Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Commission - Minutes - 02/24/2022Alan Cram, Chair This meeting was Tim Johnson, Vice Chair held remotely Shaun Moscrip Eric Richards Mark Teplitsky Staff Liaison: Vacant Seat Marcus Coldiron Vacant Seat Chief Building Official Meeting Minutes February 24, 2022 A regular meeting of the Building Review Commission was held on Thursday,February 24, 2022, at 9:00 a.m.via Zoom. •CALL TO ORDER Chair Cram called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. •ROLL CALL PRESENT: Cram, Moscrip, Richards, Teplitsky ABSENT: Johnson STAFF: Coldiron, Manno,Guin, Brennan, Hilmes-Robinson •PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. •DISCUSSION AGENDA [Timestamp: 9:04 a.m.] 1.CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 16, 2021 MEETING. Member Richards moved to approve the minutes of the December 16, 2021 meeting. Member Teplitsky seconded. The motion passed 4-0. Building Review Commission DocuSign Envelope ID: A99A6F23-AED8-4D15-810F-3BCD12061931 2. BLACK TIMBER BUILDERS NEW LICENSE CLASSIFCATION REQUEST WITHOUT CURRENT EXAM DESCRIPTION: Mr. Meyer of Black Timber Builders is requesting a new license classification using an ICC testing certificate that is of an older code year than is currently required. Disclosure of Conflicts None. Appellant and Parties-in-Interest in Support of Appeal Arguments Kyle Myer, the Appellant, presented his argument in favor of upgrading his license. He had spoken with Chief Building Official (CBO) Coldiron and had been told the appeal process was the best way to address his issue. The City had no upgrade function for licensing, even on the appeal form. He wanted to upgrade his license to a D-1 from a D-2. His testing was a Class A from 2012, and the City was accepting 2015 and newer. He was told he would have to re-test and apply for a new license. He needed the D-1 because he had been asked to build townhomes. He also needed to do some upgrades on his downtown office to meet Code, including putting in headers. The Class E license he had possessed when applying for permits did not allow him to do headers and had since expired. He worked in surrounding jurisdictions and felt the licensing process was difficult. He believed the Licensing department had not been responsive to his calls and requests. Staff Presentation Admin Services Manager (ASM) Manno presented the staff report. Mr. Myer was requesting a D-1 license based on 2012 testing, older than what was currently required. He had a D-2 and an expired E based on the old W-11 testing. Updated testing was the only missing piece of his D-1 license application packet. His project verifications matched the level required for a D-1. The E commercial is a non-structural license, so he would need a higher classification to do the headers in his office. Appellant Rebuttal Mr. Myer believed ASM Manno had covered his case well. He would like to get a D-1 license so he did not have to upgrade again. He had talked to CBO Coldiron about the headers because he would not be able to perform them with the E license. He was hoping to get permission to install them. He wanted to have the E license reinstated but it was lower priority. Opponent Rebuttal ASM Manno pointed out reinstating the E license would require new testing, as required by Code, because it was past the 60-day grace period. The staff recommendation was that new testing be required and the appeal request be denied. Once the 2021 International Codes were passed by City Council and the ICC was offering the 2021 test, newer testing would be required. The City was currently accepting 2015 and 2018 testing. The BRC could agree to the Staff recommendation and pass a motion to require updated testing or the BRC could pass a motion to issue a Class D-1 license and supervisor certificate to the Appellant. Assistant City Attorney (ACA) Guin reminded the BRC about the requirements of City Code. In order to approve the request, they would have to find strict application of the licensing standards would result in a peculiar, exceptional or practical difficulty or exceptional or undue hardship on Mr. Myer, the BRC could find Mr. Myer had additional training and certifications that made him qualified for a D- 1 license or if the request were granted it would not be detrimental to the public and impair the intent and purpose of the licensing Code. Board Questions of Staff and Parties-in-Interest Member Teplitsky asked if there was anything in City Code about updated testing. It seemed impractical to require 2018 testing when the City is about to adopt 2021. He asked if the BRC could temporarily grant a license and give him time to pass the 2021 test when available. ACA Guin said the BRC could do so, but they would have to find the deviation from the strict application of the Code would not substantially impair the purpose of the licensing Code. DocuSign Envelope ID: A99A6F23-AED8-4D15-810F-3BCD12061931 Member Teplitsky stated it seemed impractical to ask Mr. Myer to test on 2018 if the City was about to adopt the 2021 Code; he asked if they could give him a temporary license to give him time to pass the 2021 test. ACA Guin said the BRC could do that, but they would have to find the deviation from the strict application of the Code would not result in a substantial detriment to the public good and strict application