Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Commission - Minutes - 09/30/2021City of Fort Collins Page 1 September 30, 2021 Alan Cram, Chair Tim Johnson, Vice Chair Brad Massey Katharine Penning Eric Richards Justin Robinson Staff Liaison: Mark Teplitsky Russ Hovland Interim Chief Building Official Meeting Minutes September 30, 2021 A regular meeting of the Building Review Commission was held on Thursday, September 30, 2021, remotely, via Zoom. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cram called the meeting to order at 9:01 a.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Cram, Massey, Richards, Teplitsky, Penning ABSENT: Robinson, Johnson STAFF: Manno, Dustin, Hovland, Brennan PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 26, 2021 MEETING. Member Richards moved to approve the minutes of the August 26, 2021 meeting with the suggested amendments. Member Teplitsky seconded. The motion passed 5-0. Building Review Commission DocuSign Envelope ID: 5DEA008F-D302-4281-BFF7-BEBDE33BED97 City of Fort Collins Page 2 September 30, 2021 2. AFFINITY REMODELING, INC REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT OF LICENSE WITHOUT PROVIDING REQUIRED TESTING DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to seek a determination from the Building Review Commission to whether or not a license and supervisor’s certificate should be reinstated to Affinity Remodeling, Inc. and Gary York without required testing. Chair Cram outlined the time allotments for each aspect of the hearing. Staff Report Ms. Manno stated the purpose of this item is to seek a determination from the Commission as to whether a license and supervisor certificate should be reinstated to Affinity Remodeling and Gary York without required testing. She discussed Mr. York’s 35-year testing and education history with the City and stated his license expired in February of 2020, did apply for a renewal, and had communication with staff regarding some missing application items which has lead to this hearing. She stated the staff recommendation is denial. Appellant Presentation Gary York, appellant, stated he was unaware his license had expired until June of 2021 when he contacted the City regarding the reinstatement process. He stated he did not work for seven months due to the lack of building inspections during COVID and never had any plan to not renew his license as he has kept up with it for 35 years. He described his main source of income as doing remodels for Medicaid patients and he therefore does not necessarily need the commercial license. He stated he plans to retire in two years. Appellant Rebuttal None. Staff Rebuttal Ms. Manno stated courtesy renewal notices are typically sent one to two month prior to the scheduled expiration of an license or supervisor certificate; however, if that notice is not sent or received, it is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure the license is renewed and kept current. She noted renewals can occur up to 60 days past the expiration date and once that 60 days has passed, a new application must be submitted subject to the current licensing process and procedures outlined under the expiration section. Testing is required if there are any Code updates or if a license goes into expiration status. She also noted testing is required for any change in license, including if Mr. York no longer needed the commercial license. Public Input None. Board Questions and Discussion Member Richards asked if there are records the City sent Mr. York the renewal notice. Ms. Manno replied the letter is auto-generated and it is on record as having been sent via the postal service. Member Massey noted Mr. York has provided some information regarding things he has done to keep current on the Codes and asked if he has any additional information to provide. Mr. York replied he keeps current on Codes pertinent to his work in various jurisdictions and all work he does for Medicaid patients is required to meet ADA codes, which he also keeps up with. He stated any required permits for a certain jurisdiction are required to be filed with the state for Medicaid work as well. Member Penning asked Mr. York if he primarily does exterior and interior upgrade work. Mr. York replied his main work is interior upgrades and most exterior work is limited to wheelchair ramps. Member Penning asked Mr. York if he ever widens doorways on the exterior envelope or if he ever does work that may affect energy codes. Mr. York replied he has widened about three exterior doors during his 23 years of this work, usually in mobile homes. Member Teplitsky stated, given the nature of the work done by Mr. York and his 35-year history of having a license with the City, he is inclined to waive the test requirement unless there is severe objection, despite usually denying these requests. Member Richards asked if Mr. York has had any permit or license issues in the past. Ms. Manno replied there are no negative remarks on his record. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5DEA008F-D302-4281-BFF7-BEBDE33BED97 City of Fort Collins Page 3 September 30, 2021 Member Richards concurred with Member Teplitsky and stated it may be appropriate to grant this request despite typically denying them. Chair Cram asked Mr. York if he has any pending projects in Fort Collins. Mr. York replied in the negative and stated most of his work is in Weld County and unincorporated Larimer County. Chair Cram stated he is not inclined to grant the request for reinstatement as it has been ten years since Mr. York has had any Code education and there have been significant changes in the three cycles that have happened in that time. He stated he does not want to set a precedent in granting the reinstatement. Mr. Hovland asked Ms. Manno if she has researched Mr. York’s past permit history and whether it matches the scope of work described. Ms. Manno