HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 8/28/1986 - Building and Zoning Committee (2) MINUTES FROM
BUILDING AND ZONING COMMITTEE
DATE: Thursday, August 28, 1986
TIME: �:30 p.m, to 9:15 p.m.
PLACE: Council Chambers
Members Gary Snell Members Ray Smith
Present: Liz Nolan Absent:
Mike Teta
Others Bill Busse, Mayor
Present: John Zabor, Building & Zoning Officer
Bill Bolger, Alderman
PURPOSE: To discuss the following:
1. Construction costs listed on building permits
2. Architect's stamp of approval on buil�ing plans
Before we addressed the items on the agenda, we briefly reviewed the
nonconfor�iity language revision submitted by John Gann. John Gann felt that
this language would be acceptable based on the input received from Mayor Susse
and the previous rneetings held with the Council as a whole. Mayor Busse
reported that Mr. Hecht, representing Garden Quarter Apartments, was happy
with the new wording and that it would meet his need. All present felt
comfortable with the new language. Mayor Busse said that we would discuss
this matter again at the next Council meeting.
1. The first item on the agenda, Estimated Construction Costs Listed on the
Building Permit, had a lengthy discussion which raised a number of other
questions. John Zabor reported that we don't derive the building permit fee
from this information - we use square footage. Nor are we compelled to
provide this information to the Assessor.
In a phone conversation with City Clerk Barb Gilpin, Township Assessor Ted
Pitzen said that regardless of the dollar amount on the building permit, he
still goes out to assess the property. However, he would still like the City
to provide this information, even though the City doesn't use it and the
assessor doesn't require it. We will ask Barb to ask the Assessor what would
happen if we didn't provide this information.
Mayor Busse felt that the values listed should be accurate as possible because
of the variations in property assessments and the impact that it can have on
City revenue. However, assessing property values is the Township Assessor's
job and we were still not clear on how the Assessor used these figures. Mayor
Busse also reported that the building permit figures were used by some banks
to create statistics on property values in different communities.
Alderman Bolger Fe]t that these figures were a gauge as to what is happening
in the community and that for the most part were fairly accurate.
� We asked John Zabor why the fluctuations in the dollar amounts. John reported
that the city does issue foundation-only permits and the low dollar amount was
probably for just a foundation, not an entire building.
This then raised the issue of the number of foundations that have been sitting
in the city for over a year. It was estimated that there are probably a half
dozen of them. John Zabor recommended that we do NOT allow foundation-only
permits. He cited the following reasons:
o they are a nuisance to the neighborhoods;
o they are bad for the foundation. When a foundation sits for more than
a year (and there is nothing in our statutes that provides a timeframe for
bui}ding on top of that foundation) , it can weaken the foundation and may
require that it be rebuilt to meet standards.
o we do not exercise the requirement for a general contractors bond which
would give the city some leverage in getting these lying foundations
completed. It was estimated that the cost of a $5000 bond would be about
$200. Past sentiment had been not to add to the cost of construction.
. The cost of a foundation-only permit is $15; a building permit fee averages
� $2500. It's no wonder some builders have taken a walk.
By issuing entire building permits, they would expire 6 months after issue, 12
months after construction has ceased, or 24 months if the building doesn't
pass final inspection. (See Chapter 7 from the Municipal Code, Section 7-5,
Duration of Permit) . John suggested providing an incentive to builders to
finish their projects on time by requiring them to make a "Guarantee Deposit".
However, the committee felt that if we eliminated the foundation-only permit,
this may resolve this problem. We will recommend to the entire Council that
the City eliminate the foundation-only permit. After 6 months we will assess
the situation and reconsider the guarantee deposit concept at that time.
To resolve the matter of existing open foundations that have been sitting for
awhile, the City can declare them a public nuisance and either have them
removed or filled in. We have asked John to follow-up on this matter.
2. Based on his research, John revealed the following about architect's stamp
of approval on building plans:
o Most, if not all , communities require the architect's stamp of approval
for new building construction; for regular additions to buildings, it may not
be required.
o BOCA, Section 108, requires the stamp for ALL plans
o Illinois Department of Registration said "yes, it's the Law - ALL plans
must be stamped"
o American Institute of Architects, when pressed for the specific state
statute, confessed that the state is silent on requiring the stamp for single
family homes.
John said that having an architect's stamp of approval can make his review
procedure easier but that it was no guarantee. And even with an architect's
stamp of approval , it was no guarantee that the building would be constructed
without flaws.
The committee tried to do a simple cost-benefit analysis. The architect's
stamp of approval can run from $50 to $200 for an architect to approve a
builder's plans. For an architect to design and stamp a set of plans, that
could run $50 to $100 per hour or about $2000. As mentioned above, the stamp
is no guarantee the building will be without flaws; it m� just make the
review pracedure easier. We need to ask our City Attorney, Bernie, if the
City increases its liability risk if we don't require the architect's stamp.
The committee agreed that we do not want substandard housing in the City; the �
Building Codes can protect us in that manner. Since the City has a skilled
Building & Zoning Officer in John Zabor with a background in Architecture, and
Section R110 of our current ordinance gives the Building & Zoning Officer the
discretionary authority to require the architect's stamp of approval should a
set •of plans be submitted for review that is totally inadequate, barring no
objection from the City Attorney, we would recommend that the City not require
the Architect's stamp of approval on single family homes at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
����v
Michael R. Teta
Chairman