would result in undue hardship to the Appellant. Member Teplitsky pointed out a large amount of cases before the BRC are people that do not want to test. Precedent would be affected by a decision in Mr. Myer’s favor. He wondered why not take the test because he had passed before. It would be the easiest way to get things done. Mr. Myer tested on 2012 in mid-2015 when the 2015 exam was not available yet, so a similar scenario to current. He tested into a Class A, and he is a custom residential home builder. The point of the test was to update Code knowledge. Studying for the test gave a narrow window of knowledge and he had sought out education in a wide variety of areas since. He was not afraid of extra work but felt the testing did not increase his knowledge. Member Richards asked if ASM Manno knew when the 2021 testing would come out and if 2018 would be sufficient for a D-1. ASM Manno did not know when the 2021 test would be released by the ICC. For the D-1 license, the test required was the G-13, the ICC National Standard General Contractor Level C exam, which is strictly residential. He was not required to know the entire breadth of knowledge for an A, just residential. ACA Guin commented if a BRC member wanted to grant the request, the BRC would need to find Mr. Myer had certain qualifications, training or experience that rose to the level of D-1. If the BRC had further questions for Mr. Myer, they should ask those. Member Richards asked what other education and certifications Mr. Myer had. His entire team had voluntarily gotten a Green Code certification. He was building the first fully passive house certified development in the country in Larimer County. The houses recently blew a 0.4 on the blower door test and were airtight and well-designed. He and all his carpenters had gone through the training to understand how buildings work, breath, health of the air, quality construction, and longevity. His current project was 80% beyond Code minimums. He felt that had grown him as a builder more than anything, and his knowledge spanned more than building houses. Member Teplitsky asked if Mr. Myer had a D-1 he would be allowed to build the planned 75 townhomes. Ms. Manno said a D-1 would be sufficient. Member Teplitsky asked if the appeal was denied, would Mr. Myers have time to study for and take the test. He would have to look at testing schedules and his workload to see what made sense. The other jurisdictions in which he worked required the A Class level testing, so he would just go ahead and do that if necessary to update all his licenses. Member Teplitsky clarified if there was a tight timeline for the projects, and Mr. Myer said no, he was a month out from submittals. Chair Cram commented the purpose of testing was to be current on standards. Even though the 2021 test would be coming out soon, if Mr. Myer upgraded to a D-1 he would be fine with the 2018 test as long as he did not seek higher licenses afterward. Mr. Myer commented if he wanted to grow professionally in Fort Collins, he would have to test again. There should be an avenue for growth in the contractor licensing program. He was also frustrated he could not work within the City to gain project verifications for higher licenses, either. Member Teplitsky said if testing was done, exceptions could be made to project verifications for other experience and training. It was very often successful. Member Richards commented based on precedent and everything presented, he would move to deny the upgrade without required testing. He thanked Mr. Myer for his presentation and said they had heard him and understood him. Member Teplitsky would second that motion, the easiest way to get things done was to take the test. ACA Guin asked for more detail on a motion presented. Motion Member Richards moved Based on Staff’s report, analysis, and recommendation and the testimony and record in this appeal, I move to DENY AND REJECT the applicant’s request for a variance from the licensing standards in this Appeal in accordance with Section 15-156 of the City Code. DocuSign Envelope ID: A99A6F23-AED8-4D15-810F-3BCD12061931 I find that the strict application of the licensing standards would not result in peculiar or exceptional practical difficulties to the applicant, nor would it result in exceptional or undue hardship upon the applicant. Member Teplitsky seconded. Board Discussion No discussion. The motion passed 4-0. [Timestamp: 9:45 a.m.] 3. REKAIVERY, INC./RIMU CONSTRUCTION, LLC NEW LICENSING REQUEST WITHOUT PROJECT VERIFICATIONS DESCRIPTION: Audrey Welsh of ReKaivery, Inc is requesting a new Class C license classification for their subcontractor Willie Steel of RIMU Construction, LLC and would like to have the project verification requiremnt removed. Disclosure of Conflicts None. Staff Presentation ASM Manno presented the staff report. Appellants were asking for a Class C-1 license without project verifications. A Class C-1 license would allow a contractor to build or demolish buildings not larger than 20,000 square feet and/or three stories in height. To qualify, an applicant must have completed three full buildings of this type from dirt to a certificate of occupancy. RIMU and ReKaivery wanted to build temporary structures with shipping containers; because it was a commercial project, C-1 was the lowest class available. Ms. Manno had no