HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 06/26/2008Minutes to be approved by the Board at the July 31, 2008 Meeting
FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD
Regular Meeting — June 26, 2008
1:00 D.M.
Chairperson: Michael Smilie f Phone: 226-4260(H)
Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson IStaff Liaison: Felix Lee (221-6760)
A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, June 26, 2008 in the
Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins,
Colorado.
BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT:
Jim Packard
Alan Cram
George Smith
Michael Smilie
Jeff Schneider
Jim Schilling
BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT:
Mike Gust
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Felix Lee, Neighborhood and Building Services Director
Mike Gebo, Deputy Building Official
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Delynn Coldiron, Customer & Admin Services Manager
Melanie Clark, Customer Service Rep II
AGENDA:
ROLLCALL
The meeting was called to order and rollcall was taken.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Smith made a motion to approve the minutes from May 29, 2008. Packard seconded the motion.
Yeas: Packard, Smith, Smilie, Smith, Schneider, Schilling
Nays:
3. Gary Mackey, d/b/a Nebarado Construction, Case #08-08
The following is a summary of the information that was provided to Board Member for this case:
2132 Sherwood Forest Court, Lot 4, Storybook P.D.P., is a single family attached dwelling
(townhome) located west of and attached to 2138 Sherwood Forest Court.
BRB June 26, 2008 Pg. 2
The Dwelling was constructed in 2001, under building permit #B0102621 which lists Nebarado
Construction Inc., Gary Mackey (Respondent), as the general contractor. The 1997 Uniform
Building Code (UBC), as adopted by the City, was the code in effect at the time of construction.
Building Inspections were performed on this project throughout the Summer of 2001. A
Certificate of Occupancy was issued on September 28, 2001, after approval from all appropriate
City departments.
In November of 2005, Building Codes Services Manager, Mike Gebo, was contacted by the
current owner, Ms. Sherene O'Quinn, requesting the City's assistance in solving the problem of
repeated flooding in her basement during rain storms. Gebo performed a site inspection and
identified the following construction violations:
1. The top of concrete foundation wall elevation was below the finished grade. This
determination was made after evaluating the dryer exhaust vent termination. The dryer vent
termination is a fabricated aluminum duct that penetrates up through the exterior concrete
slab. Viewed from the basement, the dryer exhaust duct exits the basement above the top of
the foundation through the rim plate. The foundation elevation is a violation of UBC
Section 1806.5.5 which states: On graded sites, the top of any exterior foundation shall
extend above the elevation of the street gutter at point of discharge or the inlet of an
approved drainage device a minimum of 12 inches plus 2 percent.
2. The main floor framing cantilevers over the foundation wall were below grade at the north
wall. When viewed from the basement interior, the main floor system above cantilevers
over the top of the foundation wall. The underside of the floor joists at the cantilever are
not enclosed and the gravel backfill is visible and in contact with the floor joists and rim
board. The floor framing is in contact with the ground and is not treated wood as required
in UBC Section 2306.2 which states: Wood embedded in the ground or in direct contact
with the earth and used for support of permanent structures shall be treated wood unless
continuously below the ground water line or continuously submerged in fresh water.
On November 25, 2005, Gebo notified the Respondent of the violations identified and ordered
the Respondent to provide a permanent solution for removing and controlling storm water.
From January 24, 2006 through March 3, 2006, the Respondent and Gebo were in
communication regarding corrections attempted and plans for continued work to alleviate the
flooding.
In March of 2008, Ms. O'Quinn contacted the City's Building Services Department requesting
assistance since the flooding of her basement still had not been corrected. A site inspection
performed by Felix Lee, Neighborhood and Building Services Director, and Sam Hancock, Lead
Building Inspector, identified numerous construction deficiencies.
On March 22, 2008, Ms. O'Quinn submitted to the City, a documentation package which
outlined her attempts at working with the Respondent to correct the flooding issue. Ms.
O'Quinn's package included photographs of the problem and reports from Robinson Engineering
dated April 4, 2006 and October 9, 2006, in which construction deficiencies were noted and a
plan of correction submitted.
