Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 01/31/2008Minutes to be approved by the Board at the February 28, 2008 Meeting FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting — January 31, 2008 Chai erson: Michael Smilie hone: 226-4260 H ouncil Liaison: Kellv Oblson RStaff Liaison: Felix Lee (221-67601 A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, January 31, 2008 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: David Carr Jim Packard Alan Cram Michael Smilie George Smith Mike Gust Jeff Schneider BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Melanie Clark, Customer Service Rep II Delynn Coldiron, Customer & Admin Services Manager Felix Lee, Neighborhood and Building Services Director Mike Gebo, Building Code Services Manager AGENDA: 1. ROLLCALL The meeting was called to order and rollcall was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Cram made a motion to approve the minutes from the December 22, 2007 meeting. Packard seconded the motion. Yeas: Packard, Cram, Smilie, Smith, Gust, Schneider Nays: Abstain: Carr BRB January 31, 2008 Pg. 2 3. David Black, d/b/a Pioneer Group, Case # 01-08 Lee introduced this case stating that the appellant's Class C 1 license expired April 16, 2006, and was now past the 60-day grace period allowed by the licensing ordinance. He explained that once past this 60-day grace period, the license holder must reapply for the license and is subject to all current requirements, including testing. Lee stated that the appellant's Class C 1 license and supervisor certificate were initially approved on April 16, 1990. He noted that there was no testing information on file for Fort Collins and that a check with the appellant found that the most current testing he could remember completing covered the 1991 or perhaps a slightly more current code. According to Lee, file records indicated that the appellant's license was kept current from 1990 until it lapsed in April, 2006. Based on the appellant's information, Lee noted that the lapse occurred due to a change of personnel in his office that resulted in the renewal forms being inadvertently overlooked. Lee explained that City staff reviewed the project verification forms that were submitted as part of the appellant's initial license application and found that the projects remain sufficient for the Class C1 license. Appellant Black addressed the Board and stated that he is the owner of the Pioneer Group general contracting firm. He mentioned that he had been in business for 20 years and that he holds numerous other licenses. Black explained that he thought he had tested with the City of Fort Collins once before and was currently seeking an exam waiver. Lee asked the appellant for clarification on who within the Pioneer Group took the supervisor's exam for the cities of Boulder and Aurora and on whether or not he was current with the ICC and IBC codes. Appellant Black answered that he took the exams and holds all of the licenses. He noted that the latest test he took was under the 1995 UBC and explained that at the time he took the test it was a standard certificate for the State of Colorado. Lee asked the appellant for clarification on the last project he performed in Fort Collins and on whether or not he currently had a pending project. Appellant Black replied that a couple of years ago his company built a Safeway fueling center in Fort Collins. He noted that the primary type of construction they are involved in is the construction of fueling centers/gas stations, including related convenience stores. He explained that Safeway and King Soopers have potential projects this year in the Fort Collins area, but that he did not currently have any plans submitted for work to be done. Carr asked for more clarification on the tests that the appellant had taken. Appellant Black explained that within the past 10 years he had tested with the City of Aurora, City of Denver, State of Utah, State of California and the State of Nevada. Smilie stated that he had no problem approving the appellant's license, but was leery about approving a certificate holder without some kind of knowledge and testing on the IBC. He commented that he would be interested in knowing who the certificate holders for the appellant's company are and what kind of educational qualification they have. Appellant Black explained BRB January 31, 2008 Pg. 3 that he does everything from bidding contracts to project management. He stated that he is not onsite everyday, but is onsite about three days out of the week. He reiterated that he is the certificate holder on all of the licenses that his company holds. Packard asked if the license in California is for fueling stations as well. Appellant Black confirmed this. Smilie asked for clarification on what the California exam covered. Appellant Black explained that the California contractor's test included sections for standard business law and basic accounting, but also included many questions that were specific to building codes. Schneider asked the appellant whether there was another manager or supervisor within the company that he could send to take the test. Appellant Black explained that his employee, Joe Vonstein, holds supervisor certificates in Aurora and