knowledge of Mr. Steele’s knowledge or experience because she had not received a contractor licensing application packet for him. Staff was recommending denial due to the important information verifications included on experience. The BRC could approve the recommendation and require the Appellant to provide the required project verifications to receive the license and supervisor’s certificate or the BRC could grant the request to allow a new Class C license and supervisor’s certificate without the project verifications. Appellant and Parties-in-Interest in Support of Appeal Arguments Mr. Steele presented on his behalf. He had licenses in Cheyenne and Laramie, WY, as well as Westminster, CO. Those jurisdictions required 7 years of verified experience, Class A testing, and three character references. He had 2015 testing. That spoke to his ability to do these projects. He had begun a 30,000 square foot project in Laramie and could get a letter from the owner to verify it. He had recently applied for a Larimer County license, which had similar requirements to the City. Larimer County required two years of experience for a previous employer, and he had provided three. Ms. Welsh explained the project was to renovate a shipping container located in Weld County and move it to Fort Collins so farmers could sell produce outside farmers’ markets. She had discussed Mr. Steele’s qualifications and the project with former CBO Rich Anderson. They had been waiting a few months for the new CBO so they could discuss it and obtain approval. They had been trying to work with the City and provide transparency since the beginning. Opponent Rebuttal ASM Manno stated because no information was submitted by Applicant, the record was insufficient to make a decision. In the past, the City had given a limited license which limited a license to a specific type of building only. The City would need to see experience from the past of a fully built commercial building, which would not be too far from the project verification. She had no more information to work from and could not speak to Mr. Steele’s experience. She recommended denial based on lack of information for the record. DocuSign Envelope ID: A99A6F23-AED8-4D15-810F-3BCD12061931 Appellant Rebuttal Ms. Welsh commented she would have submitted evidence of Mr. Steele’s experience had she been asked. She asked for direction on what to submit to obtain a license, and ASM Manno directed her to the Contractor Licensing website for the information and how to submit it. Ms. Welsh stated they were also appealing the three-project requirement. Board Questions of Staff and Parties-in-Interest Member Teplitsky pointed out she had stated Mr. Steele had lots of experience, so he should be able to submit a full packet to contractor licensing. It would be easier to make a decision with a complete application, including the verifications showing his experience. Member Richards noted Mr. Steele had an F-11 test and asked if that was sufficient for a Class C-1 license. It was and would be accepted. He asked if Mr. Steele’s verifications from outside the City would be accepted. ASM Manno said yes, in the past she had accepted verifications from as far as Saudi. He asked if Mr. Steele had other verifications to submit, other than the Laramie project he mentioned. Mr. Steele said he would not have three verifications to submit. He was from New Zealand and had been in business in the United States for only three and a half years. His other licenses were obtained because his verifications were accepted due to the similarities in building standards between those jurisdictions and New Zealand. Member Richards asked if Mr. Steele had similar projects from New Zealand he could submit. He had done similar projects with concrete, steel, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing. Member Richards said it sounded like he had the information the City needed to license him, it just needed to be submitted. Member Moscrip asked if the limited license would be for one building or one type of building. ASM Manno replied it would be for a very specific type of building, for example one-story commercial buildings that were 1,000 square feet. In this case, the license could be limited to small, container- size, moveable structures. ASM Manno had accepted verifications from the world over, so she would accept his project verifications. She just needed to put eyes on them. Ms. Welsh apologized for not having Mr. Steele submit his application previously. She asked if a limited license to shipping containers would be possible after Mr. Steele submitted his international project verifications. Chair Cram asked if would be appropriate if the BRC were to approve a limited license for shipping containers but made it contingent on submittal of an application with verifications. ACA Guin said the BRC should look to past precedent. The Code allowed a variance for three reasons: 1) some kind of undue hardship or practical difficulty, 2) if the Applicant has demonstrated additional certification or training, or 3) there is not substantial detriment to the public. They could ask for verification within a certain period of time. The BRC might be able to do the limited license, but they would have to meet the requirements. They would have to set up contingencies to make sure the information submitted was