HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 09/26/2013FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD
Regular Meeting – September 26, 2013
1:00 p.m.
Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Mike Gebo (416-2618)
Chairperson: Alan Cram
A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, September 26, 2013 at
1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 Laporte Avenue,
Fort Collins, Colorado.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Alan Cram
Andrea Dunlap
Justin Montgomery
Rick Reider
Torey Lenoch
George Smith
Mike Doddridge
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Melanie Clark, Staff Support to the Board
Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken.
1. APPROVAL OF JULY 25, 2013 MINUTES:
Smith expressed concern regarding the way in which the minutes expressed Cram’s concerns
regarding nuisances. Cram replied that the minutes captured the idea of his comments.
Smith stated the minutes did not reflect his information request regarding the number of
nuisance codes written and how many were patrol versus complaint from Beth Sowder and
Polly Lauridsen. Gebo replied the information would be included in the next set of minutes.
A motion was made by Dunlap to approve the July 25, 2013 minutes as amended.
Montgomery seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Dunlap, Reider, Smith, Cram, Lenoch, Montgomery
Nays: None
Abstain: Doddridge
2. 2012 INTERNATIONAL CODE REVIEW
Gebo presented information pertaining to 2012 I-Code review efforts. He stated that the work
was done in conjunction with a Code Review Committee and that the review included the
International Residential Code (IRC), International Building Code (IBC), Fuel Gas Code,
Mechanical Code, and Energy Code, the latter three of which are subsets of the Commercial
BRB – September 26, 2013 - Page 2
Building Code. Gebo noted that the IRC allows a builder to build detached single-family
dwellings, duplexes, and townhomes and that all other structures are built under the IBC. Gebo
added that the City is currently operating under the 2009 Codes and local amendments which
were implemented in January, 2010. He discussed the energy efficiency requirements of the
new codes and stated that the average homeowner could expect to see an annual savings of
about $100 should all recommended pieces be adopted.
Gebo discussed the construction waste management changes and noted the differences
between deconstruction and demolition. He stated that there appears to be some support for
moving forward with enhancing construction waste management to require recycling for
additions and remodels up to 5,000 square feet.
Gebo stated that there has been a great deal of discussion related to the IRC. He mentioned
that the committee has suggested the possibility of developments being planned around
sprinkling each home in the hopes of having narrower streets or fewer fire hydrants as some
type of trade-off. He detailed the residential sprinkler system plan noting the system uses
potable, constantly moving water and the system has been designated as plumbing so as to
avert freezing concerns. Gebo discussed the life-saving aspects of residential sprinklers. Smith
and Gebo had a discussion regarding the related statistics that were presented. In terms of
sustainability regarding residential sprinklers, studies show 57% fewer injuries and 32% less
property loss when sprinkler systems are present.
Gebo discussed the sprinkler requirement for multi-family structures noting sprinklers are only
required for living spaces, not including attics, which could be a problem. Also, the use of vinyl
siding has become an issue. Gebo suggested multi-family units should be required to meet the
National Fire Protection standard 13 which requires attic sprinkling and the elimination of vinyl
siding. He detailed the cost differential between the standards and noted the committee agreed
with that suggestion. Additionally, there seems to be more support for requiring duplexes and
townhomes to be sprinkled.
Reider asked about the difference between the P2904 system, which can be installed by a
plumber, and the 13R system. Gebo replied 13R is considered a stand-alone system and has a
separate tap from other potable water. Additionally, a great deal of design goes into those
systems and a special sprinkler-installer contractor license is required.
Reider asked if one system is dramatically better than the other. Gebo replied the P2904 and
13R are similar; the P2904 probably more closely resembles the 13D system which is the
dwelling unit stand-alone sprinkler system. The 13R requires sprinkling of large closets,
attached garages, etc., which the P2904 does not.
Cram asked about drywalling or sprinkling crawl spaces when there are mechanicals in that
space. Gebo replied the IRC addresses under-floor space, such as unfinished basements, with
the use of I-joists, which burn quickly, by requiring sprinklers in that area, sheetrocking of the
ceiling, or the use of dimensional lumber. He stated the committee opted to leave that
requirement in the suggested code for adoption.
Smith noted there is a spray chemical retardant available for the TJIs. Gebo replied there is a
rated I-joist and foam materials that can be applied.
Reider asked if this applies only to new construction. Gebo replied in the affirmative.
BRB – September 26, 2013 - Page 3
Reider asked if there is a sprinkler requirement for a crawl space with no mechanical
equipment. Gebo replied in the negative and clarified that only areas with mechanical
equipment or areas with the intended use of storage require sprinklers.
