS: A. Proposed contractor license criteria for telecommunication facilities: Board member Meleski asked if this proposal has to go to City Council. Administrator Lee responded that the Board has authority to approve this unique category. Meleski asked if the BRB approval of this proposal grants Lee the authority to approve licenses under this special category. Lee stated that the Board's approval would give Lee the authority to approve these special licenses without contractors going before BRB. BRB November 21, 1996 Page 2 Board member Cotterman asked that the initials WTS be defined. Is it an industry determination? Lee responded that, in order to be consistent, he used terminology taken from the City Council ordinance that was passed in October 1996 which specifically identifies WTS as wireless telecommunication services. Attached to the proposed license criteria is a copy of this ordinance. Cotterman asked what is the subject of the ordinance and is there anything in this ordinance that might help BRB in making their determination today? Lee stated that basically it deals with sighting zoning issues, aesthetic considerations, and mentions what equipment constitutes telecommunication services facilities. Board member Brown asked if the permit also involves zoning and planning. Lee responded, "yes." Meleski commented that by his calculations based on the fees on page 3 of the ordinance, the fees for erecting a telecommunications facility totals $21,096.50. If forty such towers were to be erected in Fort Collins, the total cost of fees would be over $800,000. He stated that this fee is about ten times what it should be. Lee clarified that the fees on page 3 of the ordinance reflect all the possible fees associated with the planning process and only two specifically relate to WTS equipment. He stated that all these fees would not be added together for any particular project. These are the fees charged now for various processes and submission for plan reviews, yet they do not all apply to any one project. Only two were added for WTS. Meleski asked how much of the fees amounts would have to be paid in a specific application. Lee responded that probably ninety percent of telecommunication equipment is on existing property that has had some kind of review on it, and that at most, the amount of $1,176 would have to be paid for the equipment. Lee went on to explain that if they are installing a whole facility, they would have to go through a more extensive review. He noted that if it's just equipment on an existing structure, it would be about $200. The amount depends upon which equipment is being installed. Lee said that adding a new pole and equipment and related services on that pole would have to go through the facility BRB November 21, 1996 Page 3 review process which is $976. Brown clarified that most of the fees relate to the land and how the land is zoned, i.e. whether it is PUD or subdivision, or what you have to do to get it to a conforming use for the tower. Lee added that attaching equipment to an existing building or tower would require a $200 review fee. Cotterman asked if the review fee is in addition to the permit fee which is based on a valuation amount? Lee stated that is correct. Brown clarified that the fees listed are not part of the building department's fees. They are planning and zoning fees. Lee confirmed that these fees are part of the overall process to erect WTS facilities. Meleski asked if there were any comments specifically as to the wording of the Class A ordinance for tower erection. Cotterman stated that the last couple of BRB meetings were the basis of the member's comments and it looks like they were incorporated into the proposed contractor license criteria list. He asked Lee if there were any BRB comments not included and, if so, the reason why they were not included. Lee stated that he attempted to include all comments in this draft. If there are other things that members feel should be included, he would be happy to include them. Meleski asked if Lee had been contacted by the parties that met with BRB regarding the formulation of this special license. Lee responded that he has not had any discussion with the parties since the meeting. Cotterman asked if contractors would have to test for this special Class A license. Lee stated that the Class A exam does not cover towers and would be irrelevant. So, there would be no exam and approval would be based upon submittal of five projects U BRB November 21, 1996 Page 4 reflecting prior experience that meet the required criteria. Meleski asked why require five project verifications to be submitted. Lee explained that the current ordinance provisions allow an applicant to be considered for an exam waiver, if they have five projects commensurate with the scope of the license they are seeking. Cotterman asked that when an applicant submits only four project verifications whether the applicant is eligible for the license and is required to go before the BRB. He asked for confirmation that if an applicant provides five projects, can the conditional Class A license and a waiver on the testing be granted. Lee confirmed that is correct. Brown asked if the supervisor certificate holder still has to be eligible for licensing. Lee explained that the exam