Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 08/31/1995Building Review Board August 31, 1995 Minutes Members present: Meleski Hanch (left at 2:30) Sutton Froseth (arrived at 1:40) Cotterman Members absent: Cornell Brown Staff present: Felix Lee Jennifer Nuckols The Building Review Board was called to order by Chairman Sutton. The minutes from the July meeting were approved with corrections. Reconsideration of Dennis Cortese/HVAC Relief Meleski questioned Lee regarding the memorandum that Dennis Cortese should have not been reprimanded or his license suspended. Lee agreed. Cotterman questioned if there were any penalty being recommended? Lee stated no. Cotterman questioned the current work and whether current work (restaurant) is open. Lee stated he did not believe the restaurant was open, but that any necessary corrections be made before such would open. Chairman Sutton stated that he felt they should have had all of the information last month, that they should rescind last months action and inform Mr. Cortese of this action. Cotterman expressed concern regarding lack of advertising in telephone book by HVAC Relief. Chairman Sutton explained that it is not necessary for a business to do so. Chairman Sutton questioned if a majority vote would work if one were to abstain. Lee said yes. Meleski motioned for recision of motion to suspend license as per proposed at last meeting. Meleski stated that "the Board apologizes for the inconveniences suffered by Mr. Cortese". Hansch seconded the motion. Chairman Sutton clarified that it a recision of the revocation, not the suspension. Hansch accepted changes. Cotterman requested to abstain from the vote. Discussion followed. Building Review Board August 31, 1995 Page 2 Roll call: Yeas: Hansch, Sutton, Meleski. Abstentions: Cotterman. The motion passed. Lee stated that a letter with formal apology to Mr. Cortese would be drafted for the chairman's signature. Model Energy Code - Open discussion Lee stated that since there was some time before the public arrived, issues could be discussed for clarification. Meleski questioned information that vents should no longer be used in crawl spaces and what area of country these were tests made? Cotterman stated that his biggest concern is the crawl space relative to radon and combustion air requirements. Chair Sutton mentioned EPA standards for radon and that the ground must be protected. Meleski stated that he wants to wait for additional information/education first before casting a yes vote and wants to leave up to contractor -designer dependent on soil types for crawl space ventilation. Lee noted that the draft energy code does not require that vents be eliminated but that if one has vents, the crawl space would be considered unconditioned space and the floor must be insulated. Hansch stated that one problem is moisture from landscaping coming down into crawl space and asked without vents, how would it eliminate the moisture? Lee stated that landscape and grading should be such that it does not introduce moisture into the space. Hansch stated that there are very few crawl spaces that are dry. Lee asked if that were a function of foundation design. Meleski stated that there should be more evidence of heat loss through crawl space and the need for insulation on foundation walls. Different areas of country have different climates. Meleski also stated that he felt money should be spent on education and additional research before adopting this code. Contractor licensing D-2 category Chairman Sutton asked for comments from board members about the proposed contractor license ordinance changes. Cotterman stated that people have come before the Board who would fit into the new D-2 license category but not the current D license. Lee explained current license categories. Lee said the new D-1 license would be equivalent to the current D license and the D- 2 license would allow structures such as detached garages. The Home Improvement license will change by no longer allowing detached garages. Lee stated that liability insurance requirements would be also be updated to be consistent with other jurisdictions throughout the country, increasing the minimum amount to $500,000.00 per incident. Building Review Board August 31, 1995 Page 3 Lee explained the new requirements for owners of commercial buildings who wish to perform their own work, i.e., a $3000 limit will be placed per project for owners of commercial buildings to do their own work. This would not allow any structural work although it would allow window and door header replacement. Lee also explained a new provision that would allow the board to accept other experience, such as training and education when applying for a contractors license. Lee stated that certificate holders will be subject to an annual renewal at $25.00/year versus the current $10.00 every three years when a contractor doesn't also hold a license. License fees will remain the same. Chairman Sutton asked for audience participation. Greg Oteriaga - Stated he was building the first of the three homes needed for a D license and asked which license he would then get under the new classification. Lee stated that Oteriaga's work would qualify as a D-2 license. Sutton explained that the Building Inspection staff reviews the applications first and their decisions are based on narrower criteria. If the staff approves the application, one can get their license. If the staff does not, the applicant goes before the Board for consideration of other aspects of experience. Meleski noted a typo on page 8 item 7 of the proposed ordinance. Froseth moved to