BRB June 26, 2008 Pg. 3
On April 4, 2008, the Respondent was issued an Order to Repair which outlined the corrective
actions to be taken and a time frame for completion.
On April 21, 2008, Ms. O'Quinn requested that the City expedite enforcement of the Order to
Repair in a letter dated April 21, 2008.
On May 5, 2008, the Respondent (Mackey) informed Gebo that water control measures by the
Respondent were performed through the Storybook HOA, with Mackey in the role of the HOA
President, and not Nebarado Construction, Inc. Mackey further explained that Ms. O'Quinn is
the second owner, that the dwelling was constructed over seven years ago, and that the City's
Stormwater Utility accepted Stewart & Associates' "Grading Certification Letter" and "As
Built" grading plan in order to issue the Certificate of Occupancy.
Lastly, the Respondent (Mackey) surrendered his City of Fort Collins D1 contractor license
wallet ID card to Gebo, for the economic reasons stated in Mackey's letter to City staff on April
4, 2008, which also stated that he no longer planned to be an active general contractor within the
City of Fort Collins.
Although it is important to note that Respondent voluntarily "surrendered" his current license,
NBS Director, CBO, Felix Lee, recommended that the Board consider revocation of the
Respondent's license in order to require the Board's review and approval of Mackey's "fitness"
prior to having his license reinstated.
Smilie asked if there was anyone in attendance at the meeting who wished to speak to this case.
There were none. Smilie asked for Board input on whether or not they wanted to see a full staff
presentation on this case, or wanted to make a decision based on the information they received in
their packets.
Schneider stated that he did not feel that a staff presentation was needed. He explained that he
had no problem with making a recommendation or moving forward based on the information that
had already been provided.
Smilie noted that he would like the record to reflect that the Building Department had some
liability in this case based on what was shown on the photographs and the fact that these code
issues were not caught as part of the normal inspection process.
Schilling stated that one of the issues that Ms. O'Quinn referenced in her letter was a moisture
problem. He stated that she did not make any reference as to what was done and explained that
he believed this might be more of a legal issue that Ms. O'Quinn needed to deal with than issues
the Board could resolve.
Smilie stated that there are other issues including whether or not the title company properly
looked at the grading certificate, whether the first owner properly looked at the grading
certificate, whether the grading certificate was properly expressed in strong enough terms to
indicate there was a problem with the property, etc. He explained that some of these do need to
be expressed in the record.
Lee questioned if the Board was prepared to discuss or act on the alleged violations.
BRB June 26, 2008 Pg. 4
Schneider stated that the appellant had made it clear that he no longer wanted to have a
contractor license in the City of Fort Collins by turning over his license.
Smilie stated that the appellant had not been formally suspended as a license holder and had only
turned over his card. Lee added that the Board had received a request to make a decision on the
allegations and to any subsequent disposition and penalty.
Schneider stated that if the Appellant was not present to defend himself, he did not feel
comfortable saying that the there were violations.
Cram noted that the appellant chose not to be present.
Smilie stated that in light of the fact that the appellant turned in his card, he believed the Board
should be prepared to take action to suspend the license until such time that the appellant came
before the Board to convince Board Members otherwise.
Smilie made a motion to revoke the appellant's license until such time the appellant comes
before the Board to present a case stating why his license should be reinstated, or why his license
should not have been revoked. Cram seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Packard, Cram, Smith, Smilie, Schneider, Schilling
Nays:
4. Charles Aldridge, d/b/a Specialized Heating & Air Conditioning, Case #08-09
Lee introduced the case. He stated that the Respondent applied for an HVAC contractor's license
on May 1, 2008, noting that the Respondent took and passed the City's HVAC exam on May 1,
2008, scoring a 91%.
Lee explained that Staff reviewed the information that was submitted on May 12, 2008. At that
time, the Respondent was informed that he needed to provide two additional projects for new
HVAC system installations or would need to appear before the BRB to request a limited HVAC
license. He noted that two additional projects were submitted on May 29, 2008 for new system
installation work.