waiver only applies to the supervisor certificate holder. If the license applicant and the supervisor certificate holder applicant are two different entities, they both must meet the specified criteria. Board member Kreul-Froseth asked who authored the Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria on page 5. Lee responded that he only knows it came from the Planning Department and thinks it was developed around the ordinance provisions that precede it. Cotterman asked if the Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria is part of the ordinance. Lee confirmed that it is. Meleski asked for clarification of the applicant process. He wondered, does the applicant go to the Planning Department and have them review the plan first. Lee explained that the process is coordinated through the Building Department and whoever needs to review it would do so. He confirmed that it is like a plan check in that the Planning Department would review such projects. Brown stated that the land must be zoned for erection of towers or applicant must go BRB L November 21, 1996 Page 5 through a zoning approval process before plan check. That is why so many fees are involved: i.e., if zoning is not correct, applicant must go back through other administrative processes. Meleski stated that he assumed that a tower could go up on a public bank or a private business area. He asked what would be excluded. Lee responded that he is not sure what would be excluded. He would defer to the planning or zoning staff regarding this matter. Lee said a tower project would be treated like any other building project and would have to comply with all zoning and PUD regulations as towers are really no different than anything else. He noted that the ordinances have specifically identified WTS so they can deal with those types of structures. Lee mentioned that some uses are allowed by "right" and do not have to go through any planning process. If not specifically a "use by right," the project has to go through a PUD and rather extensive review. Meleski asked if there were any other comments. Cotterman stated that he does not have any problems with the proposed criteria. He asked Lee if there is anything else that belongs in the criteria list, that would help Lee determine contractor eligibility for the conditional license and that has come up since the proposed criteria list was drafted. Lee stated that nothing has come up and if anything significant and recurrent happens, he will bring it before BRB for discussion. Cotterman asked for clarification on the classification the contractor would be granted, i.e., is it a "limited Class A license," not a conditional license? Lee responded that is correct and that the nomenclature is not etched in granite. He is open to recommendations from BRB members for a different term. Cotterman commented that the WTS seems all inclusive. As long as the WTS is stated, the applicant cannot get another type license approval. Cotterman motioned that the Board accept Lee's proposed criteria be accepted as part of the BRB's administrative policy. Brown seconded the motion. BRB November 21, 1996 Page 6 VOTE: Yeas: Brown, Cotterman, Kreul-Froseth, and Meleski. Nays: none B. 1997 Work Plan Meleski asked if all departments must submit an annual work plan to the City Manager's Office. Lee clarified that all boards and commissions are required to submit annual work plans. The 1997 Work Plan is specific to the BRB, not the building department. Meleski asked about waiting until the end of 1997 to adopt the 1997 Edition of Uniform Building Codes. Lee explained that the 1997 Edition will not be published until about mid -year and that is about when the review will begin. Meleski stated that he will volunteer for the 1997 Uniform Building Code review committee. He suggested that BRB be represented by two members. Cotterman stated that there were two members on this committee last time. Meleski then asked if more than two members could volunteer for this committee. Lee commented that this committee requires a fairly extensive time commitment. Cotterman confirmed that he was on this committee previously and the committee met every other Wednesday for 13 months, then less frequently for another few months past that. We said there were two BRB members on the committee and the other member only attended the first 2-3 meetings then dropped out. He agreed that two BRB members are needed. He stated that he will not volunteer for this committee. Meleski stated that he will make the time commitment required. Brown asked if two members could split the time commitment. BRB November 21, 1996 Page 7 Cotterman responded that it's difficult to do because the subjects carry on from one meeting to another and if one does not follow the subjects closely, it is easy to become lost. Brown asked if the committee discusses code sections one at a time. Lee commented that the committe tries to use this approach, however, Cotterman is correct in that there is some continuity. It is possible to plan meeting in this way. Lee further stated that efforts will be made to coordinate with Loveland and Larimer County. So, it may expand in terms of the size and number of review teams. Cotterman asked if committee members could be contractors and community members at