Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 08/28/2008• Minutes to be approved by the Board at the September 25, 2008 Meeting FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting — August 28, 2008 1:00 P.M. Chairperson: Michael Smilie hone: 226-4260 H Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson Staff Liaison: Felix Lee (221-6760) A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, August 28, 2008 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: Alan Cram Mike Gust Michael Smilie George Smith Jeff Schneider Jim Schilling BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Packard • STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Melanie Clark, Customer Service Representative II Mike Gebo, Deputy Building Official AGENDA: ROLLCALL The meeting was called to order and rollcall was taken. 2. Approval of Minutes: The July, 2008 minutes were tabled due to concerns from Board Member Cram. These items will be discussed at the September meeting. Yeas: Cram, Gust, Smilie, Smith, Schneider, Schilling Nays: None 3. IPMC and Rental Housing Codes: Lee informed the audience that this was a formal meeting and that City staff was seeing a recommendation from the Board on these items. The Board first discussed the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC). BRB August 28, 2008 Pg. 2 Schneider asked whether some of the changes to the verbiage were due to legal suggestions. Lee • confirmed this. He explained that additionally some of the items were changed for specificity based the Board's earlier input. Under Section 102.2, Schneider asked for clarification on the definition of "sound". Lee explained that a definition for sound could be found on page 18 of the ordinance. Smith questioned whether the IPMC code was all that was being adopted or if the amendments were being adopted in addition to the IPMC code. Lee explained that both the IPMC code and the amendments were being adopted. He further explained that when an ordinance is adopted only those things that are amended are included in the actual ordinance. Under section 107.1, Subsections 2, 3 and 4, Schneider questioned whether a definition that defines what sanitary and safe conditions should be added. Lee stated that the IPMC is actually looser than the old code and that in Section 201, the IPMC states: "Where terms are not defined through the methods authorized by this section, such terms shall have ordinarily accepted meanings such as the context implied... " Lee further explained that there will always be some interpretive value that someone has to apply. He stated that if a building was really unsafe, it would fall into the dangerous building category. Gebo added that the term safe and sanitary is used in the IPMC and is not something that staff added. • Schneider questioned whether there were any guidelines used by the Larimer County Health Department that could be referenced back to this. Gebo stated that the full document can be cross-referenced to the dangerous structures section. He noted that the code includes the following condition under dangerous elements, structures or equipment: "A building or structure used or intended to be used for dwelling purposes, because of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, decay, damage, faulty construction or arrangement, inadequate light, ventilation, mechanical or plumbing system or otherwise, is determined by the Building Official, in consultation with the Health Officer, to be unsanitary, unfit for human habitation or in such a condition that is likely to cause sickness or disease. " Under Section 108.1.3, Ventilation, Schneider stated that he was concerned that an older rental house would not meet today's code because it would not matter if there was an operable window or not. Schneider noted that they would still be required to have a fan or ventilation system for the bathroom. Lee explained that in a rental house, if there are bathing facilities where an operable window or outdoor ventilation is not present, then this would be required. He noted that Section 403.1 was not amended. Gebo stated that some of Schneider's questions related to whether or not staff needed to amend the code language to state that the dwelling needed to comply with the code that was in effect at • the time of construction. However, he explained that this was problematic and could impact or limit the work that occurred since the date of construction. He further explained that many of the older homes have sheds, additions and enclosed porch additions that may have been done without permits. BRB August 28, 2008 Pg. 3 • Schneider stated that if the work was done without a permit, the structure would then technically be an unlawful structure where the City would be able to impose a fine. He explained that he was referring to items that had not been altered or changed in any way. Smilie stated he would agree to that verbiage if there were some language added that stated there would be consequences for non -compliant alterations. Gebo explained that Section 108.1.5 refers to dangerous buildings. He stated that if the building was dangerous and/or is an eminent hazard, the code in effect at the time of construction would be irrelevant. Schneider questioned whether stairways, passageways or exits would meet today's fire code if a dwelling was deemed dangerous under Section A104, Dangerous Element Structures. Gebo stated that Section 108.1.5 states that: "A structure or premises is dangerous if any part, element or