Lee stated that staff received a phone call sometime during the week of May 5`h from a customer
inquiring about the length of time it was taking for his contractor to get an inspection on the
furnace he had installed. He explained that this customer was informed that the contractor was in
the process of getting licensed, but had not yet received final approval. As well, Staff informed
the customer that a permit had not been obtained for the work that was done.
Lee explained that although the Respondent tested and eventually submitted everything
necessary to qualify for the HVAC license, staff was unable to issue the requested license due to
an ordinance stipulation requiring that any applicant who has committed any violations under
Section 15-162 to get a determination from the Building Review Board on their fitness to be
granted a license or supervisor certificate.
BRB June 26, 2008 Pg. 5
Lee stated that staff issued a 30-day temporary license to the Respondent so that a permit could
be obtained and inspection done for the customer referenced above. He noted that as of June 19,
2008, a permit had been obtained, but no inspection performed for this project.
Lee explained that the Respondent was now seeking license approval from the Building Review
Board to enable him to continue to work in the City of Fort Collins.
Respondent Aldridge addressed the Board. He stated that he did not have his license at the time
the work was completed. He explained that he had taken the test, but he didn't think the licensing
process would take as long as it did and that he was not trying to get around having to obtain a
permit. He explained that he told the customer that he did not have a license at the time, but had
applied for one. He noted that he explained to the customer how important it was to have the
system inspected for insurance purposes.
Lee asked appellant if he was aware that a permit was required for the work performed.
Appellant confirmed this.
Schilling questioned if the work had been completed and whether or not an inspection had been
done. Respondent Aldridge stated that the permit had been obtained, but he was still awaiting an
inspection due to scheduling conflicts with the property owner.
Schneider questioned how long appellant had been in the HVAC business and whether or not
this was the first job that had been performed within the City of Fort Collins. Respondent
Aldridge stated that he started his company in October of 2006. He explained that this was the
first project that he had done within the City of Fort Collins.
Schneider asked about other licenses the appellant held and for clarification on whether they
were business licenses. Respondent explained that he held HVAC licenses in Loveland, Evans,
Wellington and a few others, as well as having sales tax licenses in Fort Collins and Loveland.
He noted that the only one he didn't have is Greeley.
Smilie asked for clarification on Respondent's previous experience. Respondent provided
clarification on the previous employers he had worked for and other Fort Collins jobs he had
been a part of while he was associated with the other employers. He also described previous
service and preventive maintenance work he had been associated with.
Respondent stated that this was the first and only job that he had ever performed without having
a license or a permit.
Finding of Fact:
Cram made the following motion for finding of fact:
That the Respondent was in violation of Section 15-154, requiring a contractor license to be in
place before work. As well, the Respondent was in violation of the following items of Section
15-62 (d) of the City's Contractor Licensing Ordinance:
BRB June 26, 2008 Pg. 6
1. Failure to comply with the provision of the code related to a specific construction
project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or license holder as set forth
in the article; and
6. Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed.
Schneider seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Packard, Cram, Smith, Smilie, Schneider, Schilling
Nays:
Schilling questioned if Respondent had pulled permits for other work and whether or not the
work had been inspected. Appellant stated that he had pulled permits on other work, but was
unclear about whether or not they had been inspected.
Schneider asked for further clarification on the additional jobs. Respondent provided
clarification.
Coldiron verified that the job had been inspected and passed.
Schilling questioned if Respondent was fined for not having a permit prior to starting work.
Respondent confirmed this stating that the permit fee was doubled and he was fined $200 for
working without a license.
Packard asked whether the Respondent had any pending jobs that would require a permit.
Respondent confirmed that he did.
Cram made a motion to suspend the Respondent's HVAC license for 60 days, but to allow him
to complete the two projects he already had in progress.
Packard made a friendly amendment to suspend the license for 30 days. He stated that he was
concerned that 60 days would take the Respondent all the way through the air conditioning
season and thought a 30 suspension might be more appropriate. Cram stated that he would like
to stay with the 60 day suspension.
Lee noted that the temporary license expires on July 4, 2008. He explained that after the
temporary license expires, the Respondent would not have a license to suspend.
Cram withdrew his previous motion.