sufficient for approval. Chair Cram asked CBO Coldiron’s thoughts on granting a temporary license limited to shipping containers contingent upon receiving approved project verifications. He would support it because it follows the general process to which Building Services is accustomed. Chair Cram asked if ASM Manno could craft something along those lines. She could, but she needed some information to go on because the Applicants had not submitted any paperwork. ACA Guin pointed out the BRC likely did not need to move forward with the temporary license, because Mr. Steele could likely obtain a license through the normal process, but they should discuss contingencies if they wanted to opt for the temporary license. Member Richards asked if the temporary license status was something ASM Manno and CBO Coldiron could do within their normal duties and power. ASM Manno answered the CBO had the authority to issue a 45-day temporary license. Member Richards commented it was possibly a moot point for the BRC. He asked if they would table the item and move to Item 4. The outcome of the shipping container could change his opinion on this item. Chair Cram said they could temporarily move on, but he felt they needed to deal with the licensing issue first. Member Teplitsky thought a 45-day temporary license would not work for this situation. The design and permitting for the shipping container would not be done in 45 days. Member Teplitsky would rather make a decision on a limited license after seeing the project verifications. DocuSign Envelope ID: A99A6F23-AED8-4D15-810F-3BCD12061931 ACA Guin commented aside from tabling this issue, the BRC could postpone it. Tabling meant waiting to take up the issue at a future, possibly indeterminate date, and postponing meant the BRC would wait to take up the issue until a condition happened. The BRC needed to figure out what needed to be done first. Member Teplitsky commented a temporary license could be granted and a full decision made at the next meeting if Mr. Steele’s paperwork had been submitted. Chair Cram commented if the verifications were not sufficient for a C-1, the issue was moot. ACA Guin explained postponement and tabling again. Ms. Manno explained once Mr. Steele had a license the permitting process would be smoother. It sounded to her like Mr. Steele had the experience, she just needed to see it. Because he had the experience, she recommended requesting a full C-1 instead of a limited license. Member Richards felt there were two options: 1) deny the license or 2) postpone to the next month to give the Applicants time to get together their paperwork. ACA Guin clarified if the BRC was ready to make a decision today, Appellants would have to re- submit another appeal, but if the issue was tabled, it would automatically be considered at the next meeting. CBO Coldiron thought it sounded like Mr. Steele had the bona fides to be licensed through the normal process which would not involve the BRC’s future participation. Ms. Welsh asked if they would have to reapply if postponed and submit another fee. ACA Guin stated it would not make sense under the procedure because this appeal would not have been resolved. Ms. Welsh asked if the BRC needed to approve international project verifications. ASM Manno clarified no, she would review and approve them if they meet the standard. Motion Chair Cram closed discussion and asked for a motion to postpone or table. ACA Guin suggested tabling to the next meeting was the best option to wait and see if the Applicant’s paperwork was sufficient for a license. Member Richards moved to table this discussion until the next meeting. In the meantime, we will get more information so we can better discuss the issue. Member Moscrip seconded. Board Discussion None. The motion passed 4-0. [Timestamp: 10:40 a.m.] **Secretary’s note: The BRC took a break from 10:41 a.m. to 10:46 a.m. All were present when the meeting resumed. 4. REKAIVERY, INC REQUEST TO BUILD A TEMPORARY STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to approve use of section 3103 Temporary Structures of the 2018 International Building Code which is currently ammended out of the 2018 IBC. Additionally, this requests to approve a 180 day extension to the stated maximum 180 days in section 3103.1 General. Disclosure of Conflicts None. DocuSign Envelope ID: A99A6F23-AED8-4D15-810F-3BCD12061931 Staff Presentation Chief Building Official Coldiron presented the staff report. This was a request to build a temporary structure that could turn into a permanent one. The 2021 IBC, which would be passed by City Council in April, would include this Code section that was amended out of the 2018 Code and would be re-included in the 2021 Code. Due to time limitations on Appellant’s part, CBO Coldiron had asked them to submit the appeal. However, after discussing with ACA Guin after the appeal was submitted, the BRC did not have the authority to authorize this request. Staff recommendation was to deny the request. Applicant was informed the day before the hearing but wanted to go forward for documentation purposes. CBO Coldiron suggested the BRC could refund the $50.00 appeal fee on this item. ACA Guin pointed out the 2021 Code would be before Council and likely approved in April. The missing code piece had been raised at the first reading in February. The 2021 Code had passed at