HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-07-1968i
1
•
1
1
C]
.1 1
Record of Official Proceedings of the .Common Council `?
of the City of Rochester, Minn., May 7, 1968
Minutes of an adjourned regular meeting of the Common Council of the City of i
Rochester, Minnesota, held in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, in said City, on
May 7, 1968.
President DeVries called the meeting to order at 7:30 o'clock P. M., the
following members being present: President DeVries, Aldermen Day, Ellison, Folkert,
Larson, Postier. Absent: Alderman Perry.
President DeVries stated that this was the time and place set for a public
hearing on the Uniform Building Code.
An Ordinance regulating the design, construction, enlargement, alteration,
repair, moving, removal, conversion, demoliton, quality of materials, height,, area,
maintenance, occupancy and use of all buildings and structures in the City of Rochester,
Minnesota; providing for the issuance of permits and collection of fees therefor;
establishing fire zones; providing penalties for violations; and repealing all ordinances)
and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith, was given its second reading. R. V.Ehrick,
City Attorney, then again outlined the proposed ordinance as presented here.
Letters from the Minnesota Society of Professional Engineers, J. J.
Weichselbaum, President of Weichselbaum & Associates, Inc. and Gjelten, Schellberg &
Associates, Inc. giving their approval to the reviewal of all plans for buildings of
different nature submitted for consideration at the time of application for building
permits, were each read, and ordered placed on file.
The following letter signed by R. C. Roeeler was read:
'The Common Council
C; City of Rochester
Rochester, Minnesota
Gentlemen:
This letter is intended to express some thoughts on the -proposed Building
Code Ordinance from several of us in Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation who have
responsibilities related to construction and remodeling of facilities. It
should not be regarded as an institutional policy statement nor as representing
a consensus of either of the governing Boards.
There is no doubt that the City of Rochester needs a sound building code
and an adequate staff to administer such a code. Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation
are interested only in safe, sound structueres of high quality and see no
conflict between our policies and the objectives of a good building code.
Because of the length and complexity of the Uniform Building Code -of the
International Conference of Building Officials, we have not had an opportunity
to become completely familiar with all of the requirements of this Code and hence
are not in a position to express an opinion on its workability nor to question
how it will apply. to Mayo projects. It is our understanding that there are
several uniform building codes in existence; we assume that the members of the
Council, city officials and perhaps advisory groups as well, have studied these
various codes in sufficient detail to be certain that this particular one is the
best for Rochester.
We are not sure how the Council intends to apply this Code to existing
buildings. Section 104 (Page 21) of Volume I of the Code seems quite clear
concerning the application of the Code to existing buildings but the revision
of Section 205 (Page 2) and Section 3 of this Ordinance (Page 9) seem to be
susceptible to the interprestation that all existing buildings must be
brought into compliance with the Code or their maintenance and occupancy are not
permitted. You may wishto clarify the language of this ordinance so that it is
consistent with Volume I of the Code.
We assume that the building permit fee is not considered a tax but rather
a charge to offset (Perhaps only in part) the costs of the administaration of
this Code. We suggest that the Council consider establishing a building permit
fee based on the gross square feet in a structure (with several construction
categories at appropriate rates per foot) rather than on 'value or valuation".
�. Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council
of the City of Rochester, Minn., May 7, 1968
0
w•ionw
The number of square feet in a building is something that can be actually
determined whereas any valuation figure is necessarily less precise and
hence perhaps less equitable regarding one building permit fee as compared
with another. It would seem logical to encourage owners in the community
to construct better buildings using higher quality materials whereas the fee
schedule based on valuation penalizes such an approach. If two churches are
of the same size, the Building Official's cost in regard to each of these
projects would be approximately the same; it does not seem rational to charge
a higher permit fee to the church which chooses to build with better quality fin
ish materials and hence at greater cost. The building of better quality probalby needs
needs less inspection that the one -on a minimum budget.