Cram made a motion that there should be no new permits pulled under the temporary license and
that the Respondent would not be able to receive a license for 30 days after July 4`h, 2008.
Schneider made a friendly amendment that no new license be issued until all necessary
inspections and sign offs have occurred on any outstanding projects. Cram approved the friendly
amendment. Schneider seconded the motion as amended.
BRB June 26, 2008 Pg. 7
Vote:
Yeas: Cram, Smith, Smilie, Schnieder
Nays: Packard, Schilling
5. IPMC and Rental Housing Codes — Presentation/Discussion/Recommendation
Mike Gebo, Deputy Building Official, presented information on the 2006 International Property
Maintenance Code (IPMC) with local amendments and supplemental Rental Housing provisions.
His presentation is summarized as follows:
History of the Board's Review:
• The BRB had previously reviewed earlier revisions of "Dangerous Buildings" and
"Rental Housing" at their July 26, 2007 meeting. At that time they asked staff to look at
the 2006 IPMC.
On April 24, 2008, the Board reviewed revisions renamed "Building Conditions Code"
and "Rental Housing Code". At that time the Board asked for more details on the code
specifics prior to a recommendation.
Why Adopt The Interior Property Maintenance Code (IPMC)?
• Modern up-to-date maintenance code.
• Governs conditions of all buildings.
Contains clear and specific minimum requirements for health and safety.
Provides property corrective provisions.
Why the IPMC?
• The recommended code is fully compatible with all International Codes.
• Updated every three years by the International Code Council.
• Designed for consistency as a national standard.
• IPMC "Principles" are:
o Protects public health, safety & welfare.
o Recognizes the use of new materials, products or methods of construction.
IPMC Updates Include:
• The City Code Chapter 5:
• Article II, Division 3 (DB)
• Article VI, Division 2 (RH)
• Replaces:
o The 1976 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings.
o The 1982 City Code: "Rental Housing Standards"
IPMC Overview:
Chapter 1, Administration
Fort Collins addresses specific changes such as legal process and appeals. (IPMC 101-
104.4 amended.)
BRB June 26, 2008 Pg. 8
• Violations are either civil (substandard) and/or criminal (dangerous). (IPMC 106.4
amended.)
• Owner and Occupant responsibilities established. Amended 107.1.1 (new)
Schneider interjected that he had an issue with Section 1, Subsection (a) regarding property
owner's responsibilities related to multi -single family dwellings (townhouses or condominiums)
not more than three stories, where an HOA might be responsible for the exterior property
maintenance.
Gebo responded that he would probably communicate with the association. He explained that
there is usually an HOA President or a Board of the association, who the City would need to
communicate with.
Schneider questioned where the funding would come from that would enable Neighborhood and
Building Services to take on the responsibility of dealing with such properties. Lee noted that the
Department already deals with these issues to some degree. Gebo added that he is not
anticipating the need for any additional employees because of these codes.
Classifications of Hazards -Substandard (IPMC 108.1-108.1.2 amended).
Structures and equipment that can become un-fit to occupy or dangerous due to a continued lack
of maintenance.
• Unfit to Occupancy: (IPMC 108.1.3)
o Structures that pose a hazard to the occupants or the public due to:
o Infestations of insects or rodents
o Lack of maintenance that creates a substandard structure
o Filth or contamination
o Evidence of lack of sanitation, ventilation, heating facilities or essential equipment
required by code.
• Unlawful Structure: (IPMC 108.1.4 )
o Occupied by more persons than allowed by code.
o Erected, altered or occupied contrary to law.
Dangerous: Structures or premises that are imminent hazard to the public or occunants.
(Amended 108.1.5 (new))
o Existing systems or components are inadequate, damaged or substandard.
o Structures likely to collapse.
o Exterior elements are likely to dislodge.
o Vacant and unsecured structures that are an attractive nuisance.
o Deteriorated building foundations likely to cause collapse.
o Conditions likely to cause illness as determined by the Health Officer.
o Building debris after demolition that becomes attractive nuisance.
