3. Certificates of OccupancyCity of Kalispell
Planning Department
17 - 2dStreet East, Suite 211, Kalispell, Montana. 59901
Telephone: (406) 751-1850
Fax: (406) 751-1858
Website: kalispellplanning.com
REPORT TO: James H. Patrick, city Manager
FROM: Thomas R. Jentz, Director
SUBJECT: Certificate of Occupancy and Strom water Issues
1�►tE 0 G DATE: October 9, 2006 Council Work Session
BACKGROUND: The city council at the April 14 workshop directed staff to pursue 4
separate courses of action in order to assist in bringing a long term solution to
problems that have surfaced within the city associated with high ground water and
storm water run --off in residential developments. Those 4 courses included:
1. Developing a policy, administered at the preliminary plat level, to determine,
based on the presence of ground water, whether proposed lots are suitable for
basements or crawl space development.
2. Require, as part of the building inspection program, an inspection for damp
proofing/ foundation drains for all basements.
3. Require a certification by the builder/ homeowner that the final lot grades
comply with the approved drainage plan for the subdivision.
4. Implement and enforce a certificate of occupancy component, as required by the
city building codes program, to ensure that all residential and commercial
construction and final lot grading conforms to city plans and specifications.
Each of these 4 implementation strategies are outlined below:
1. Implement a program addressing the appropriate location for basements
and crawl spaces in the city.
City building codes already state that basements and crawl spaces are only
allowed in areas of well drained soils. This condition is not being rigorously
enforced as historically data is not readily available documenting well drained
soils. The proper time to implement this conditions is at the preliminary plat
stage when a developer is initially proposing development in an area. Therefore
it is recommended that the subdivision regulations should be amended to
require that a standard condition of preliminary plat approval should be the
provision of scientific data (ground water monitoring through a season i.e.
February - June, soils information, well log info., etc.) to document where
seasonal high ground water levels are within the proposed subdivision. Where
seasonal high ground water is below 10 feet, basements and crawl spaces
would be alloyed. where ground water is between 5 --- 10 feet, basement
construction would be prohibited and a note would be placed on the face of the
final plat. where ground water is at 5 feet or less, crawl space development
would be prohibited and a note would be placed on the face of the final plat. If
the developer does not want to undertake provision of ground water data, a note
would be placed on the face of the final plat that this development has not been
reviewed or approved for basement or crawl space development. Where such a
prohibition has been placed on the plat because a developer did not provide the
information, individual homeowners could still do basement or crawl space
development if they individually showed that seasonal high ground crater was
below the standards set.
Required Action:
City council should direct staff to amend the subdivision regulations and
include a section requiring the provision of ground water information assuring
that the development is suitable for either or both basement or crawl space
development.
The city subdivision regulations would be amended with the insertion of the
following text:
3.23 Ground water affecting basements and crawl. spaces.
A. The subdivider shall provide adequate information documenting the
presence or depth of seasonal high ground water for the proposed
subdivision. Acceptable information would include actual ground
crater monitoring information on site through the seasonal high
ground water period (maid March -- end of June) , soils information
indicating the presence of saturated or modeled soils, well log info.,
etc.
1. where seasonal high ground water is below 10 feet, basements
and crawl spaces would be allowed.
2. where ground crater is between 5 - 10 feet, basement
construction would be prohibited and a note would be placed on
the face of the final plat.
3. where ground crater is at 5 feet or less, crawl space development
would be prohibited and a note would be placed on the face of the
final plat.
4. If the developer does not want to undertake provision of ground
crater data, a note would be placed on the face of the final plat
that this development has not been reviewed or approved for
basement or crawl space development.
i. In such a case, where individual homeowners do want to
utilize basement or crawl space development, they would
will be required to document that the presence of seasonal
high ground grater complies with criteria 1 - 3 above.
2
2. Implement a separate building inspection for foundation drains and damp
proofing of basement walls.
The following inspections are currently undertaken on residences within the
city during their construction phase: footings, framing, sheetrock, insulation.,
mechanical (heating/air), plumbing, electrical (conducted by a state inspector)
and a final inspection. The city adopted an RBC (Residential Building Code)
that requires that foundation walls of finished basements be damp proofed
(usually with an exterior, surface asphalt application) . In addition, the RBC
requires that finished basements have a perimeter floor drain. The department
currently attaches a typical design for the footing drain with each new
residential building permit but does conduct an individual inspection to
determine if such work is adequately installed.
Building staff would add this inspection as part of their regular inspection cycle
for all basement construction, whether it is finished or unfurnished.
Required Action:
a. Policy direction from the city council to add inspection of damp
proofing of all basement walls and the proper installation of all
footing/foundation drains as part of all residential/commercial
basement projects.
b. Direction from Public Works as to the list of appropriate locations to
send/pump the water collected by the floor drain.
3, require all lots to conform to the approved drainage plan as submitted at
final plat.