component thereof is no longer within it's serviceability limit or strength limit state as defined in this code or, when considered in totality, the structure or premises pose an imminent threat to the health and safety of the public or the occupants of the structure or premises as referenced in Appendix A of this code. " Schneider questioned whether the same would be true regarding the widths of exiting corridors • and hallways. Lee explained that Poudre Fire Authority would enforce this issue and that it would have to be an eminent danger before changes would be ordered. Lee further explained that in the case of the stairs, if a tread is missing or broken, especially if it was part of an exiting system, staff would order corrections. Gebo noted that the Fire Marshall has reviewed the document and wrote a letter of complete support for the IPMC. He stated that the IPMC works in conjunction with the Fire code. Under Section 108.5, Subsection 4, the Board questioned how the City could require 1% times the original design value. Gebo explained that after doing some research with ICC and Engineers, buildings and structures are built with a safety factor of 2. He noted that if the structure was built with a safety factor of 1 it would already be at its failure point. Schneider asked for clarification of what the requirement would be in the case where a design load was a 2 and the code stated that it must be 1'/2 times the original design load. Gebo explained that this provision has actually been reduced from a 2 down to 1'/z. He further explained that if a structure was 1'/2 times the original design value, the structure would already be half way to failure. He stated that if failure is 1, and a structure is designed for 2, the code would only let you go to 1 '/2 before corrections would be required. Gebo noted that this requirement was from the original uniform code for abatement of dangerous buildings list. Smilie stated that he was thinking the code should reference 75% of the design value, because if • have a design value of 2 then it would put it at 1.5. Board members were in agreement that this language was confusing. BRB August 28, 2008 Pg. 4 Under Section108.1.5, Subsection 10: Lack of Fire Resistant, Fire Protection, Electrical System: • Schneider questioned whether it could be construed that because a structure does not meet today's code, it could be considered as potentially dangerous. Gebo explained that this provision aids in updating the system but stated that the portion of the system that was causing the hazard would be the only thing required to be fixed, not the entire system. Schilling questioned whether the electrical code states that only the areas that are touched, repaired or modified would have to be brought up to current code. Gebo stated that this is true with any code. He explained that any work that requires a permit has to comply with today's code and that this only pertains to the scope of the work included in the permit. Smilie stated that under Section 108.2 (a) the section reads: "When a building or the Structure... " He explained that it should be "When a building or a structure" or "When a building or structure." Smilie questioned whether in Section 108.2(c) the person referenced would be a code enforcement official. He explained that in Section c, Subsection (i), that it is the name and address of the person submitting the vacant building notification. He stated that he would assume that that person was a code enforcement official. There was discussion about the purpose of the vacant building provisions and when they would be applied. Gebo stated that these code provisions provide staff with the ability to identify a vacant property that has been broken into and have readily available contact information to get • the situation remedied. He explained that the property would have to be vacant and unlawfully entered or vacant and boarded up before these provisions would take effect. He noted that there were specific conditions that must be present before a property would be considered vacant under these code provisions. Schneider questioned whether an occupied house that was broken into and had damaged windows that were boarded up would be considered a vacant building. Lee explained that once the property had been secured or boarded up, the City would want to know because it would mean that it is likely vacant. Schneider questioned whether words like "update" or "bring up to code" should be added after the word demolish rather than saying the property owner would have to sell, lease or occupy a premises to get it off of the vacant building list. Lee stated that the City wants to identify and track buildings that are being vacated with no occupancy plans or secured in a fashion that indicates they are not being used for occupants. He noted that the intent is to track those that become a problem or have chronic issues. Schneider stated that in Section 108.2 (d) it might be advisable to add specifics on fees and violations. Smilie explained that these items are generally amended out of the City's version of the UBC, because in many cases the UBC charges more than the City. He added that if fees were written into the code there would need to be an amendment if the fees ever changed. • Lee noted that these fees are administrated by the City Manager. BRB August 28, 2008 Pg. 5 Schneider stated that in Section 108.2 (g) he was concerned about requiring people to file with • the Clerk and Recorder. Lee stated that the true