Denver and that he could send him or someone else to take the test. Packard asked for clarification on whether the appellant currently holds a license equivalent to the City's C 1. Lee answered that the appellant holds a Class A license with the City of Denver which is comparable to the City's Class A license. Packard asked the appellant for clarification on whether the construction he performs also includes the setting of the tanks. Appellant stated that he supervises the setting of the tanks but does not do the work. Smilie made a motion to grant the re -issuance of appellant's Class C 1 license, with the requirement that the associated certificate holder must pass the required exam. Cram seconded the motion Vote: Yeas: Carr, Packard, Cram, Smilie, Smith, Nays: Gust, Schneider 4. Steve Josephs, d/b/a Craftsmen Builders, Case # 02-08 Lee introduced this case noting that the appellant currently holds a Class Dl license with the City of Fort Collins. He explained that this license allows the holder to construct, alter, repair or demolish any buildings or structures in the City classified by the building code as a Group R, Division 3 occupancy housing not more than two (2) dwelling units, or a Group U, Division 1 occupancy, to perform alterations and /or repairs to any building or structure in the City classified by the building code as a Group R, Division 1 occupancy and Type V construction provided that any such work does not alter the structural frame as defined in the building code, and to perform any work allowed under a miscellaneous and minor structure specialized trade contractor license (to construct, repair, or demolish (a) detached structures such as shelters, storage sheds, playhouses, greenhouses, and gazebos; and (b) unenclosed structures such as open carports, patio covers, open porches, and decks. Any such work is further limited to one story buildings or structures not exceeding two hundred (200) square feet in floor area and which contain occupancies limited to those classified by the building code as Group R, Division 3; Group S, Divisions 1 and 2; and Group U other than private garages). BRB January 31, 2008 Pg. 4 Lee noted that the appellant has the opportunity to perform a remodel on the third floor of the Armstrong Hotel and that the work involves creating four hotel rooms out of an existing ballroom. He further explained that there are no structural elements to the job, only the construction of partition walls. He also mentioned that the heat source is already provided, but bathroom fans would need to be added for each room. Lee stated that the appellant had done numerous jobs within the City of Fort Collins that have been completed without incident. According to Lee, the jobs included new residential buildings, residential additions and residential remodel/alterations. Appellant Josephs addressed the Board and confirmed that he currently holds a Class D 1 license with the City. He explained that this is his third tenant finish request; that the first one was approved administratively by Mike Gebo and the second one approved by the Board about a year ago. He further explained that the tenant finish approved by the Board a year ago was also for the Armstrong Hotel and involved a basement finish. Josephs stated that the current project is for a tenant finish on the third floor of the hotel. He noted that the ballroom will be divided into four different hotel rooms and that 2 % bathrooms will be added. According to Josephs, no structural work was planned. Lee asked the appellant for clarification on whether the building has fire sprinklers and whether or not they would need to be modified during the project. Appellant Josephs confirmed that the building does have fire sprinklers that run into the ballroom. He explained that the sprinklers will need some modification. Carr asked for clarification on the number of bathrooms being added and on the cost of the project. Appellant Josephs explained that there are two existing public bathrooms that would need some modification and then a half bathroom would be added. He stated that the project cost is estimated at $117,000. Gust asked the appellant for clarification on whether he holds a degree in electrical design. Appellant Josephs answered that he does not but confirmed that a licensed professional would complete the electrical design. Cram asked for some clarification on the submitted drawings. He stated that he had some concern about the amount of new plumbing that was being proposed to a structure the age of the Armstrong Hotel. Appellant Josephs explained that during the initial remodel of the Armstrong Hotel all of the plumbing was updated and changed. Smilie asked for clarification on the existing heat in the ballroom and the kind of air circulation that would be provided to the new rooms. Appellant Josephs explained that there are currently four radiators in the ballroom, one in each of the locations of the new bedrooms. He farther explained there is currently air conditioning installed in the ballroom that will serve the new bedrooms and that each room will also have windows. Packard asked for clarification on the letter submitted to the Board dated January 21, 2008 referring to minor structural components