Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 10/25/2018City of Fort Collins Page 1 October 25, 2018 Alan Cram, Chair City Council Chambers Tim Johnson, Vice Chair City Hall West Brad Massey 300 Laporte Avenue Bernie Marzonie Fort Collins, Colorado Katharine Penning Rick Reider Staff Liaison: Justin Robinson Russ Hovland Chief Building Official The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Regular Meeting Minutes October 25, 2018 A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, October 25, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. • CALL TO ORDER Chair Cram was unable to attend. Acting Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 1:06 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Johnson, Massey, Marzonie, Penning, Reider ABSENT: Cram, Robinson STAFF: Hovland, Van Hall, Schiager, Poznanovic, Longstein • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 27, 2018 MEETING. Mr. Marzonie moved to approve the minutes of the September 27, 2018 meeting. Ms. Penning seconded. The motion passed 3:0 with Reider and Johnson abstaining having been absent for the September meeting. Building Review Board City of Fort Collins Page 2 October 25, 2018 2. IMPACT FEE UPDATE Staff Report Jennifer Poznanovic, Revenue and Project Manager, presented a condensed version of the staff report from the September meeting and noted that Council supports the concept of development paying for itself. She stated impact fees can provide revenue only for specific purposes as identified by the fee itself. Ms. Poznanovic outlined the Council-approved impact fees, including six capital expansion fees, which are based on the replacement cost of existing infrastructure, five utility fees, and 45 development review and permit fees. She outlined the fee working group's recommendations, including better communication, outreach, and notice, highlighting the two- to four-year regular intervals for impact fee analysis, and examining progressive fees. Ms. Poznanovic discussed the scenarios should Council opt to not adopt the increased impact fees: new infrastructure and service capacity would be put on hold, levels of service would need to be lowered, and alternative revenue sources, such as tax increases, would need to be examined. Public Input No members of the public were present. Board Questions and Discussion Mr. Reider asked what feedback staff has received on the impact fee update. Ms. Poznanovic replied she has received support of the process; however, there is not as much support for the fee increases, although no alternative funding sources have been identified. Mr. Reider asked about operations and maintenance funding for existing facilities and infrastructure. Ms. Poznanovic replied that is a bit outside of the scope of this item as it relates to new growth paying for new facilities and infrastructure and impact fees are increasing due to replacement costs. Mr. Johnson stated the methodology of this makes sense; however, not having the entire budget story makes it difficult to make a decision on the impact fee increases. Ms. Poznanovic replied she would share the fee position paper with the Board to provide additional detail. Mr. Reider complimented the process and staff's openness and interest in feedback. He stated he is confident in supporting the staff recommendation given his trust in staff and the process. Mr. Massey asked about the opinions of the Affordable Housing Board. Ms. Poznanovic replied the Board was in favor of looking at more progressive fees and additional levels for fee waivers as well as the policy components and levels of service requirements. She stated the Board was generally in favor of the process and its transparency. Mr. Marzonie asked if there were solid numbers as to the impact of a tax increase should these fee increases not occur. Ms. Poznanovic replied that exploration of tax increase options would be the recommendation if there is inadequate support to update these fees to ensure levels of service are maintained for future growth. Mr. Reider commented that implementing additional property taxes would change the philosophy to require the whole community to pay for growth rather than growth paying for itself. Board Deliberation Mr. Reider moved that the Building Review Board express support for the process of the Impact Fee recommendations. Mr. Marzonie seconded. The motion passed 5:0. 3. 2018 I-CODES ADOPTION Staff Report Mr. Hovland presented the staff report and discussed each International Code being adopted. He noted the 2015 Codes were adopted late, in 2017, and the goal is to implement a regular adoption schedule every three years and to adopt the new Codes within 12 months of issuance. City of Fort Collins Page 3 October 25, 2018 Advantages of this schedule will be to minimize the impacts of changes and lessen the degree of construction cost increases as well as lessen ISO insurance rates. Mr. Hovland discussed the process involved in examining the Codes for adoption, which began with the formation of a committee of staff and stakeholders to review the Codes and local amendments. He noted many of the local amendments are now in the Code which allowed about 1/3 of local amendments to be deleted. Mr. Hovland highlighted some proposed local amendments to the Codes. For the International Building Code IBC, an amendment is planned to require a recycling chute next to any provided trash chute in multi-story, multi-family buildings. Additionally, for multi-family buildings, 10% of parking spaces must have a conduit from the electrical room to the front of the parking space for the purpose