official public record is the County Clerk and Recorder as it relates to sales. He explained that this would provide a way of notifying others that there was an issue with the building if it were sold or changed hands. Schneider stated that he is having a hardship with the entire program because if something gets broken into or boarded up it would have to be filed with the Clerk and Recorder and it would be considered a violation under this code. Lee stated that not every vacant building would have to be registered. Only those that fall under the criteria specified in the code. Gebo explained that the City added these provisions, in part, for notification to the next owner. He stated that future owners who may purchase the property need to understand and know that there are conditions placed upon that building. He further explained that because the City has a legal hold on the property, they would record it so proposed future buyers would know that the City is involved. Schneider questioned whether it would hurt the potential sale of that building and whether or not it would decrease the property value. He also questioned whether a building having a vacant status could diminish the property values around it. Lee stated that it would really depend on what the property looked like more than what was on the records. Schneider stated that if a house in a neighborhood had something tied to it, it would then drop the property values of the neighbors. He questioned whether the City would then be hurting • neighborhood values. Cram noted that potential buyers have the right to know this information. He explained that this would be a way to do that. Smilie stated that it would at least give the potential buyers a chance to talk to the Building Department to find out what the hold or condition entailed. Schneider questioned why 5 days was given instead of 10 in Section 111.4. Gebo explained that this is the prescribed appeal time from when the premises is ordered vacated. Schneider stated that in reference to a flood hazard, City staff said a reference to Chapter 10 of the City Code would be added. He explained that that reference was never added in. Gebo commented that this provision was taken directly from the Stormwater section of the City code. Board members agreed that it would be good to have the reference to Chapter 10 of the City Code. Cram stated that under Subsection 2 of the definition of Flood Hazard Area, where it says: "the area designated as a flood hazard area on a community's flood hazard map or otherwise legally designated," it should specify who the legal designees are. Lee stated that should probably refer to chapter 10 in some way. • Schneider questioned whether Section 302.2, Grading and Drainage, should also refer back to Chapter 10. Gebo stated that this section refers to the building site grading. He explained that this BRB August 28, 2008 Pg. 6 particular section refers to maintaining the level of grading and drainage around the property, so • as to not drain towards the building and not pool. In the amendments for A102 (5), Schneider questioned what the degree of plumb was. Lee explained that if a plumb line dropped in the middle of a wall is outside of the middle 1 /3 of that wall, then it is considered out of plumb. Schneider questioned whether that was the same kind of reference that was going to be used instead of the word "substantially". Lee stated that this had been dropped out of the code. Schneider questioned whether more specifics needed to be added to further define "the degree of plumb." Gebo stated that in item 6 he would add a definition of what constitutes substantially plumb. He noted they would use the same terminology that exists in the old code. He explained that it would essentially state that if it falls outside the center third it is no longer substantially plumb. Smilie provided an invitation for public comment on this item. Eric Kronwall with the Fort Collins Board of Realtors addressed the Board. He stated that the Fort Collins Board of Realtors is 100% behind the City having the tools they need to deal with dangerous buildings. He explained that they support having the tools to have safe, quality housing, as well as the existing Rental Housing Code. Specifically regarding the IPMC and what is being proposed, Eric made 5 points: • 1. There is some exclusion for owner -occupied residences included. He stated that they strongly support that and urge the City to continue to move forward with those exclusions. However, the exclusion that is being proposed simultaneously goes to far and not far enough. He gave an example that on page 27 under 305, owner -occupied, detached, single-family dwellings in which no rooms are leased or rented are exempt from the provisions. At the very bottom of the page it says "every stair, ramp, landing, balcony, porch, deck or other walking surface shall be maintained in a sound condition." Kronwall stated that if the property was built to code and the rise and run has since changed, but the stairs are not falling down, this owner -occupied premise would be removed from that consideration. However, Kronwall noted that it is important not to eliminate owner -occupied premises in instances where things may be unsafe. His opinion was that this exclusion may be too broad. Kronwall mentioned that in the IPMC, paragraph 102.6 there is an exclusion for historic buildings that says: "The provisions of this code shall not be mandatory for existing buildings or structures designated as