and whether those were specific to the current project. BRB January 31, 2008 Pg. 5 Appellant Josephs stated that the letter refers to the second phase of the project to be done in the basement. Lee asked for clarification on the extent of the structural work planned for the second phase of the project. Josephs explained that there are concrete load bearing walls that will need to be cut for doorways. Lee explained that this type of work would be considered an alteration to the structural frame of the building and would require a Cl license. Schneider asked for clarification on whether or not two different permits would be obtained for each phase of the project and on whether or not the appellant was attempting to get a variance for both projects. Appellant Josephs confirmed that he would like to obtain a variance for both items, but realized that they were two separate issues. Lee asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for the appellant. Steve Levinger, owner/manager of the Armstrong Hotel, addressed the Board and stated that when the renovation occurred on the property four years ago in the space that is currently the ballroom, there were about six hotel rooms. He explained that they are looking to return the space to hotel rooms since they now have the availability of funds to move the ballroom/banquet facilities into the basement of the hotel. According to Levinger, this will help improve the comfort of their guests. Levinger explained that the existing steam heat system was rehabilitated and noted that each of the windows has a radiator underneath. He also explained that both the electrical and plumbing systems were upgraded in 2004 to new systems. Levinger noted that his work with appellant Josephs has been excellent. Because the hotel will be occupied during the construction, it was imperative to Levinger to work with an individual that he trusts and has confidence in the way he will manage the project. Packard asked for clarification on whether the upgrades done in 2004 included the sprinkler system. Levinger confirmed this and stated that prior to 2004 the building did not have fire sprinklers. Schneider asked for clarification on whether the appellant is the certificate holder and onsite supervisor for his license and on whether or not he is onsite each day. Appellant Josephs confirmed that he is the certificate holder as well as the onsite supervisor and that he is onsite daily. Schneider made a motion to approve the exemption requested for the tenant finish project on the third floor only, and required that the appellant test for and obtain his E license within 120 days. Smith seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Carr, Packard, Cram, Smilie, Smith, Gust, Schneider Nays: BRB January 31, 2008 Pg. 6 5. IBC Presentation. Mike Gebo, the City's Building Code Services Manager, presented information to the Board on current IBC efforts. The following items were noted: • The 2006 IBC is the latest nationally recognized standard adopted by many jurisdictions along the Front Range. The 2006 IBC will replace the current 1997 UBC adopted in 1998. • The Code Review Committee started its review in August 2006. Architects, developers, builders, Larimer County, Poudre Fire Authority and City staff were all asked to volunteer to sit on the Committee. Committee members agreed to amend the IBC as little as possible for consistency across jurisdictions. The Committee was able to eliminate nearly 25 local amendments that were in place under the 1997 UBC. • Code update information was given to City Council at a work session in April 2007. Council requested that staff study radon reduction in multi -family structures, survey contractors and jurisdictions, review the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code, review the 2007 supplement published in July of 2007 and do additional public outreach. • The Code Review Committee reconvened in the fall of 2007 and reviewed the 2007 supplement to the 2006 IBC. Based on this review, 30 supplement items were proposed as local amendments to the 2006 IBC. • The Committee also reviewed radon reduction systems in multi -family units, LEEDS Accreditation, and the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code. • The single most important change between the UBC and IBC is the change in construction philosophy. The 1997 UBC used a passive approach that delayed the spread of fire through fire -resistive construction. The 2006 IBC uses an active approach that stops the spread of fire through the use of fire -suppression systems. • Under the IBC, occupancies will now be classified based on use, not just occupant load. Occupancies are more clearly defined. High rise provisions are not just limited to office and residential use. It includes additional requirements for fire and smoke control. • The IBC contains provisions for spaces located more than 30 feet below grade, which was not previously regulated. Basic allowable areas per table are larger to start and include increases in both height and area for sprinkled areas. • Area increase will be determined by calculation and based on percentage of perimeter open, not the number of yards. Non -separated occupancies are allowed provided the building