Drainage plans are prepared by the developer's engineer and reviewed by the
Kalispell Public Works Department for all new subdivisions. The drainage
plans are predicated on a defined landscape. When home builders begin
developing individual lots, often times the topography is significantly modified
to fit the needs / desire of the new home layout, sometimes there is excess dirt to
get rid of from the foundation excavation and it is spilled and shaped on site,
and sometimes the lot is re -shaped through ignorance or convenience.
Modifying the lot topography significantly and / or failing to account for drainage
from the foundation will modify, possibly adversely, the drainage flows and
volumes that the drainage plan was based on.
The city building codes require the following: "Surface drainage shall be
diverted to a storm sewer conveyance or other approved point of collection so as
to not create a hazard. Lots shall be graded so as to drain surface crater away
from foundation walls. The grade away from the foundation walls shall fall a
minimum. of 6 inches within the first 10 feet." The city building inspectors
typically look for this at the time of foundation work. Two problems develop. By
the time the house is completed and landscaped, the topography may be vastly
changed. Secondly, the builders consistently do not call for a certificate of
occupancy prior to inhabiting or selling the residence and the city does not
3
enforce the C/O requirement. Thus the city inspectors have no knowledge nor
enforcement mechanism to insure lot drainage is appropriate.
Required Action:
a. A certification from the builder/owner that specifies grades from the
approved drainage plan have been met. This may require a
surveyor at some point.
b. A willingness on the part of the city to enforce these requirements
4. Implement and enforce a certificate of occupancy component, as required
by the city building codes program, to ensure that all residential and
commercial construction and final lot grading conforms to city plans and
specifications.
The city as a whole does a good job of reviewing plans submitted for building
permits and inspecting certain aspect of projects while they are under
construction. However, once a project nears completion, there really is not an
effective method currently to ensure that it is completed properly.
For example, a new homeowner will want to move in as soon as possible and
the smoke detectors may not be installed, or a new business starts stocking the
shelves and their focus shifts from finishing construction to getting the
business operating. In those situations, contractors often fail to call for final
inspections. If they do, the result is frequently simply a punch list that does
not get completed.
Last fall, the Building Department tried a new procedure in an effort to close
the loop on just commercial projects. When a Certificate of Occupancy is
requested, the Building Department sends a notice to Public Works, Parks,
Zoning and the Fire Department. The notice provides each department with 5
working days to inspect the site and respond with an approval or disapproval of
the C/O. Once each department has resolved any issues with the developer,
the Building Department will issue the C/O. In certain instances, such as
winter weather preventing landscaping or paving, a performance bond or other
security can be posted.
While this process has improved the situation, it has not always led to
compliance and it only has been imposed on commercial projects. This lack of
a formal certificate of occupancy program for the building department has been
noted in the recent ISO rating program undertaken this spring. The city
Building Department rating dropped from a previous high 3 to a 5 with the
rating team noting several deficiencies, one being the lack of a required C / O
program for new construction. The City was given one year to improve its
performance before the new grade would take effect.
The building department staff has looped at several options for insuring
enforcement for a C/O across the board. These measures include:
4
1. Voluntary encouragement. This has not worked to date.
2. Issuing a restricted flow water meter. Such a meter would
allow a contractor grater to test plumbing and to address minimal
construction water needs but would not be adequate to provide
domestic or commercial flows. The restriction would then be
removed at the time of C/O concerns including not being able to
find a decent flow restrictor, the cost of removing the restriction
(city staff time) and the possibility that the homeowner contractor
would just remove the restrictor on their own.
3. Threatening to turn the water off if they do not get a C/O in a
timely fashion. The dilemma here is that the structure would
typically already be occupied and it is difficult politically to enforce
turning off someone's water.
4. Not issuing a water meter until /o has been issued. This
appears to be the most consistent and enforceable solution. The
Building Department, in contacting local builders has determined
that it only takes 5 -- 10 gallons of water (clean up for painters and
sheet rockers) to build a house. water lines are air tested.
Contactors carry their own crater to projects under construction.,
especially in the winter. Portable bathrooms are brought on site
already. Not receiving the water meter until C / D is issues is a
powerful motivator to finish a project.
Required Action:
Direct Public works to not issue a water meter until the Building Department
has issued a final C/O. Note the following limitations and concerns.
a. The issuance of the C / o would be linked to health safety issues.
If sidewalks, landscaping, etc. are not in or if rock was
inadvertently placed in the boulevard and could not be removed
because of seasonal limitations, the contractor could bond for the
work to be completed in the spring.
b. Initially this program would not work within the Evergreen water
District. If the council so desires, staff would proceed and talk to
the Evergreen water District and work on an agreement
supporting this policy.
c. The policy would not work for remodel projects unless they were
significant in scale and required a new water service.
LETTERS/ 2006/ storm water issues 4-13.
5