We are concerned about the proposed checking of plans which evidently
is contemplated to be extremely detailed including review of'structural
calculations and many other aspects of a proposed building. We assume that
the Council has investigated the plan checking procedure used in other
cities and is familiar with the manner in which this has operated, and
whether it has proved to be a positive or negative factor in serving the broad
objectives of a Building Code. Delays in construction are always expensive;
there never is enought time between a decision to go ahead and the desired
completeion of a given project. We are worried about delay from the proposed
plan review. Perhaps a detailed checking of plans should not be required of
the Building Official in the case of a major project (school, church,
industrial facility, hospital, etc.), designed by a registered architect and
licensed engineer and for which the architect and engineer are willing to
certify that the design meets the requirements of %h atever building code is
finally adopted. The Building Official should, of course, be supplied with
any architectural drawings that he request and should have the authority to
review such drawings, but not an obligation to do so. He would be required
to inspect the project in the usual way regarding complieance with the Code;
inspection is probably more important than plan review.
If the Council should decide to carry out additional building code
studies before taking final action, we would be very please to thave a
member of our Building Committee or one of our engineers participate in
such discussions.
Thanks you for your consideration of the thoughts expressed in this letter.
Yours very truly,
/s R. C. Roesler "
Mr. Jerome Koskovitch made a few remarks in regard to the above letter (1) they said they
have not had an opportunity to become familiar with it and not in a position to express an
opinion on the set projects - in doing a little research I find that as early as 63-64 there
was an informal committee studying the building code, so I don't feel that is a legitimate
complaint since they were aware that the City was considering a uniform code as early as
1963 (2) it is our :understanding that other codes than the Uniform Building Code were
considered by the Common Council, the UBC is most widely used and is fast becoming the
primary code in the State of Minnesota, there are 90 cities in the State using it and it
is presently being considered as the State Code (3) I have some reservations as to hoer this
code would apply to existing buildings, there is a section in the code that give a percentage
breakdown, that depending on the amount of remodeling your doing, it may or may not bring
the work up to conformance, if you are doing 75% remodeling you would probably required to
bring it up to full; I think Mayo would have no problems at all and it is likely that their
architects and engineers are designing by the Uniform Building Code or very nearly the same
(4) the fee schedule - in regard to valuation is questionable and thinks it would be more
equitable to go on,square foot basis - we again discussed this at length within the
committee and felt the valuation basis was the most equitable, the UBC fee schedule we
are proposing to adopt has a breakdown system so if you have over 100,000 you get a
breakdown of fees (5) in the proposed checking of plans he questions the time delays - we
•
1
1
i
1
0
Record of Official Proceedings of the Coinnion Council
• of the City of Rochester, Minn., May 7, 1968
6 D
0
1
1
realize there are going to be delays but we feel this is not a problem especially in cases
like theirs, most architects and engineers welcome checkers; we dould have design
conferences and not wait till the last meeting to check the plans, we agree that delays
in construction -are costly, but we do not'feel that Mayo have any real concern in regard
to the new code.
Mr. David Alexander inquired that after this ordinance is adopted and they work
with it for 6 months or a year and found some things that -did not workout could it be
amended. Mr. Koskovich stated that the ordinance sets up a Board of Appeals, made up of
engineers, architects, construction and an attorney and they review alternate procedures
and recommend changes; the code is automatically reviewed every three years.
Mr. Richard Hexum inquired if amendments could not possibly be avoided if there
was a slight delay in the acceptance of this so they might have a better chance to study
it further and maybe have meetings and have certain points -brought out, perhaps Mr.
Koskovich in the next 38-60 days -could inform them more; he said he had the names of 42
people that had expressed interest In more information before this is adopted. Mr. -Joe
Weis, Haven Hodge and others 'also showed interest in having more -informational meetings.
Mr. Bob DeWitz requested that some agreement be worked out for time inspections
on their cement work, he said sometimes they have to wait three hour's for engineers to
inspect footings, etc.
After hearing those present meetings two meeting were set up (1) a meeting on
May 16, 1968 at 4:00 P. M. in Room 4 of the City Hall -for residence home builders and (2)
a meeting on May 23, 1968 at 4:00 P. M. in Room 4 of the City Hall -for the General
Contractors.
Mr. Orville Mertz, Fire Chief, then outlined the f ire limits and presented a map
showing the proposed fire limits.
Upon motion by Day, second by Postier, and all voting in favor, the meeting was
adjourned to 7:30 o'clock P. M. on May 20, 1968.
City Clerk
-0