Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0204 MinutesBUILDING COMMISSION MINUTES Thursday, February 4,2010,3:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Nickels; Steve Silva; Dave Teas; Chuck Kellenberger. MEMBERS ABSENT: Dick Sinnett; Tom Lohbauer; and Pat Hudgens I STAFF PRESENT: Raoul Johnston, Dave Decker; Steve Bone; Ron Sessions and Sandra Kolba VISITORS PRESENT: Kurt Kojzarek, Home Builders Association of Greater Chicago BUILDERS PRESENT: Mark Stefani, Kings Court Builders Craig Stempowski, Pulte Homes Anastacia Hennessey, Crown Community Development Jennifer Cowan, Crown Community Development Dan Olsem, Crown Community Development CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Raoul Johnson at 3:25 p.m., in the 1st Floor South Tower Conference Room. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the January 21, 2010 meeting were presented. A motion was made by Chuck Kellenberger and seconded by Dave Teas to approve the minutes and they were unanimously approved. NEW RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLER SYSTEM CODE REQUIREMENT DISCUSSION: Due to the large presence of builders at this meeting, it was agreed that the original agenda provided for this meeting covering the discussion of the balance of the city's suggested amendments to the 2007 international Reside;.tial Code was tabled to a future date and, instead, an open discussion was conducted regarding the new residential sprinkler codes. Raoul indicated that he had delivered some sample plans to the Fox Valley Fire Safety Company to get estimated costs for residential sprinkler installations. The samples were 1) a 1 -story ranch, 3 bedrooms, 2 car attached garage, and 2,320 sq. ft.; and 2) a 2- story, 4 bedrooms, 3 car attached garage, and 3,520 sq. ft. Raoul then handed out a letter from Fox Valley Fire with some estimated costs but he indicated that, based on the numbers provided, he had some additional questions since the base amounts were the oddly the same for both homes. There was concern among the attendees that the numbers shown in the estimates did not include several additional costs, such as RPZ, backflow, taps, floor drain, vents, booster pumps, etc. Raoul indicated that these estimates were just to cover the sprinkler costs themselves. Additional concern was the taps - the new requirement of 1 -1/4" compared to 1 ". Most subdivisions had 1" taps in place but, based on the information in the new code, the taps would have to be at least 1-1/4", meaning that the city would have to rip up completed roads and landscaping to replace the existing taps, something that would be cost prohibitive. Another concern was that, if the water supply to one unit of a townhouse was turned off for some reason, would the entire building then be at risk? Raoul indicated that the city was taking this matter into account and said that it had to decide whether to opt out on the sprinkler code or keep it in. He said he checked with the legal department and was told that the city will not hold additional liability if the code is opted out. Raoul went on to explain how the adoption of codes works within the city. He indicated that the staff reviews the new code and the changes involved. Once it is established what codes have changed, the city suggests recommendations for amendments and brings that information before the Building Commission which ultimately votes on the recommended changes. Once that is done, the proposed amendments go to the legal department for review and then presented to the City Council to accept, amend and eventual adopt. Raoul indicated that he City Council generally approves the Commissions recommendation, but that there are no guarantees. Raoul asked that all of the builders' representatives leave their cards with him so that he could keep them informed about when the matter will come up before the City Council because that would be the time for them to present their opinions. Raoul indicated that the process would probably go before the City Council sometime July or thereafter. Raoul indicating that the new residential sprinkler system code would have a huge economic impact on the residential market. He indicated that Elgin was at 15% unemployment and that unemployment drives the housing market. He also indicated that in 2009, the city issued 151 new home permits (as compared to 150 per year in the 90's and 1,500 in 2005) and, yet, led the Chicagoland area in starts. He agreed that safety factors need to be looked at but also take into consideration the economical impact to keep housing stock safe but affordable. Raoul indicated that, if the city did not adopt the sprinkler code, multiple changes would need to be made to the code and that the city and Building Commission would have to look at all aspects, i.e., appropriate separation, going back to conventional lumber, etc. Ron Sessions, of the Elgin Fire Department, indicated that one of that department's concerns was the use of lightweight construction materials, such as thin web or open web wooden I- joists, which burn faster and does not allow adequate time for rescue, and recommended, instead, dimensional lumber. He added that, in his opinion, roof trusses which currently meet code requirements are not safe. He suggested that the use of lightweight trusses and sheathing would be okay if there was better floor construction. Ron indicated that the fire department would agree to a trade off - no required residential sprinklers but improved quality materials and construction for life safety issues. He also indicated that the fire department would be willing to work with other avenues such as plan review, etc. for viable options. When asked what the fire department would be looking for