the first hearing in February. Nothing in Code gives the BRC the authority to reinstate a part of the Code that Council removed. Chair Cram commented there was nothing for the BRC to do and he agreed with refunding the appeal fees. ACA Guin said the motion should be to table the application indefinitely and move to refund the appeal fee. Ms. Welsh asked if there was language in Code saying the BRC could not bring back the piece of Code or a lack of language saying they could bring it back. ACA Guin directed the BRC its powers and responsibilities are enumerated in Code Sections 2-173 and 15-156, to which they are limited. He had found nothing in Code that would authorize the BRC to reinstate Code eliminated by City Council. Chair Cram told Ms. Welsh they could hear her comments but could not make a decision, and she agreed it was fair. Appellant and Parties-in-Interest in Support of Appeal Arguments Ms. Welsh spoke to explain her pilot program, partnered with the Larimer County Farmers’ Market. Time was of the essence, because they were trying to open in the Spring at the same time as the market. The idea was to promote equity, affordable food, and use of underutilized lots in line with the City Charter. She had started speaking with the City when Rich Anderson was CBO and had a several month delay waitng for a new CBO for guidance and direction. Farmers were very interested in selling produce in their structure, which would help them sell for equitable profits. They were working with the USDA to model a plan for other cities. Other cities had contacted her to launch the project there, but she wanted to stay in Fort Collins because it was funded by 130 interested community members from the City. She did not understand how to proceed forward, because she could not take this item to Council without a denial from the BRC. She wanted the BRC’s advice for how to move forward. Parties-in-Interest in Opposition to Appeal Arguments None. Appellant Rebuttal None. Opponent Rebuttal None. Board Questions of Staff and Parties-in-Interest Chair Cram asked ACA Guin if there was any way Ms. Welsh could take her modification request to City Council without a decision by the BRC. ACA Guin said no, the BRC would have to rule against the appeal for that to happen. The Building Codes did not allow for temporary structures and had not for years. Although Ms. Welsh had talked with the previous CBO, the CBO does not have authority to contravene Code passed by Council. The next reading of the 2021 Codes was April 5th. The period for getting on the agenda for the next Council meeting had passed, and the meeting after that was the April 5th meeting. It was up to the BRC to decide if they wanted to rule on an item for which they had no authority or deny it. DocuSign Envelope ID: A99A6F23-AED8-4D15-810F-3BCD12061931 Senior Plans Examiner (SPE) Russ Hovland stated the permit was submitted the day before but he could not approve it based on Code, as it would have to be approved as a permanent building and was missing key parts like a foundation. He could wait until the 2021 Codes were approved in April or they could process it now with the potential problems it would present. Member Teplitsky would be OK with denying the request based on lack of authority if it was best for Ms. Welsh. Chair Cram commented it was the best the BRC could do. Member Teplitsky was not sure if there would be time, regardless of the action taken, and it might be easier for her to wait until the new Code was adopted. ACA Guin pointed out there would be a number of requirements to meet for an appeal to City Council, including a $100 appeal fee. Ms. Welsh thanked ACA Guin for his explanations that helped her understand her path forward. She asked if a denial would be a rejection that would allow her to elevate her question to City Council. She did not want to have to wait for the April passage of 2021 Code. ACA Guin said the BRC had the option to table the item until after Council’s April 5th meeting or make a decision that it lacked authority on this item and allow Applicant to follow the appeal process. ACA Guin pointed out Sections 246-256 of the City Code. If the BRC made a decision to deny an appeal, the Applicant could proceed to appeal before Council according to those sections. Ms. Welsh asked if the BRC made a decision it lacked authority, would she be able to take her appeal to Council. Chair Cram said he could not give legal advice but it sounded to him like a denial meant she could. Member Moscrip asked if the BRC should hear out both sides for the record so there could be an appeal to Council. ACA Guin said it was not necessary, the Applicant could craft her argument and could appeal if she wished. SPE Hovland pointed out Council would likely cancel one of the March meetings, so if Ms. Welsh appealed it would likely be heard in April. Member Teplitsky pointed out the BRC had no authority to judge the appeal because that section had been amended out of the Building Code. He preferred not to hear it and move on to the next item because it would not help Ms. Welsh. Chair Cram suggested a simple motion to deny the appeal because the BRC lacked the authority and to refund her BRC appeal fee. ACA Guin suggested Ms. Welsh be able to state the purpose of the appeal. She pursued the temporary structure route because the structure would be