adopt the ordinance. Meleski seconded the motion. Roll Call: Yeas: Cotterman, Hansch (by proxy), Froseth, Sutton, Meleski. Nays: None. The motion passed. Model Energy Code Lee presented an overview on the energy code update for the audience. Lee discussed the time line from the past year as for meetings and open forums. He stated that the new ordinance is a prospective ordinance to be implemented in March of 1996. Lee said that with the help of a state grant, it is planned to have several contractor training meetings, develop manuals, do on site testing and evaluation. Lee stated that a new 1995 Model Energy Code was published on which the draft ordinance is based. Lee stated the commercial code is based on ASHRAE standards and is geared to nonresidential, high rise and commercial. Lee summarized by saying this proposal not a big leap from current standards, it is incremental. There is a lot more emphasis on installation methods, contractor Building Review Board August 31, 1995 Page 4 accountability, training. It also offers performance alternatives with respect to air leakage, using a blower door model. Residential Lee outlined some of the code recommendations, showing some differences in energy values, gas heat versus electric heat. He explained the new code requirements as were presented to the Board in a handout mailed in their packets. Lee stated that basement walls are the area causing the greatest controversy. He said there is a significant heat loss through basements and that it is being recommended that the first three to four feet below ground be insulated. Lee pointed out that guidelines will be developed for installation details. Lee noted that there will be a check list prescribing exactly what has to be sealed at the framing stage, or the builder will have the option of doing a performance test using the blower door technique. Lee mentioned other details as well, including that combustion air ducts will have to labeled with a warning that any blockage of such vents could result in carbon monoxide build up. Doug Swartz from Light & Power said his purpose was to provide technical support to Building Inspection. John McHugh, also from Light & Power, stated that he worked on the commercial aspect of code changes. Sutton stated that initial housing costs are rising on a yearly basis, thus limiting many from purchasing new homes. Froseth asked if figures were available comparing costs and taking into consideration these code changes. Doug Swartz explained an economic summary using 2600 square foot home based on charts included in Board packets. Sutton asked if there is proof that initial cost is justified in savings return. Doug Swartz stated that there is a positive return. Cotterman asked for clarification of numbers given, regarding costs and savings based on these code changes. Doug Swartz explained that in the long-term there is a cost savings. His method of calculation was explained to the Board. Cotterman questioned whether there would be an increase in the work load for Building Inspection. Lee said it would create a need for an additional insulation inspection, at least initially. Additional discussion followed. Mike Smilie of Woodcraft Homes addressed the Board. He stated that he disagreed with the Building Review Board August 31, 1995 Page 5 figures shown on initial costs and payback time created by additions to the Model Energy Code. He discussed excessive fees that would put many people out of the market and stated that he has not received the answers to many questions on how to effectively carry out many of the new code requirements. Meleski stated that Mr Smilie voiced similar feeling to those he (Meleski) would have voiced. Meleski stated that there are too many unanswered questions and would like to recommend the code recommendation put off for six months until more information can be compiled. Swartz responded to Mr. Smilie's comments. Swartz clarified amounts given in cost comparison chart. Lee responded to Mr. Smilie that the code issues have been well thought out with economics in mind. Froseth stated that she still had some questions and would not want to adopt the new code at the present time. Meleski stated that he was also against adoption and Sutton agreed. Sutton stated that he has a lot of questions and wants to wait for more answers, would like to see outreach and training programs implemented. He stated that he is in favor of adopting a new energy code but not until March 1996. Additional discussion followed. Cotterman motioned to accept the proposed ordinance. Lack of second. The motion failed. Meleski motioned that council not adopt the proposed ordinance at this time and go into a training program and do additional testing to see that energy saving and costs are correct. Froseth seconded. Roll call: Yeas: Hansch (by proxy), Froseth, Meleski. Nays: Cotterman, Sutton. The motion passed. Sutton questioned Lee if residential and commercial aspects of the code can be viewed as separate items or must they be taken as a whole. Lee stated that it is possible to separate them. Discussion followed. Building Review Board August 31, 1995 Page 6 Sutton stated that he would like to pursue commercial aspect of the code at the next meeting when more Board members can attend the meeting. Sutton asked for clarification as to the previous motion being made based on residential code changes only. Meleski stated that his motion only concerned the residential aspect. Sutton stated that commercial code changes would be reviewed at the next meeting. Election of Officers Postponed until September meeting. Meeting adjourned.