• Vacant Buildings: Boarded and vacant more than 180 days and/or entered illegally
(IPMC 108.2 as amended.)
o Requires owner and/or local contact information.
BRB June 26, 2008 Pg. 9
o Requires yearly evaluation.
o Establishes recording with the County.
• Emergency repair cost. (IPMC 109.5 as amended.)
o Authorizes the code official to order repairs.
o Cost recovered by the City.
o Liens placed on the property.
• Disconnection of utilities. (109.5.1 amended (new))
o Authorizes code official to order disconnect utilities, to eliminate an immediate
hazard to life or property.
Schneider questioned Section 9, 107.2, Subsection (a), referring to notices being placed in the
United States Mail. He wondered if it should be required that the notices be sent via certified
mail. His concern was that City would not be able to identify if a property owner ever received
appropriate notification. Lee noted that it was not required.
Smilie stated that under current standards, using the United States Mail is applicable and
accepted by law.
Schneider stated that his next question pertained to 108.1.5, Subsection 4, regarding the
dangerous structure or premise. The code reads "resisting natural or artificial loads of 1 '/2 times
the original design value. Schneider asked for clarification on how you can go 1 '/2 times what
the original design value should have been.
Lee explained that this came out of the 2007 supplement of the IPMC.
Schneider explained that a lot of the structures were built under different codes. He asked for
clarification on whether this would fall under today's code or under the code at the time the
structure was built.
Lee stated that it would be whatever the design value was when it was created. Lee noted that if
the structure was not capable of supporting 1 %2 times the load, then it would be considered
beyond the safety limit. He explained that typically there is a built-in safety factor in materials
and designs.
Smith questioned how the City would determine that the structure had deteriorated that far. Lee
explained that a structural assessment by a professional Engineer would be required. Smith
asked for clarification on who would pay for the assessment. Lee stated that it would depend on
the circumstances.
Smith stated that he was concerned that the City will start running into situations of houses going
into foreclosure, and the residents, who are already barely making ends meet, would be required
by the City to pay for an Engineer for them to stay in their home. He did not agree with this.
Lee explained that if it is relatively modern construction, this would probably not be an issue,
unless it was improperly constructed.
BRB June 26, 2008 Pg. 10
Smith responded that he would like to see substandard defined as "designed in accordance with
the codes in place at the time of construction."
Schneider agreed with Smith explaining that he would like to see some verbiage or wording that
ties back to the time of original construction.
Lee noted that the code does state "the original design value".
Smith responded that it says that on the 1 % times, but throughout the code it states substandard.
He explained that he would like to see substandard defined more.
Lee stated that substandard is defined in section 108.1.1.
Schneider questioned how this code would change when Historic Preservation is involved.
Gebo explained that if it's a historical building and is designated as such and deemed safe, the
IPMC would not be applicable. However, if the building is not safe and is considered
substandard, the City would be able to order corrections.
Chanter 2. Definitions
Numerous definitions were added to enhance the IPMC and provide links to other adopted City
codes such as the Land Use Code. (IPMC 202 as amended.)
Schneider questioned how the IPMC definitions are tying into definitions of the other codes. He
stated that the definitions for the IPMC and the other codes should be consistent.
Gebo stated that this is staff s intent and something that will be double checked as part of code
adoptions.
Schneider questioned whether excavation, foundation and abandonment should be individual
definitions instead of being combined.
Gebo explained that that the code is talking about the excavation hole or the foundation and
whether it's abandoned and/or exposed. He stated that it is not three different things.
Schneider stated that his question refers back to definitions in other code books. He stated that
other code books have foundation defined differently. He restated that he would like to see
consistency between everything.
Schneider suggested that flood hazard should refer back to the City Stormwater requirements in
Chapter 10. Gebo stated that this might be something that has been overlooked.
Schneider questioned why items relating to rubbish were omitted. Lee explained that rubbish is
in the Nuisance Ordinance, which is a different chapter outside of this code.
BRB June 26, 2008 Pg. 11
Chanter 3, General Requirements:
• Drainage is required to prevent stagnant water. (IPMC 302.2 as amended.)
