Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA003 - Council Action Form dated November 1, 1994 ITEM# DATE: November 1, 1994 COUNCIL ACTION FORM ' 3 la,- SUBJECT: CHANGES TO FOUNDATIONS SECTION OF BUILDING CODE PROPOSED BY BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS BACKGROUND: As you will recall, when we adopted the local building code on April 1, 1993, the discussion of foundations was still one of the few items that had not been settled. The Council asked that the new Building Code Board of Appeals review this issue and report back. The Building Code Board of Appeals, the Home Builder's Association, and the concrete contractors have been discussing this issue ever since on a monthly basis. The City Council held a work session on this topic on October 27, 1994. The Inspection Division currently does footing, framing, and final inspections. Even though Section 5.108(3)(a) of the City Code provides for a foundation inspection, this section has always been administratively interpreted to refer to "footings" (i.e., that portion of the foundation which spreads the load). This is because the UBC apparently does not provide any definition of "foundation" beyond that point. Foundation wall inspections are not currently performed, but it is assumed that the home builders follow the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The UBC currently requires that each structure at a building site be built according to the conditions of the site and structure such as soil conditions, wind speed, seismic zones, snow load, live loads, dead loads, adjacent surcharges, etc. Based on reports of failures from architects, engineers, and Building Code Board members, the Code apparently has not been strictly followed. However, the Inspection Division has not been called out to witness any failures nor have names or addresses been given in relation to these reports. Some homeowners have asked the engineers to keep this information confidential so everyone does not know about the failures. The Inspectors have seen hairline cracks in foundation walls and have discussed moisture problems with homeowners. These could be considered as minor failures, but nothing involving the structural integrity concerning life safety issues. These minor failures could become significant over time and that is what the Building Code Board of Appeals is concerned with: failures that develop over years from hydrostatic pressure against the walls. In order to deal with these concerns, the Building Code Board of Appeals is asking that the current Code be enforced by requiring a foundation wall inspection so that the citizens of Ames have assurance that their foundation is of the same consistent quality as the rest of their home. Many members of the Home Builders Association agree that an inspection is needed to create a "level playing field" and keep everyone on a competitive basis. The 2 Inspection Division agrees that a foundation is the most important factor or one of the most important factors in a home and is willing to add an inspection to their already hectic schedules. The Inspection Division will do everything in its power to keep the cost of permits under control, but the demand may warrant hiring additional staff and/or raising fees at some future date. Over the last seventeen months of discussions, other options were looked at to solve the problem. Granular backfill, thicker walls, and warranties were researched. Granular backfill and thicker walls were not as economically feasible as adding more steel to walls. No one offered a local warranty program and it was not taken seriously. Most failures happen two to three property owners down the line, so warranties are hard to keep track of and to enforce. Several minor issues have been resolved, such as: • placing anchor bolts 4' apart rather than 6' as per 1991 UBC. • requiring a foundation wall inspection • installing stepped footings as required in the UBC or an alternative stamped by an engineer • that more steel be added then what the contractors previously have been using • that 60 grade steel be used • that 9' basement walls shall meet 1991 UBC Standards or be engineered • that foundation walls for all residential buildings above 1 and 2 family dwellings and all commercial buildings be as per 1991 UBC or engineered. The only controversial topic left for resolution is the amount and manner of placement of steel in cast-in-place concrete walls. The Building Code Board of Appeals wants to enforce the current UBC requirements by requiring a foundation wall inspection. The UBC allows the flexibility of solutions to the problem associated with foundations. The Home Builders Association and concrete contractors wish to relax the UBC for one- and two-family dwellings and have rebar 24" on center each direction with verticals being dropped in as they are pouring the walls. 3 The two proposals can be summarized as follows: � muBu�MOngC tl�rs catara d Adds foundation wall inspection Adds foundation wall inspection Moves anchor bolt spacing requirements Moves anchor bolt spacing requirements to 4' on center to 4' on center Rebar to be placed according to the Rebar 24" on center vertically and UBC based on soil conditions of that horizontally particular site. Rebar to be set in place as per UBC Vertical rebar "dropped in" during guidelines and kept in place until pouring of concrete concrete is poured; such methods may include tying the steel or the placing of spacers, saddles, chairs, etc. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Do nothing - do not require foundation wall inspections and assume contractors are following the code. 2. Accept the recommendation from the Building Code Board of Appeals to require foundation wall inspections and enforce UBC for all foundations and accept change on anchor bolts from 6' on center to 4' on center. 3. Require foundation wall inspections and accept Home Builder's Association Members and concrete contractor's alternative for one- and two-family dwelling foundations and accept change on anchor bolts. 4. Accept change on anchor bolts and do not require foundation wall inspections. MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative #2, which is essentially the Building Code Board of Appeals' position. This proposal would require both footing and foundation wall inspections to enforce the UBC for all foundations, and which accept the change on anchor bolts from 6' on center to 4' on center. 4 A key element in the Manager's recommendation is that, under the Board's proposal, the vertical and horizontal rebar be placed in the foundation wall prior to pouring the concrete. This work will all be completed prior to the new foundation inspection. Under the Home Builders Association's proposal, the vertical rods would be dropped in as the walls are poured. It will not be possible for our Inspectors to be present while all of the vertical rebar is dropped in, which will lead to a lesser quality foundation inspection. The enclosed are the two options for the proposed ordinance change for foundations. COUNCIL ACTION