historic buildings, when such buildings or structures are judged by the code official to be safe and in the public interest of health, safety and welfare." He suggested that the same kind of statement related to owner -occupied buildings would be a benefit. He added that the premises have to be safe and that a homeowner should not get a free pass just because they are living in their own home. 2. Kronwall suggested that all of the amendments related to vacant buildings should not be approved. He stated that the issue is not whether or not a property is vacant but whether or not it is unsafe or unfit for occupancy. Kronwall explained that the model code provides three things that happen: 1) A notice is given to the owner, 2) There is a BRB August 28, 2008 Pg. 7 placard of condemnation placed upon the property, so there is notice at the property, and • 3) If it is an eminent danger, the City is able to take action without even giving notice. Kronwall noted that the Fort Collins Board of Realtors feels this is appropriate and support this. Kronwall re-emphasized that the issue is not whether or not a property is vacant. If a property is an eminent danger, the City should take action, occupied or not. Kronwall noted that in paragraph108.2 (b) when you get to the end of the sentence it says "shall be abated." He wondered how you abate a vacant building that has been condemned. Kronwall stated that if the premises is unsafe, the unsafe condition can be abated. If it is unfit to occupy, the condition that causes it to be unfit to occupy can be abated. Related to the notification process, Kronwall mentioned that it was stated by staff that these provisions were being proposed to enable them to deal with chronic problems. Kronwall noted that if there is a chronic problem, the City doesn't need this notification process. He suggested keeping the model code where it provides that if a premises is vacant and unfit to occupy and not in danger of eminent collapse, the City can order it boarded up. Kronwall stated that an attractive nuisance is in the appendix as an unsafe condition. He noted that if the argument is that we need to take care of it because it is vacant and an attractive nuisance, the code gives staff the power to order it boarded up in situations where it is unsafe. 3. Kronwall mentioned that any duplicate code provisions should be repealed. He stated . that the proposed ordinance removes 2 of 3 sections of the existing Dangerous Building code, but not the third. He thought the third section ought to be repealed as well. Kronwall added that his suspicion was that the IPMC was more stringent than the existing housing standards and that any duplication there should be repealed. 4. Kronwall stated that the amendments should be minimized. He stated that he was a little bit surprised to hear staff say that they would hate to get too far outside the current code, because 45 pages of amendments are being proposed. Kronwall explained that it took Loveland 3 pages, Greeley 4, and Longmont 7 pages for their code amendments. It was Kronwall's opinion that the issue related to substandard just added confusion. If a property is not in compliance with the code, staff can give notice. Kronwall mentioned that although he liked the format of the historic building exclusion in Section 102.6, it excluded only those buildings which were designated historic. He thought this was in conflict with the City's Landmark Preservation Commission, which does not require designation, but also includes properties that are eligible for designation. He suggested that staff look at an amendment to that paragraph so that there is not a conflict with the LPC folks who have worked with a lot of properties to preserve them. Schneider stated that Section 304.4 states that: "all structural members shall be maintained from deterioration, shall be capable of safely supporting the imposed dead loads and live loads." He questioned whether this was referring to today's standards. Gebo explained that this excerpt Is meaning straight from the IPMC. Lee explained that this refers to those that are actually imposed, meaning whatever is actually on the site. BRB August 28, 2008 Pg. 8 Under Section 304.14, the Board expressed concerns that only the property owner was being • held responsible for providing screens and making sure they are maintained. They stated that they would like to see some verbiage stating that property owners had to provide screens at the time of the lease and after that it would be the tenant's responsibility to maintain. Gebo stated that in Section 301.2, under general requirements in the body of the code, not the ordinance, it states that: "occupants of the dwelling unit, rooming unit or housing keeping unit are responsible for keeping in a clean, sanitary and safe condition that part of the dwelling unit, rooming unit, housekeeping unit or premises which they occupy and control. " Staff agreed to add verbiage to state that the property owner is responsible for providing screens only at the time of lease. Under Section 305.1, Interior Structures, Schneider stated the he felt that there needs to be a disclaimer that the structure met the code in effect at that time. He was concerned that if nothing had been changed or altered and it was still in solid, sound condition, that it should be considered ok. Smilie stated that it is hard to tell sometimes, whether or not a structure has been changed. Schneider explained that if there weren't any permits issued, then it would be