• Provisions dealing in infestations of rodents or insects. (IPMC 302.5 as amended.)
• Exterior structure conditions that can be declared substandard. (304.1.1 amended (new))
• Insect screens required for rental housing and food service establishments. (IPMC 304.14
as amended.)
• Security locks main floor doors and windows of dwelling units. (IPMC 304.18)
• Interior conditions that can be declared substandard. (305.1.1 amended (new))
• Public stairways standards for rental properties. (305.4.1 amended (new))
• Components beyond their limit state can be declared substandard. (Amended 307.1.1
(new))
Schneider referenced Section 304.1.1, Subsection 2. When it refers to anchoring to floor and
roof, he stated that this again is where he would like to see some reference to time of
construction or code at the time of construction. When referring to Subsection 7, he asked what
the standard for "not plumb" was. He stated that this could use more clarification.
Gebo responded that there is a standard in new construction that he would use.
Schneider questioned how insect screens could be required by the IPMC when they are not
required in the building code. Gebo stated that the IPMC requires insect screens and that we are
modifying this to only require them for rentals. He explained that although requiring this may
not be valuable or prudent on private homes, staff believes that it is valuable and prudent to
require it on rental housing.
Smilie stated that he would agree with it more completely if there was an exception for those
units that have an approved mechanical ventilation and cooling system in place. He added that
the reality is that if you look at the Police Department they would prefer that nobody have open
windows on the first floor. He stated that if the City wanted to be consistent with the general
approach as to how things are being taken, the first floor windows shouldn't be operable. If you
are going to require that those windows be operable, then you probably have to require that they
not be operable past the point where an intruder can get in. There are a lot of other standards that
would apply to this, if you are saying that you have got to be able to ventilate by opening a
window.
Lee stated that screens are only required on openings that are there for required ventilation. He
explained that you can meet required ventilation through a system without opening windows. He
noted that if that system was in place then this code would not apply.
Smilie stated that he believes it would still technically apply because the ventilation section of
the building code has no connection to whether or not the building is air conditioned. Lee stated
that there is an option to do that under the Rental Housing Standards. He explained that you can
artificially ventilate the residence. Smilie stated that we should add an exception for those who
have artificial means to ventilate the premises. The screen provision then would not be required.
Schneider referenced Section 305.1.1, Subsection 6. He stated that not all foundations are
supported by footings and therefore he believes this should be omitted.
BRB June 26, 2008 Pg. 12
Schneider stated that under 305.4.1, it talks about 75" of headroom. He questioned if it includes
existing buildings that are less than that. Lee stated that this has been in the Rental Housing
Code for the past 20 plus years.
Smith stated that there are a lot of rentals that are over 20 years old. He asked if it predates that
code. Lee responded that the Rental Housing Code is retroactive. He stated that it generally
applies to everything.
Gebo explained that this is specific to a multi -family building.
Schneider stated that with the rise of stair heights in Subsection 3, it should say 8 inches tall or 8
inches in rise height and less than 9 inches in depth not width. Lee agreed with Schneider that
depth is the more appropriate term.
Schneider referred to Section 307.1.1, Subsection 2.5, Spalling Concrete. He asked for
clarification on whether this pertained to exterior flatwork. Lee explained that this referred to
structural concrete only, not flatwork. Only structural components or systems would be regulated
under this.
Schneider stated that there are structural floors or slabs that are in garages. Lee stated that if they
were structural they would be a concern and covered under this code provision.
Smilie stated that he believed the concern was due to the fact that the general description does
not specifically state that it has to be structural components; it only says components of a
structure. He noted that the components of a structure are not necessarily all structural.
Schneider stated that he would rather see a code that has good definitions and clarity to avoid
any challenges in the future.
Chapter 4, Occunancy Standards
• Ventilation openings required for habitable spaces. (IPMC 403.1 as amended.)
• All habitable spaces minimum dimensions deleted. (IPMC 404.1- 404.4.1 amended and
404.6.)
• LUC referenced to address rental housing overcrowding. (IPMC 404.5 amended.)