of installing electric vehicle charging equipment in the future. Mr. Johnson expressed concern about the requirement causing a spider web effect in a small space. Mr. Hovland replied the Committee left flexibility on how the goal is achieved. Mr. Hovland stated an emergency no-fee repair permit for disasters will be added to the IBC as well. Mr. Hovland discussed minimal changes to the International Residential Code. Mr. Hovland went on to discuss changes resulting from yesterday's final Committee meeting, one of which involved sprinkler requirements for in-home daycares of 5 or less children. The City does not receive notification of daycares as they are state regulated facilities; therefore, staff worked with Fire Chief Poncelow to remove the requirement as the home is not changing occupancy and there are 5 or less children. Mr. Reider expressed support for the change and Mr. Hovland noted there are other state fire requirements for such daycares. Mr. Hovland stated City Council has asked about roof shingle waste over the last few years given the number of hail storms. Staff found construction materials, including shingles, make up 50% of landfill materials and there is no place for shingle recycling in Northern Colorado. The Committee discussed impact-resistant shingles at its meeting yesterday and ultimately voted to bring a local amendment to require class four impact-resistant shingles for all asphalt roofs. Mr. Hovland noted the class four shingles would likely still be destroyed in very severe hail storms with larger than golf ball size hail. Mr. Reider expressed support for this amendment and asked if a re-roof would also require the class four shingles. Mr. Hovland replied in the affirmative. Mr. Reider mentioned homeowner's insurance policies can include riders for Code updates which would enable homeowners to get replacement class four shingles. He suggested staff notify area insurance agents. Mr. Massey asked for more detail about class four shingles. Mr. Hovland described the testing process and stated there are two types of class four shingles, one with a rubber backing and one with a fiberglass backing. The rubberized-backed shingles have been found to be much more storm resistant. Mr. Massey asked if it is assumed an older roof structure could handle the weight of class four shingles. Mr. Hovland replied the Committee did not examine the potential weight of the shingles but stated older buildings with 2x4 rafters may need to be examined. He noted there is currently no requirement for a structural analysis unless the roof is concrete tile. Ms. Penning expressed concern with imposing the requirement on older homes. Mr. Hovland replied he would be more concerned with the weight issue if roofs were getting an overlay. He noted the current Code only allows two layers and suggested language could be added to the amendment to require structural evaluation if an overlay is planned. Mr. Hovland stated the next local amendment is to change the showerhead flow rate from 2.0 gallons per minute to 1.8 to lower water consumption. The estimate for water savings at total City build-out is 1.8 million gallons per year. Mr. Reider asked if the Committee considered longer shower use if the flow is decreased. Mr. Hovland replied the Committee ultimately felt the savings was still worth the change and stated the amendment can be reversed in three years if it is found to be an issue. Mr. Hovland noted water conservation staff wanted to require low-flow toilets as well; however, the cast iron and clay sewer systems do not allow waste to get to the main sewer line with these low-flow toilets. Instead, staff opted to require increased MaP scores, which provide an indication of flush performance. City of Fort Collins Page 4 October 25, 2018 Mr. Reider asked if the City has any plans to research the regulation of flushable wipes. Mr. Hovland replied that issue will be examined over the next three years prior to the next Code cycle. Mr. Hovland stated the last local amendment was a request from the Commission on Disability involving an increase to the 30" width required for roll-in showers in multi-family buildings. The Commission requested an increase from 30" x 60" to 36" x 60" minimum. Mr. Marzonie asked about the number of accessible units required in multi-family buildings. Mr. Hovland replied buildings of 26 units must provide one roll-in shower, 55 or 56 units must provide a second, etc. The number of showers required will not change as part of this amendment. Mr. Hovland reviewed the timeline for adoption of the Code changes. Public Input No members of the public were present. Board Questions and Discussion There was no further discussion. Board Deliberation Mr. Massey moved that the Building Review Board recommend the City adopt the 2018 International Codes with the local amendments as discussed. Mr. Reider seconded. Motion passed 5:0. 