an unlawful structure and could be handled accordingly. • Smilie stated that had an issue with Section 305.3 related to the cracked and peeling paint provision. He explained that it fails to address one of the more significant issues with lead based paint in older buildings. He stated that the most hazardous portion of a lead based paint is the cracking and peeling paint. Gebo explained that the Building Department doesn't deal with lead based paint and that this is handled by the Latimer County Health Department. Schneider mentioned that in Section 307.1.1, spalling concrete should refer only to structural concrete. Gebo stated that on item A103 of the ordinance, staff would add structural concrete to deal with those items. He explained that in A104 (4), in the last sentence, the wording would be changed to: "It must be anchored or fastened in place so as to be capable of resisting natural or artificial loads equal to or greater than the original design value. " Schneider argued that in Section 307.1.1 (4), in the substandard component dealing with the masonry joints and fractures that, masonry is a porous substance that water is going to get through which is why a drainage plain is required behind it. Gebo stated that 307.1.1 was struck and changed to A103. He explained that the section is talking about substandard components and that it says: "Where any of the following conditions caused the component or system to reach its limit state. " Gebo noted that a crack in a mortar joint is not going to have reached its limit state. Schneider referred to Section 404.3 stating that the second sentence requires that every bedroom in the dwelling have access to at least one water closet or lavatory located on the same story as the bedroom or an adjacent story. He questioned whether this would become an issue for rental • housing. Lee stated that he would be willing to strike that second sentence. Schneider questioned whether the monoxide detectors required under Section 603.8 should be on the same level as the garage or mechanical room or on the lowest level. Gebo explained that BRB August 28, 2008 Pg. 9 monoxide is dispersed through the mechanical system spreading to wherever the duct work • distributes it. He added that it is not heavy gas. Cram stated that monoxide is lighter than air and will rise. He explained that as a result there is a lot of discussion about monoxide detectors because they plug in at the base board height. Gebo stated that at this point the City is trying to achieve some level of alarm notification. Lee stated that he is not willing to second guess the industry and he would refer to wherever the manufacturer recommends installation. In Section 604.3, Electrical System Hazards on existing building (rentals), Schneider questioned whether in instances where there were inadequate or insufficient receptacles in lighting outlets, the property owner would have to add outlets in order to utilize the house as a rental. He also questioned the definition of insufficient. Gebo stated that less than two receptacles per room in a rental is insufficient. Gebo explained that the Fire Department deals with this regularly. He added that they know that one extension cord to one appliance is fine, but when occupants start adding extension cords onto extension cords, onto something else, the Fire Department knows this is a violation. He noted that "insufficient" is kind of a general term and that the condition is really determined on the capacity of the outlet and the total demand of appliances and devices connected. Gust stated that he would like to see that GFIs be required in kitchens, bathrooms, garages, unfinished basements and on the outsides of properties where electrical outlets are present. He explained that he feels like this is a safety issue. Staff agreed to include the GFIs as a • requirement. Smith stated that he had issues with the vacant building provisions throughout the entire document. He explained that it seemed to him like the City was criminalizing the owner of the building because someone broke in. He stated that he could not support that one at all. Board member Cram pointed out that there were grammatical and punctuation errors throughout the document. Gebo explained that these errors would be corrected through an outside vendor as part of the review process. Cram referred to Section 108.1.3, Structure Unfit for Human Occupancy. He explained that there have been instances in this town where people have used tents and campers for residences. Smilie explained that the urban camping code deals with people residing in tents or campers and that under a strict building code neither of these would be considered as a building or structure. Cram stated that the word "absent" should be added to Section 108.1.1 talking about substandard equipment where in the last sentence it states: "or is so damaged, decayed, dilapidated." Cram explained that discussion took place that the word "absent" should be in there and he didn't see it in the draft. Cram stated that it should read: "or is so damaged, decayed, dilapidated, absent, structurally substandard or of such faulty construction." An item may be absent, which would imply that • something had been there to begin with. Lee responded stating that it could be reworded to state that it contains substandard or lacks something. BRB August 28, 2008 Pg. 10 The Board had questions about how it would hinder staff s process if Board did not want vacant • building amendments. Gebo explained that