replied Mr. York has pulled permits for a residential basement finish in 2016 and a commercial general alteration in 2008, both of which were completed in good standing. Mr. Hovland stated the level of license held by Mr. York, prior to its expiration, is higher than the level of work he has been completing. Member Massey asked if Mr. York would consider a downgrade to his license type and asked Mr. York to describe the turning radius for a wheelchair in a remodel versus new construction, as per the recent Code change. Mr. York replied the minimum width is 60” and described a five foot by five foot turning radius requirement. Member Massey stated those were the correct measurements for remodels but asked Mr. York about new construction requirements. Mr. York replied he was unaware as he does not do any new construction. He also noted his plumber frequently takes care of any necessary permits when plumbing changes are the only thing requiring a permit. Member Massey asked Mr. York if he would be willing to consider a downgrade to his license type. Mr. York replied in the affirmative and stated that would actually be his preference. Member Massey stated he would support downgrading the license to a D2 without the testing requirement. Chair Cram asked Ms. Manno to address that possibility. Ms. Manno replied the Commission could make that recommendation and the information from his C2 license would be transferred to a D2 license per that recommendation. Board Deliberation Member Massey made a motion to approve Mr. York’s request to not have to retest provided that his current C2 license is downgraded to a D2 license. Member Penning seconded. The motion passed 5-0. Mr. York accepted the license downgrade. 3. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENT CASH IN LIEU FEE DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to present proposed changes to the Water Supply Requirement Cash in Lieu Fee to the Board for informational purposes. Staff Report Donnie Dustin, Water Resources Manager, discussed development fees charged within the Water Utility service area, specifically the cash in lieu fee related to water supply requirements. He stated the main proposed change is to increase the cash in lieu fee to $68,200 per acre foot, which is about a 60% increase over the current cost, due to significant water supply cost increases and increasing uncertainties in developing water. He stated the proposed changes only apply to new development or redevelopment within the Fort Collins Utilities service area. Dustin discussed water supply requirements and the associated calculation that covers the impact of additional demand incurred by development. Dustin detailed the current hybrid method used to calculate the cash in lieu fee, noting its three components are: the cost of future infrastructure, the cost of future water rights, and buying in to the existing water supply. He discussed the impacts of the proposed changes to different types of developments and compared the new proposed rates to those of other providers. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5DEA008F-D302-4281-BFF7-BEBDE33BED97 City of Fort Collins Page 4 September 30, 2021 Dustin summarized by stating the proposed cash in lieu fee reflects the cost of providing reliable supplies, ensures that development pays its own way, considers various uncertainties, and more accurately reflects use per a data-driven, more equitable approach. He noted the water supply and demand management plan is slated for an update in the coming years and the plan is to integrate potential climate change impacts as part of that. Member Massey supported the proposed changes and stated it makes sense to ensure the rates are constantly adjusted. Member Richards stated the 60% increase seems large and asked if the rates are typically examined on a two-year basis. Dustin replied in the affirmative and noted appropriate changes were not made in 2019 as the Halligan cost update information was not received until all outreach was already complete; therefore, a higher cost was not incorporated at that time. Member Richards asked if there has been any consideration given to incrementally adjusting the increase given housing affordability concerns. Dustin agreed affordability is a concern but stated this increase is directly related to the cost of service to provide reliable supplies. Member Teplitsky asked if all customers would pay more for metered water if this increase were not passed. Dustin replied in the affirmative, particularly if additional water rights are purchased to ensure reliability and security of the City’s water supplies. Member Teplitsky asked how much rates would likely increase if that were to occur. Dustin replied he was unsure of those exact numbers but could provide that. Member Teplitsky stated he would be interested in seeing alternatives to this one proposal as the dramatic increase affects housing affordability. 4. PROPOSED ADOPTION OF THE 2021 INTERNATIONAL CODES DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to present proposed Building Code Changes based upon the 2021 International Building Codes to the Board for informational purposes. Staff Report Russ Hovland, Interim Chief Building Official, discussed the recommendation by City staff to adopt the 2021 series of International Building Codes in early 2022. He stated this is part of the outreach to prepare for the Council work session on November 9th. Kirk Longstein, Energy Services Project Manager, stated staff is seeking feedback from the Commission on the recommendations. He noted the International Codes are adopted on a three-year basis and he outlined the recommended local amendments that align with existing City policies, including the Strategic Plan, Our Climate Future, the Housing Strategic Plan, and the Water Efficiency Plan. He discussed the Code Review Committee recommendations and