stationary, not mobile. She wanted to avoid wheels to be more ADA-friendly without a ramp. Former CBO Anderson had suggested the temporary structure based on what was previously in the Code. Ms. Welsh was trying to work with the City as much as possible due to the short timeline. Motion Chair closed the hearing and asked for a motion. Member Teplitsky moved to deny Ms. Welsh’s request based on the fact that this Commission does not have the authority to approve it, and in addition to refund the appeal fees that she paid. Member Richards seconded. The motion passed 4-0. [Timestamp: 11:33 a.m.] 5. ADDITIONS AND SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT CODE CHANGE FOR FEMA FLOODPLAINS DESCRIPTION: Fort Collins Utilities is conducting outreach related to a proposed regulatory change to Chapter 10 of City Code to come into compliance with minimum regulations from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regarding additions and substantial improvements in FEMA floodplains. DocuSign Envelope ID: A99A6F23-AED8-4D15-810F-3BCD12061931 Staff Report Floodplain Administrator (FA) Hilmes-Robinson presented the staff report. She was conducting outreach for a proposed Code change that would go before Council in April. The point of the Code change was to minimize property damage. The City and FEMA had different designated floodplains. A building was considered substantially improved if the cost of improvement was greater than or equal to the market value of the structure. A structure that had been substantially improved must come into compliance with City Code. Member Teplitsky asked how the value would be calculated, and FA Hilmes-Robinson replied the Assessor values were the first step. If the value was over, the Applicant could pay for an appraisal to challenge the value. FEMA required the cost of an addition to be included as part of the substantial improvement calculation unless it was a standalone. The City had convened a stakeholder committee to meet the FEMA minimum standards but make them as user-friendly as possible and communicate the new standard. The Code change gave applicants two choices: 1) Design and certify the addition as “structurally independent” and elevate the addition. The cost of the addition would not be included in the calculation of substantial improvement; or 2) Include the addition in the calculation of substantial improvement, and the addition would be elevated. If the value of improvements, including the cost of the addition was more than 50% of the value of the structure, the existing structure would be considered substantially improved and need to be elevated. A structurally independent addition had to meet four criteria: 1) involved no alteration of load-bearing structure of the existing building; 2) was attached to the existing building with minimal connection; 3) had a doorway as the only modification to the common wall; and 4) would not transfer loads exerted on the addition to the existing building and would not share a foundation or other elements that would create a load path between the two. Member Teplitsky asked if the doorway was a standard size doorframe or if a larger one would be permissible. FA Hilmes-Robinson had tried to engage with FEMA and could not get an answer, so it would come down to the architect or engineer willing to certify the addition as structurally independent. The City had to come into compliance with FEMA floodplain regulations. A minimal number of permits would be impacted as in the FEMA floodplain, based on historical data. She asked the BRC to recommend to City Council to adopt the Code Change. Board Questions and Discussion Member Teplitsky commented it made sense to him. Member Richards asked what the implications would be if the City did not come into compliance with this requirement. FA Hilmes-Robinson answered FEMA could put the City on probation from the National Flood Insurance program and ultimately, the City could be expelled from the program. New buyers of homes in the FEMA floodplain would not be able to purchase flood insurance, which would likely stop the sale of those properties. He was pleased to see not many homes would be affected because as a homeowner, he would be concerned if he found out he had to meet all the requirements. He agreed that standalone additions should certainly be protected as demonstrated. Board Deliberation Member Teplitsky moved the Building Review Commission recommends City Council adopt the proposed changes to Chapter 10 of City Code regarding additions and substantial improvements in FEMA floodplains. Member Richards seconded. The motion passed 4-0. Chair Cram commented the requirements in the proposed Code Change were better than the alternative, which was to tear out houses and clear the floodplain. Some communities have had to consider that, because if a house was flooded out, it could not be rebuilt. [Timestamp: 11:54 a.m.] DocuSign Envelope ID: A99A6F23-AED8-4D15-810F-3BCD12061931 •OTHER BUSINESS None •ADJOURNMENT Chair Cram adjourned the meeting at 11:58 a.m. Minutes prepared and respectfully submitted by Aubrie Brennan. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on _________________________________ ______________________________ Marcus Coldiron, Chief Building Official Alan Cram, Chair April 28, 2022 DocuSign Envelope ID: A99A6F23-AED8-4D15-810F-3BCD12061931