Chapter 5, Plumbing Facilities (no local amendments)
• Identifies required facilities in dwellings (IPMC 502)
• Toilet rooms to afford privacy (IPMC 503)
• Plumbing system maintained in good working order (IPMC 504)
• All fixtures connected to a water system in good working order (IPMC 505)
• All fixtures connected to a sanitary waste system in good working order (IPMC 506)
Chapter 6, Mechanical Requirements
• Heating in rental housing capable of 65' except when </4°. (IPMC 602.3 amended.)
• Mechanical systems and appliances are to be in good working order. (IPMC 603.1)
• Requirements for solid fuel appliance located sleeping rooms. (603.1.1 amended (new))
• Specific mechanical equipment standards applicable to rental housing only. (603.4.1 &
603.5.1 amended (new))
BRB June 26, 2008 Pg. 13
• Portable fuel appliances not allowed. (603.7 amended (new))
• Carbon monoxide alarms required in rental dwellings with combustion appliances or
attached garage. (603.8 amended (new))
Schneider interjected that this would seem to prohibit him from having a fireplace in his
bedroom, even one that met EPA standards.
Smilie stated that he believed it is rather problematic to say that a single-family homeowner
could have pellet stove in their bedroom, but a renter cannot.
Gebo explained that Section 603.1.1 does not pertain only to rentals. Lee clarified that the
Section does have requirements that allow these applications as long as permanent combustion
air to the exterior of the space is provided, there is a proper chimney, etc.
Schneider questioned whether an existing fireplace in a sleeping room would grandfather in.
Gebo replied that it would have to have proper combustion, chimneys.
Schneider asked for clarification on whether an existing unit that met code at the time would
have to be pulled out if it no longer met the current code. Gebo provided explanation.
Schilling questioned whether an already installed fireplace would need to be brought up to code
if there was new work being performed near it. Gebo explained that the existing fireplace would
only need to be brought up to current code standards if it were being altered or replaced.
Smilie stated that it was not specified whether the COZ alarms have to be hard -wired or plug-in
systems. Gebo explained that it is up to the homeowner to decide which one they would want to
use. Both are acceptable.
Smith referred to Section 603.2, and wanted clarification on the exception to this of fuel burning
equipment or appliances. Gebo noted that this language was supposed to have been stricken. He
explained that 603.2 will not be in the amendment package.
Chapter 6, Electrical Requirements
• Electrical systems are to be in good working order. (IPMC 605.1)
• Habitable spaces are required to have two remotely located receptacles. (IPMC 605.2)
• Extension cords not used for permanent wiring. (605.4 amended (new))
• Circuits protected by over -current device. (605.5 amended (new))
Schilling questioned if there is a restriction on how long the extension cords can be. Gebo stated
that extension cords pose a problem when they go across a doorway, are being stapled and
permanently attached to the floor trim, or any other instances where they are being used as
permanent wiring.
Chapter 7, Fire Safety Requirements
• Required emergency escape windows to be maintained in good order. (IPMC 702.4
amended.)
• Rental dwelling emergency exiting requirements and below grade escape windows sized
to meet 5 sq. ft. (702.4.1 & 702.4.2 amended (new))
• Smoke alarms required. (IPMC 704.2)
BRB June 26, 2008 Pg. 14
SUPPLEMENTAL RENTAL HOUSING PROVISIONS
• Amending City Code: Chapter 5, Article VI, Division 5
• Purpose is:
o To supplement the provisions of the 2006 IPMC applicable to rental housing units
o To establish an approval process for un-recorded dwelling units
SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS — RENTAL DWELLINGS
• Improved administrative provisions:
o Includes definitions of Owner, Property Manager, Rental Dwelling Unit and Rental
Housing (5-236)
o Establishes link to the City's LUC and Building Codes. (5-237 & 5-238)
o Establishes link to IPMC for rental housing conditions, inspection and responsibility.
(5-240, 5-257)
o Establishes consistent appeals process. (5-258)
o Establishes penalties for "substandard" dwellings as civil infractions. (5-265)
Non -recorded rental dwelling units:
o Requires all rental dwelling units to have or obtain a Certificate of Occupancy (CO).