large. Lee stated that pretty good representation of builders and contractors were in the previous committee. Cotterman asked if these builders and contractors were invited into the discussions near the end, because they had submitted comments. Lee agreed that this is what had happened. He added that representation from non- professionals (citizens) did not happen and he would like to see this happen for the next code review. Meleski commented he would submit a few names of citizens that may be interested in this committee. Cotterman questioned if BRB has reviewed 15-20 applications this year. Lee commented that this number was taken from previous year figures and work plan. Cotterman and Kreul-Froseth stated that the 1997 work plan looks good and ready for approval. Meleski stated he approves this work plan. VOTE: no vote BRB November 21, 1996 Page 8 Lee stated that he assumes there is concensus. C. December 1997 meeting scheduled for Wednesday, December 18,1997. Administrative Support person, Radford, explained that the Council Chambers is scheduled one year in advance and since BRB is always scheduled for the last Thursday of each month, the scheduled meeting for December is the day after Christmas. The Council Chambers is not available the Thursday before this holiday. Wednesday, 12/18/96, is the day it is available for the afternoon BRB meeting. Meleski asked if BRB could meet in the CIC room next door. Radford responded that the Council Chambers provide the means for tape recording each BRB session. Lee stated that a portable means of tape recording could be set up in CIC, if needed. There was no opposition to this schedule change. D. 1997 BRB Meeting schedule: Lee explained that a proposed addition to the bylaws has been made that address any schedule conflicts with holidays. The revisesd Article II, Section 1, states "meeting dates that fall on a legal holiday will be scheduled for the Thursday prior to the holiday." This revision assures a plan that is in place and that BRB is scheduled in the Council Chambers on a date and time more desirable for the Board members to meet than on or just after a holiday. There was no opposition to this bylaws revision. E. Meleski presented another item for discussion: the building department will now test homes regarding the model energy code. He asked if the test will be for specific new applications such as basement insulation. Lee clarified that the plan is to test homes with respect to mechanical systems, air BRB November 21, 1996 Page 9 tightness, etc. on homes built before the code and after the code. Meleski asked if basement insulation is included, exactly what testing procedures will be used, and if anything will be tested this year. Lee stated that he does not have those procedures at this time. He added that no tests will be made this year. Meleski commented that results will not be available until a year and three-quarters from now. Lee responded that some testing will be done next year and the exact criteria for the testing is and its protocol has not been fully developed, yet. Meleski commented that he was the representative on the Model Energy Code Technical committee and he feels he was led astray. He understood that $90,000 will be available for testing, yet, he then heard that the individual items added to the code will not be tested for. He said that fuel bills will be taken from a group of houses before and after, but noone will ever know what was effective. Lee explained that part of the evaluation criteria is to look at fuel and utility bills. Testing of systems and house tightness will be done, however, they do not see a way to test for specific single items. Meleski stated that the way to test for specific items is the same as what he did for his own home. He reiterated that if you don't heat your basement, the loss of heat is negligible. Lee responded that he understands Meleski's position on this. He added that the $90,000 was never suggested to be used strictly for testing. Meleski stated that he does know the money was to be split up. He commented that his complaint is the means and methods of testing. He believes the data staff came in with is meaningless with respect to basement insulation because staff over -estimated heat loss. Lee responded that he understands Meleski's opinion on this subject and questioned if the Board wanted to discuss this subject today. Meleski stated that he is acting Chairman of BRB today and is relating what he would • CI BRB November 21, 1996 Page 10 like to get out of the building department in regard to testing houses. He stated he wants to find out how testing of houses will be done - and the sooner the better. Lee responded that as soon as he knows the process he will be happy to share it with BRB. Meleski asked if, right now, this process is up in the air. Lee confirmed that is correct. Lee requested that a vote from the Board be made on changing the bylaws regarding meeting dates that fall on legal holidays. He explained that this change needs a majority vote from the Board. Brown motioned the change be approved. Cotterman seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Brown, Cotterman, Kreul-Froseth, Meleski Nays: none Meleski adjourned the meeting. Chairperson Mike Sutton Building Administrator Felix Lee