Doddridge asked if the City has put together any information regarding the average square
footage of new single-family homes. Gebo replied he uses a standard reference house: a 2,000
square foot, 2-story home with a 1,000 square foot unfinished basement, valued at about
$250,000.
Cram asked how home additions would be considered. Gebo replied this applies only to new
buildings, not to additions or alterations. Energy efficiency requirements would need to apply
only to the addition, not to the rest of the house.
Lenoch noted the City currently has the right to require smoke detectors in existing bedrooms
even if they are out of the scope of a remodel permit. He stated the spirit of this and that of the
fire-suppression system would be the same and asked if these codes could ultimately encroach
into the remodel arena. Gebo replied it would be difficult for that to happen and stated he would
never support that, nor would he support sprinkling just additions.
Cram asked how the water lines on the second floor are made freeze-proof. Gebo replied the
lines and sprinkler heads would be interior wall-mounted. Cram stated that needs to be an
important clarification.
Montgomery asked if licensed plumbers are allowed to design and install the systems or if the
design would happen elsewhere. Gebo replied a licensed plumbing contractor would be
required to install the system and would be allowed to design the system, which would be plan
reviewed and inspected through the City.
Montgomery asked if it would make sense for the licensed plumbers to receive a certificate
related to design. Gebo replied that could be done administratively.
Montgomery asked if sprinkler systems would be the only option or if a builder can elect
additional fire-suppression tactics. Gebo replied the Code is written such that sprinklers are
required with one-hour property line fire walls; should Council remove the sprinkler requirement,
the rating will be moved to a two-hour rating.
Doddridge asked about the fact that smaller plumbing operations may not have experience with
the design or installation of the systems and expressed concern regarding the January 1, 2014
implementation date. Gebo replied there are not a lot of small companies that know about this;
therefore a possible later implementation of this aspect may make sense to allow for training.
Doddridge asked about the homeowner affidavit which allows a homeowner to construct his
own home or finish his own basement. Gebo replied a certified sprinkler installer would be
required at that point.
Smith expressed concern about requiring an individual to hire a contractor for a self-completed
project and asked if another system, other than the one requiring training, exists. Gebo replied
he does not believe there is another system and noted few homeowner builders do absolutely
everything. He noted a homeowner builder could certainly solder a copper system however.
BRB – September 26, 2013 - Page 4
Montgomery asked if any of the new changes for the Energy Code make the local amendments
not necessary. Gebo replied in the negative and discussed some of the Energy Code
considerations.
Cram expressed concern about the payback time when considering the annual energy cost
savings versus the increased initial costs. Gebo replied the cost of construction has been the
largest concern across the board and the payback range could be around ten years. Cram
expressed concern about the raised fee structure which was never represented to the Board.
Doddridge asked about the total cost of all the Code changes for a standard reference house.
Gebo replied it is in the $8,000-10,000 range, including the sprinkler.
Smith asked about the egress window requirement. Gebo replied egress windows must be
placed at least 24 inches above the floor due to fall protection regulations.
Smith asked about deconstruction. Gebo clarified deconstruction involves the systematic
removal of all components and recycling of all possible components. He went on to discuss the
current understanding of the term which means all hazardous materials must first be eliminated,
some materials may be reused and recycling of possible materials.
Cram stated the committee has suggested the energy saving requirements need to be
addressed carefully so as to not push people out of the housing market. Additionally, he stated
he would like to recommend the non-use of sprinklers in single-family residential construction.
Doddridge stated he would support the sprinkler requirement for duplexes and townhomes.
Smith made a motion, seconded by Dunlap, that the Building Review Board generally
supports the I-Code amendments as proposed, with the exception of the sprinkling of
detached single-family homes and the Energy Codes due to the cost-benefit analysis.
Montgomery asked if the Board is then suggesting a local amendment to not adopt the 2012
International Energy Conservation Code. Gebo replied that is an option but noted some of the
Codes are cross-referenced which brings up occasional difficultly but could be worked around.
Lenoch expressed concern regarding construction waste materials and additional cost. Cram
noted the energy issue is slightly different in that the return on investment is becoming less and
less.
Board members discussed amending the motion to include these concerns.
Gebo expressed appreciation for relying on the Code Review Committee and stated the energy
issue would be discussed there. He suggested a more general motion.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Dunlap, Reider, Smith, Cram, Lenoch,
Montgomery and Doddridge. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Cram stated he would like Council to examine the entire package and commended Gebo on his
work.
BRB – September 26, 2013 - Page 5
Cram requested that Gebo send a general synopsis of the Code Review Committee’s
recommendation. Gebo replied the Board could always hold a special meeting for additional
input if necessary.
Meeting adjourned at 3:12 p.m.
_____
Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official Alan Cram, Chair