triple bottom-line analysis. He discussed the benefits of adopting the International Codes and local amendments. Longstein requested Commission input regarding the 2021 International Code and local amendment proposals as well as their alignment with community objectives. Hovland noted the existing local amendment to delete fire sprinklers in new detached houses was supported by the majority of the Committee for retention; however, Poudre Fire Authority staff members do not support keeping that local amendment. Member Richards asked if other area municipalities require sprinklers in detached homes. Hovland replied he only knows of two jurisdictions in Colorado that have that requirement and all other jurisdictions amend the requirement out, as has Fort Collins. Member Teplitsky asked if the domestic water tap would be used for sprinkling new homes. Hovland replied a residential combination system would be used and would be installed into the plumbing system of home. Member Penning suggested higher energy goals should be encouraged with regard to installing EV charging stations in multi-family developments. Longstein replied the EV charging station requirements for new multi-family construction are based on the parking area; 5% of new spaces are required to have an EV charger, 15-20% would need to be EV ready, and 15-40% would need to be EV capable spaces. He stated feedback on these requirements has been directly around the cost. Member Penning stated it makes sense to strive for EV capable spaces, at a minimum. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5DEA008F-D302-4281-BFF7-BEBDE33BED97 City of Fort Collins Page 5 September 30, 2021 Chair Cram stated he was on the Code Review Committee, and one of the major concerns was related to whether the Utilities are ready to provide the additional load on circuits for these stations, and what would be required in terms of additional underground wiring. Hovland noted the definition of EV capable is just having empty infrastructure to then install the chargers in the future. Member Massey asked about adoption of efficient electric equipment and potential plans related to electric heat. Brad Smith, Energy Services Project Manager, replied electric readiness involves providing circuits for future fuel switching and looking to involve heat pump technology. Member Massey asked about adoption of the solar-ready Code appendix. Smith replied the cost has been shown to be almost neutral and the requirement would change from requiring infrastructure to requiring a design on the roof. Member Teplitsky asked if the 9% and 5.4% energy improvements would be achieved through heat pumps and requested additional details on the improved U-factor requirements. Smith replied the percentages are based of analysis that has been done by the Department of Energy and are what the proposed energy use reduction would be over several different building models; however, they are not specific to heat pumps. He provided additional details on the improved U-factor requirements. He also noted this is just the prescriptive path to Code compliance and there are three other available paths that allow for tradeoffs. Longstein asked members to describe any areas for which additional information should be provided. Member Teplitsky stated he is not convinced about the mitigations presented and stated the increase in the construction costs might be a bit understated. He noted there are a number of sub-contractors that will not work in Fort Collins due to extra requirements. He questioned the impacts to individuals versus community initiatives of a 5-10% energy savings number. Longstein stated staff is estimating the proposed Code changes could increase costs per unit of $8,000, which is a high estimate, and assuming an average sales price of $515,000, the change would result in approximately a $16 per month increase to the monthly mortgage and utilities costs for the average homeowner. Member Teplitsky replied the individual homeowner may not be seeing the mitigation in their comfort or in the utility bills they are paying. Smith discussed the decrease in construction costs for multi-family developments. Member Richards expressed support for the energy efficiency changes; however, he questioned how the initial cost increases, while beneficial to the homeowner and the Climate Action Plan in the long run, impact the bottom line for a first-time home buyer. Longstein replied there are plans to present this information to the Affordable Housing Board. He stated all strategies should be addressing affordable housing challenges and the upgrading of existing homes should be incentivized. Smith agreed with Member Richards’ point and noted the increased cost of housing city-wide is far outpacing any Code-related increases. He also noted there will be expenditures years from now to mitigate the effects of climate change. Member Teplitsky rejected the supply and demand argument that arises whenever conversations come up about housing affordability. He stated the increase in the cost of housing is directly due to the increase in construction costs. He stated profitability for builders has been decreasing and asked if it may be more beneficial to retrofit existing buildings rather than impose incremental, marginal changes on new construction. Smith stated there are plans to look at energy use within existing buildings and score those, which will hopefully spur some type of action to improve the buildings. Member Teplitsky expressed concern about expressing support for the entire package as some of the figures and costs have been understated. He also noted there are other challenges in building, including supply chain issues and getting equipment; therefore, the requirement for exclusive materials, methods, and equipment, would add another layer of complexity to building. He noted Fort Collins already has one of the most robust Energy Codes in the region and questioned whether the proposed changes would result in a 5 to 9% improvement and whether the initial cost would justify any actual improvement. Member Massey stated the 2021 International Codes will ultimately be adopted as Council has clearly directed the City should be current with Code adoption, particularly the Energy Code. He stated he believes it is the right thing to do to continue to increase requirements as technology advances and stated he is in general support of the proposed changes. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5DEA008F-D302-4281-BFF7-BEBDE33BED97 City of Fort Collins Page 6 September 30, 2021 Hovland noted the past Council and past City staff directors have provided direction to adopt the new Codes every three years to make the adjustments and cost increases smaller. He also noted staff is currently required to present the Energy Code for adoption every three years. He also noted the ISO insurance rating would go down if three Code cycles are skipped. He also noted the Codes do reference each other; therefore, it becomes problematic if different years are adopted for each Code. Member Richards agreed with maintaining the three-year Code cycle with incremental changes. He stated the cost increases are small as compared with the previous cash in lieu item related to water. He stated he is in support of the changes, particularly those related to energy. He encouraged staff to continue to find ways to provide support to homeowners who want to make energy improvements to help keep costs in check. Member Penning expressed support for sharing the information that gets others to support the EV capable parking spaces, at least on commercial and multi-family properties. Chair Cram stated he has been part of the last five Code cycles and has consistently expressed concerns about increased costs. He also expressed concern about capacity for the increased electrical demand. He suggested the possibility of putting together a statement that indicates general support for adopting the 2021 Codes, but expressing concern about some of the increased costs incurred. Member Teplitsky stated he is not convinced that particularly the proposed Energy Code changes are really getting to the best solution for the goals that are to be accomplished. He also stated it is difficult to agree with the proposed changes without additional conversation given the large consequences. Member Massey made a motion that the Building Review Commission recommend the approval of the adoption of the 2021 International Building Codes and proposed local amendments as presented, with the understanding that there have been concerns raised by Commission members about the cost of housing in Fort Collins and encouraging staff to consider those as this process moves forward. Member Richards seconded. Member Teplitsky stated he would prefer the motion to also acknowledge whether the proposed changes are really providing the solutions to the strategic initiatives of the City. Member Teplitsky requested a friendly amendment to also encourage staff to review the cost implications of whether other solutions need to be considered in addition to adopting these Code changes to meet City goals. Member Massey accepted the amendment as friendly. Chair Cram read the full motion: Member Massey made a motion that the Building Review Commission recommend the approval of the adoption of the 2021 International Building Codes and proposed local amendments as presented; however, recognizing that the benefits of the adoption of these Codes are likely to increase construction costs, and further noting that other ways to improve housing efficiency should be examined. Member Teplitsky disagreed with the last portions of the motion wording and stated he would prefer it address the examining of other methods toward total building efficiency to create policy to help meet the goals of the Climate Action Plan. Chair Cram read the revised last portion of the motion: noting that other strategies to increase total housing efficiency, in line with the City’s Climate Action Plan, should be examined. City Attorney Guin suggested the phrase ‘benefits of the adoption’ should be ‘results of the adoption.’ Chair Cram concurred. Hovland asked if the Housing Strategic Plan should also be mentioned with the Climate Action Plan. Members discussed other wording changes to the motion. Members Massey and Teplitsky accepted the revised motion. Member Massey made a revised motion that the Commission recommend approval of the adoption of the 2021 International Building Codes, including recommended City amendments, requesting the joint Code Adoption Review Committee and/or City staff to determine if the estimated increased construction costs are accurate, and further noting that other strategies to increase total building efficiency in line with City-wide policies should be examined with the goal of maximum impact. Member Teplitsky seconded. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5DEA008F-D302-4281-BFF7-BEBDE33BED97 City of Fort Collins Page 7 September 30, 2021 The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Teplitsky, Penning, Richards, Massey and Cram. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. OTHER BUSINESS Chair Cram noted Members Massey, Penning, and Robinson have appointments expiring in December and they will be made aware of options for either reapplying or resigning. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cram adjourned the meeting at 11:50 a.m. Minutes prepared by TriPoint Data and respectfully submitted by Aubrie Brennan. Minutes approved by a vote of the Board on ______________________________ ________________________________ Russ Hovland, Interim Chief Building Official Alan Cram, Chair December 16, 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: 5DEA008F-D302-4281-BFF7-BEBDE33BED97