construction type, area and height are used based on the most restrictive occupancy. • Exterior wall rating is based on occupancy, the highest rated wall is 3 hours, with a 30 foot distance criteria. Fire suppression systems are required in all multi -family buildings for tri-plexes and larger. BRB January 31, 2008 Pg. 7 • Egress ceiling height has increased to a minimum of 7ft 6in. Emergency power for egress illumination is required when 2 exits exist, regardless of occupant load. • Exits are separated from each other by one-third the overall diagonal in sprinkled buildings. Fire rating of exit systems is based on occupant load and fire sprinkler systems. • Egress width is determined by occupant load with decrease allowance for fire -sprinkled buildings. Other than single-family dwellings, egress windows are not required in fire - sprinkled buildings. • Emergency exits and 60% of entrances must be wheelchair accessible. Accessible elements were designed in accordance with the latest edition of ICC/ANSI al 117.1. • New section called Residence (Live)/Work Units is included which establishes standards for the "home -occupation". There is a revised table which clarifies wall and window fire ratings due to property line. There is another new section which regulates "Roof Gardens". • New section included which provides clearance and physical protection requirements around fire department connection locations and installation requirements of fire pumps. • New section included requiring "Emergency Responder Safety Features" for all buildings over 75 feet tall that specifies exiting system components, construction, identification and illumination. • New section included which specifies the required accessible components of a courtroom including the jury box, gallery seating, employee work stations, council work stations including lectern and a required "Assistive Listening System". • Some of the local amendments that will remain unchanged are 100 mile per hour design wind speed for buildings; requirements for wind resistant roofing; ground snow load of 30 psf; emergency egress windows required in all bedrooms below the 4th floor; entire building fire -sprinkler systems for most new buildings containing more than 5,000 square feet unless divided into fire containment areas; and Class A roofing on all new buildings and re -roof jobs. • A new local amendment has been added that requires Radon Reduction Systems in new multi -family buildings that are tri-plexes or more. Existing installation standards established for new single-family dwellings will be used. • The State has mandated that all jurisdictions adopt the 2003 IECC or equivalent by July 2008. The 2006 IECC regulates commercial as well as multi -family buildings up to 3 stories. ASHRAE 90.1 regulates commercial as well as multi -family buildings over 3 stories. The 2006 IECC Chapter 5, commercial buildings shall meet IECC or ASHRAE. • The 2006 IECC increases the exterior wall insulation from R-8 to R-13 and increases roof insulation from R-18 to R-20. Window glazing will meet a minimum U value of .55. BRB January 31, 2008 Pg. 8 • The 2006 IECC increases mechanical ductwork insulation from R-6.5 to R-8 when the ductwork is located in an exterior wall. It decreases the lighting allowance in watts per square foot, for many uses such as dining, office, church and retail spaces. • A local amendment will retain slab on grade perimeter insulation of R-8 for unheated slabs or R-10 for heated slabs. "Moisture forgiving wall sytems" will add more flexibility using material effective in inhibiting moisture, including weather barriers ("Tyvek") and use of latex paint on interior walls. The IBC Review Committee unanimously approved the 2006 IBC, the local amendments and the 2006 IECC. This information has also been presented to the Affordable Housing Board, Commission on Disability, Planning and Zoning Board, Electric Board, Natural Resources Board and the Water Board. An upcoming presentation is scheduled to be given to the Air Quality Board on February 26, 2008, The Code Review Committee met again with City Council at a Work Session on January 22, 2008. Council indicated at that time that they plan to move forward with adoption. Cram made a motion that the Board support and adopt the codes and amendments as presented. Packard seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Cram, Packard, Cram, Smilie, Smith, Gust, Schneider Nays: 6. Other Business • Welcome to new Board Member— Jeff Schneider • 2007 Annual Report: Carr made a motion to approve the 2007 Annual Report. Smilie seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Carr, Packard, Cram, Smilie, Smith, Gust, Schneider Nays: • Election of Officers for 2008: Board Member Smilie was nominated to serve as Chair. Board Member Packard was nominated to serve as Vice Chair. Motions were made and seconded. Vote: Yeas: Carr, Packard, Cram, Smilie, Smith, Gust, Schneider Nays: BRB January 31, 2008 Pg. 9 • Board Training Session: A training session was scheduled for Thursday February 28 h from 11:00 am to 12:30 pm. Lunch will be provided. Meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m. Felix Lee, rririg Director Michael Smilie, Chairperson O e (IA ba-liepef 4 ,6a, /,• Sir-,.;c fs