(Sec. 5-260 City Code)
o Establishes submittal process for units without a CO. (Sec. 5-261 City Code)
o Un-recorded dwellings without Certificate of Occupancy
■ Historic information reviewed,
■ Owner pays development fees based upon clear historic records of date of
conversion or,
■ Owner pays development fees based upon clear historic records of date the unit
was first used as a rental or,
■ Minus clear records of conversion or use, owner pays fees in effect at the time of
the issuance of the CO.
In closing, Gebo mentioned that presentations had been made to the Planning & Zoning Board,
the Affordable Housing Board, and that extensive public outreach had taken place. He noted that
Council had reviewed the above content at a number of work sessions and will act on staff s
recommendation at upcoming council meetings: July 15, 2008 (1" reading) and August 21, 2008
(2nd reading).
Smith stated that he had concerns regarding wetlands and drainage. He questioned what would
happen if a private property had a marsh on it and whether the property owner would be required
to designate the area as a wetland, do mosquito testing and be required to mitigate. He was
concerned about this since the code just states "stagnant water" with no further definition.
Lee stated that the City treats stagnant water on City property and mitigates it either chemically
or mechanically with an active maintenance program to reduce any stagnant water on City
facilities. He stated that he is not sure how it would relate to private property. He explained that
the code notes a grading issue as it relates to substandard. He quoted the code stating that "all
premises should be graded and maintained to prevent the erosion of soil and to prevent the
accumulation of stagnant water or within any structure thereon." He stated that the exceptions
are approved retention areas and reservoirs.
BRB June 26, 2008 Pg. 15
Smith questioned whether a wetland is a naturally occurring thing, or whether a property owner
would need to have an area approved as a wetland.
Schneider made a motion to ask Council for a continuance on this issue. Cram seconded the
motion.
Schneider stated that he could not approve or make a recommendation on the codes as presented.
He stated that his vote to council would be to not approve or recommend the codes as presented,
without any of the changes that were presented today.
Vote:
Yeas: Packard, Cram, Smith, Smilie, Schneider, Schilling
Nays:
6. Update to Section 2.119 of the City Code pertaining to BRB Function - Presentation/Discussion/
Recommendation
Lee reviewed the proposed code amendments related to the powers of the Building Review
Board. The new language is as follows:
"To upon appeal on specific cases grant variances from the terms of Chapter 15 Article 5 where
a strict application of any provision of said article would result in peculiar or exceptional
practical difficulties or exception undue hardship upon the person regulated or when the
applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board, that the applicant possesses other
qualities not specifically listed in Chapter 15, Article 5 such as specialized training, education,
or educational experience, which the Board has determined qualifies the applicant to perform in
a competent manner any construction authorized under the license or certificate sought, and
provided that such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and
without substantially impairing the intent and purposes of said article. " And 5 "To serve as the
Board of Appeals as required pursuant to section 111 of the International Property Maintenance
Code as adopted by the City and Supplemental Housing Standards to advise City Council on
policy matters pertaining to the construction of buildings and the licensing of contractors and
certification of supervisors for all aspects of the construction of buildings and to perform other
duties and functions, which have such other powers as may be provided by this ordinance of the
City Council. "
Deputy City Attorney Eckman noted that the "whereas" paragraph helped to explain what the
change was in Paragraph 4, which was to add a provision where the Board could grant variances
in cases of contractors who possess special qualifications. He explained that Paragraph 5 adds
the ability of the Board to serve as the appeal board for the housing standards. He further
explained that Paragraph 6 was added because the Board had never been given the ability to
advise City Council on policy matters pertaining to construction of buildings, etc.
Smilie made a motion to recommend to City Council that they approve the proposed changes.
Smith seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Packard, Cram, Smith, Smilie, Schneider, Schilling
Nays:
BRB June 26, 2008 Pg. 16
Other Business
• ISO Insurance Rating
Lee informed the Board that the City of Fort Collins Building Department had received an
outstanding insurance rating based, in part, to the adoption of the new IRC and IBC codes.
Meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Felix Lee,uilding & Zoning Director Michael Smilie, Chairperson