they wouldn't have ready access to owner information or a local contact that they could visit with to talk about problems with the property. He stated that they would still be able to order the property to be secured and locked; however, there would not be a monitoring program that would assist staff in tracking these buildings. Lee added that this would continue our current process of responding only when we get complaints or from staff observation. The Board had questions regarding how many properties the City is currently dealing with regarding vacant building issues. Gebo stated that there may be a dozen or so. Lee stated that he was prepared to delete the vacant building notification program. He explained that it is hard to say how much we would lose or gain by doing so and noted that he believes it would have been a useful tool. Smilie stated that another issue was the historic buildings and whether or not that portion should be changed. Lee stated that it was really a wording issue and staff would make it consistent with other codes. Gebo noted that he was discussing historic issues with Historic Preservation staff and explained that if a condition becomes a life, health or safety issue, this would override historic designation. He further explained that he would certainly be willing to identify the historic buildings not only designated but also those eligible for designation to be consistent with Landmark • Preservation Commision. Schneider made a motion to recommend to City Council that they adopt the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) with local amendments, once revised as noted in the Board's discussion. Smith seconded the motion. Vote: Yay: Gust, Smilie, Smith, Schneider Nay: Cram The Board next discussed the proposed changes to the Supplemental Rental Housing provisions. Lee explained that the changes to the Supplemental Rental Housing provisions offer a process to provide legal recognition of existing rental housing. He stated that this draft has not changed much since it was first offered. Lee noted that the substance of the discussion could be found primarily in the sections of the code on pages 8 and 9 dealing with certificate of occupancies being required for any building with 2 or more dwelling units where one had not been previously issued. Lee stated that Section 261 provides a mechanism to prove legitimacy of rental units that have never been documented, as well as establishing a basis for equitable treatment of all rental units. He added that this would require that fees be paid equivalent to what would have been charged at the time the unit was created. Smilie questioned whether staff had any idea of how much the fees would be. He felt that this • fell outside of a typical statute of limitation and did not think this was equitable. Schneider asked for clarification on whether or not the City was trying to collect on back fees that should have already been collected. Lee confirmed this. BRB August 28, 2008 Pg. 11 Smith mentioned that he thought this would be problematic for many people who have bought • over/under rental units thinking that they were purchasing a legal duplex. Schneider re- emphasized that he did not believe that this was appropriate. Gebo explained that right now, if the City finds a residence that has an additional dwelling unit and cannot find a permit, they are required to obtain a permit and are charged today's fees. He stated that the City is making a way for them to legitimize the units at the fees in place at the time the premises was converted as long as they can prove when it became a duplex. Smilie recommended that there be an amnesty period for those people to come in and get their units legitimized and not be charged any fees. Gebo responded stating that staff had talked about doing this for cases prior to 1965. Staff was also concerned that this would be inequitable for those who have already been required to legitimize additional dwelling units and pay related fees. Smith stated that he was concerned that this would cause a hardship on the current owner, especially in those cases where they thought they were buying a legitimate duplex. He explained that he was against charging them the fees, but agreed that the units should be legitimized and brought up to code. Gebo questioned the Board about situations where it is very clear that the dwelling was a single- family and is now a duplex. Smith stated that he believed the City should start from current projects forward and not look at these situations retroactively. • Schneider stated that he would only agree with bringing these situations current as long as staff was dealing with the original owner. He stated that staff should not require this in situations where the owner has changed. Gebo questioned how staff would then deal with the scenario where it was the third owner that finished the basement and turned the premises into a duplex. There was consensus amongst Board Members that more discussion was required on this item before they would be willing to offer their support. Smilie made a motion to recommend that Council not support the Supplemental Rental Housing Provisions and request that these items be sent back to Board for further review. Cram seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Cram, Packard, Gust, Smilie, Smith, Schneider, Schilling Nays: None 4. Other Business: None. Meeting adjourned at 5:43 pm. BRB August 28, 2008 Pg. 12 • Felix Lee, #Mding & Zoning Director L CJ Michael Smilie, Chairperson