in construction standards, he indicated design, floor plan, 161f centers, structural integrity, span, etc. as some examples. After a lengthy discussion about the pros and cons of the new sprinkler code, life safety issues, and building material quality, Raoul passed out a paper outlining five possible options regarding whether or not to keep the sprinkler code, amend it or opt out, and other possible options to look at. Discussion continued regarding construction standards and whether a sprinkler system should be considered instead as an option to buyers since the majority of buyers now are trying to save money and probably, if offered the option of a sprinkler system, would not opt for that option anyway. It was the consensus that builders are working hard to try to bring the costs of homes to an affordable level and, if required to add sprinkler systems to new homes, would drive the cost of the homes back up and they would end up back at "square one." It was also agreed that even a limited sprinkler system would be too costly. Most of the builders felt that Option 4 was the best alternative. Craig Stempowski indicated that he was going to do his own research on the costs of sprinkler systems and would bring that research to the table at a later date. He also reminded the group that it really isn't the cost of the materials that add up but, rather, the cost of the labor. Raoul asked all of the builders if they could come up with, and provide to the city, documents pertaining to the cost differences between things such as TGIs compared to dimensional lumber, so that everyone could understand the costs involved. Raoul also indicated that he would refine his options in order to compare apples to apples. Raoul reiterated that, due to the current economic situation, he believed that the cost of requiring sprinklers in new residential construction was cost prohibitive. He wants to see houses being built economically without sacrificing structural integrity. A suggestion was made that, depending upon the size of the home, perhaps over 5,000 square feet, then a sprinkler system could be required, and, for the most part, if somebody could afford a home of that size, then they should be able to afford a sprinkler system, however, the Commissions main focus of the suggestion was that the larger the house, the greater exit distances for the occupants and greater areas for the firefighters to search in a fire, resulting in longer exposure times for them. A short discussion ensued regarding the pros and cons of this suggestion, but most agreed that this idea of size requirements may not be feasible. A question was posed about how much loss of life Elgin has suffered due to a fire and Steve Bone responded that, in his position of fire marshal for 20 years (7 years ago), there were about 20 deaths, and the majority of those deaths were in his first 12 years. Steve indicated that, out of those 20 deaths, one fire took 5, one 4, and another 3. He indicated that, once smoke detectors came along and were used properly, numbers dramatically dropped. Discussion continued between the builders, city officials and the Building Commissioners regarding construction standards insofar as the integrity of flooring, trusses being 16" rather than 19 -1/4" centers, parallel cord trusses, and other alternatives to the current standards. Dan Olsem asked whether the city had a variance process. Raoul indicated that any request for variance of construction is looked at in a formal process with the Commission which will look at all options. Raoul also indicated that there already is an appeal process with the Commission set up in the code. A question was posed to Steve Bone about his plan review process and if he would approve different options for different plans and Steve responded that all plans would be treated the same and that he would set up a chart with all the required specifications. Raoul indicated that the changes would be across the board for everyone, that there would be one baseline to work from. However, the city would be open to look at special requests since there might be three ways to meet a code requirement and, if a builder produces something that meets the code's intent, the city will allow it. Dave Decker indicated that times change and things wont be done the same as they were twenty years ago and that new materials come along all of the time. Since time was running out, Raoul asked the Commission and visitors if the discussion could be tabled at this point for further research and come back at a later date with more gathered detailed information to bring to the table. Everyone agreed that this meeting provided a good discussion of the matter and now everyone has a better understanding of what needs to get sorted out. Before adjournment, it was agreed that the Commission would meet on Wednesday, February 24, 2010, at 3:00 p.m., in order to continue its discussion from the original agenda that was tabled for the sprinkler discussion, and then would meet again on Wednesday, March 10, 2010, at 3:00 p.m., to continue the residential sprinkler system discussion at which time all of the builders are again welcome to come back with their research for further discussion. Raoul indicated that he would send an e -mail reminder of the meeting about a week prior. Raoul again reminded the builders to leave their cards so they could receive an e -mail reminder about the next meeting. NEW BUSINESS: There was no new business discussed at this meeting. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Steve Silva to adjourn the meeting at 4:45 p.m., and seconded by Chuck Kellenberger. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Vandra L. Kolba AL6— Acting Secretary ( c'� CP of V /0