4. NEW BUILDING ENERGY SCORING REQUIREMENTS Staff Report Kirk Longstein, Energy Services Project Manager, presented the staff report. He provided some background for the Building Energy Scoring (BES) initiative. Mr. Longstein described the three components of BES: Benchmarking, Reporting and Transparency. Benchmarking would require building owners to collect energy and water usage data and enter it into the online EnergyStar Portfolio Manager tool. Reporting would require building owners to report the data annually to the City where it would be verified. Transparency makes the scores publicly available. Mr. Longstein explained the phased implementation approach. Phase 1 would be for commercial buildings, not including industrial, with Benchmarking occurring in 2019, Reporting in 2020, and Transparency beginning in 2021. Multi-family buildings, which refers to large apartment or condominium complexes, would follow the same timeline, but one year later. He discussed consequences of non-compliance, which would include notifications and warnings for 12 months after the reporting is due, followed by a $1,000 fine 60-90 days after the 12-month period. Exemptions and variances from the plan will be offered for industrial buildings, financial distress, partial occupancy and new construction. Other hardship scenarios will be subject to review on a case-by- case basis through an appeal process. Public Input No members of the public were present. Board Questions and Discussion Ms. Penning asked about the new construction exemption. Mr. Longstein explained this was to allow time to collect a year’s worth of data after the Certificate of Occupancy is issued and reach greater than 60% occupancy. Ms. Penning asked if the City would be providing the data collection and reporting tool. Mr. Longstein explained the City would provide training and would have support staff available to use the online Portfolio Manager. Mr. Reider asked how building owners can access usage information since federal laws prohibit Utilities from disclosing tenant energy use, and who would pay for the data collection. Mr. Longstein said the intent is to make the information more readily available by providing aggregate anonymized data for buildings with four or more tenants. He said the only cost to building owners would be the staff time, City of Fort Collins Page 5 October 25, 2018 which is estimated to be four hours the first year and one to two hours for each subsequent year. Mr. Longstein said the City will validate the data through spreadsheet automation using existing staff resources. Mr. Massey asked whether the City intends in the future to require building owners to make changes to reduce usage. Mr. Longstein said that is not the intent of this proposal, but he can’t predict the actions of a future Council. Mr. Massey asked how building owners with fewer than four tenants can access usage data, and who would be responsible for data collection and reporting in a co-ownership situation. Mr. Longstein stated an owner of the building can get easily obtain aggregated data from City, while Xcel has a consent form process which might be more challenging. A shared ownership group can designate someone to be the responsible party. Ms. Penning asked if the data can be auto-generated rather than manually entered. Mr. Longstein said this was possible with City Utilities, but not with Xcel, adding that engagement with the utility bills is what leads to behavioral savings. Ms. Penning expressed concern that building owners may opt to pay the fine in lieu of participating. Mr. Longstein stated non-participation may impact a building owner’s ability to be competitive in the market. Mr. Johnson asked why the owner is responsible for reporting and not the tenant. Mr. Longstein said the market places value in the transparency of information which can serve to incentivize the owner, but tenants are unlikely to make improvements on a rental. Mr. Reider said he would not support this initiative without much more information about the program, its components and the costs. As a building owner who would be personally impacted by the program, he will abstain from voting. Mr. Massey expressed concerned about the uncertainties involving co-ownership. Mr. Johnson sees value in the idea of scoring but is concerned it would become punitive and feels there is a lack of well-defined specifics. Mr. Marzonie asked what feedback has been offered from other groups. Mr. Longstein shared that they have heard concerns about the time and cost involved, the impact on affordability, difficulty accessing data and fear of additional regulation in the future. He has also heard that this is a way for businesses to differentiate themselves in the market, adding that many national brands and big box retailers have already been voluntarily participating for years. Mr. Marzonie asked if there was a possibility of starting as a voluntary program. Mr. Longstein said there is a high cost for incentives to make voluntary programs successful. Other communities who started with voluntary programs have moved to mandatory programs due to issues with predictability and insufficient mass of data. Mr. Reider said people choose a building based on location, rather than minor variations in utility cost. He would be willing to entertain further should they come back with additional information. Board Deliberation Mr. Reider moved that the Building Review Board abstain from making a recommendation for or against Building Energy Scoring Requirements. Mr. Marzonie seconded. The motion passed 5:0. 5. 2019 WORK PLAN Staff Report Mr. Hovland presented the proposed work plan. Public Input No members of the public were present. Board Questions and Discussion Mr. Reider asked a committee would be formed to work on the Property Maintenance Code. Mr. Hovland stated he will explore that. Mr. Reider requested written copy for input. Board Deliberation Mr. Massey moved that the Building Review Board approve the 2019 Work Plan as presented. Ms. Penning seconded. The motion passed 5:0. • OTHER BUSINESS None • ADJOURNMENT Acting Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 3:05 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. Minutes approved by a vote of the Board on -J Q.g /11. ~~ial Alan Cram, Chair City of Fort Collins Page 6 October 25, 2018