HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.1 Single Family Reinvestment Program Discussion1/15/2018 BoardDocs® Pro
Agenda Item Details
Meeting Jan 09, 2018 - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA
Category 4. DISCUSSION ITEMS
Subject 4.1 Single Family Reinvestment Program Discussion
Type Discussion
Information
As part of Community Development's permit process improvement evaluation, the Village held a series of roundtable
meetings with both residential and commercial developers. In addition, staff sent out approximately 3000 surveys to
permit applicants to seek feedback about our development permit and inspection process. At the roundtable meetings,
the discussion included permit fees, review times, third party consultant inspectors and plan reviewers, and the
requirement for sprinklers in single family residential. All the feedback from the surveys are being utilized to
improve department processes and improve service to the community. For example, Community Development recently
switched from contracted inspection services and plan reviews for in-house staff for improved customer service.
Residential Fire Sprinklers/Single Family Reinvestment Program
The purpose of this discussion is to provide additional information about residential sprinkler systems and whether the
Village of Mount Prospect is more restrictive than our neighboring municipalities.
Developers and architects have noted that any additional costs, such as a residential fire sprinkler requirement, does
affect the financial feasibility of a project. While Staff understands the value of residential fire sprinklers, it is important
to recognize the impact this requirement may be having on single family reinvestment in the Village of Mount Prospect.
In addition, analysis of submitted plans leaves staff to believe some builders concentrate their building efforts on avoiding
residential sprinklers by limiting design and scope of work. In essence, the builders are designing "less" of a house,
investing less, and reducing the potential EAV in the community.
Staff is proposing a modification to the residential fire sprinkler ordinance that allows alternative construction methods to
offset the requirement of full 13D fire sprinkler system. The alternative construction methods include a combination of
enhanced construction methods and options to provide improved safety in single-family residential built structures.
Based on fee surveys of surrounding communities, staff is recommending that residential permit fees be temporarily
adjusted with a sunset clause for newly constructed single-family homes and remodeled homes where more than 50% of
the exterior walls are removed.
Building Permit Fee Survey
At the developer roundtable meetings, the discussion included permit fees in addition to review times and inspection
process. Developers and architects noted that permits were expensive, specifically residential permits, and did not
contain value from the plan review process. The roundtable attendees also indicated that additional costs of permits does
impact the financial feasibility of a project.
The purpose of this discussion is to provide a perspective of where Mount Prospect fees are in comparison to other
communities and recommendations on fees to ensure Mount Prospect remains competitive in the development
environment.
The fee research indicates that the New Single Family Home permit costs are more expensive in Mount Prospect than
neighboring communities. To spur additional reinvestment in residential property and ensure Mount Prospect is a leader
in permit cost savings for the region, staff proposes the following restructuring of residential fees, as indicated by the
attached schedule of fees.
https://www.boarddocs.com/il/vomp/Board.nsf/Public 1/2
1/15/2018
BoardDocs® Pro
The fee research indicates that the commercial permit fees are 1.53% higher than the neighboring communities. Due to
the process improvements already made by providing plan review services by Village Building staff, the Village
has already reduced the applicants' costs .25% to .5% for the permit by providing internal staff permit review in lieu of
outsourcing. Staff recommends that commercial fees remain the same.
These fee modifications will better position the Village of Mount Prospect within the region to capitalize on the market for
single-family home redevelopment and reinvestment.
Alternatives
1. Additional discussion or concurrence with staff recommendations.
2. Action at discretion of Village Board.
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Single Family Reinvestment Program, its associated residential sprinkler provisions, and updated fee structure to
support additional community reinvestment in the built environment.
Final building permit fee survey chart.pdf (278 KB)
Single Family Sprinklers Memo 1-9-18.pdf (162 KB)
https://www.boarddocs.com/il/vomp/Board.nsf/Public 2/2
N
4 4)
)
LL
4-
0
4)
0 4)
0
a
4)
4)
CD
(1)
0
r.L
0
L.
a.
0
au
E
0
8
as
ap
8
8
8
ca
a
21
as
E
41
wo
41
x
TL
Ciu
00
c
lot
d
w
E
ce
U4
,t
w^r
war
r-
Qao
C.
I
I Oil
I
I I
F.
g
4
aj
0
E
w
o
V
NW
IF
owl
Ln,
0
rz
g
m
cc
0,
ou
2!
tn
co
LZP
Q
Q
&
aaw
UJI11](DIXI
8
98
8
00
"OR
c0
Cd
0
>
To
Z
*6
0
0
A
Village of Mount Prospect Moum�
Community Development Department
** CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM **
TO: MICHAEL J. CASSADY, VILLAGE MANAGER
NELLIE BECKNER, ASSISTANT TO THE VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & INSPECTION SERVICES
DATE: JANUARY 9, 2018
SUBJECT: Building Permit Fee Survey
Introduction
The Village held a series of meetings with developers, both commercial and residential. At the
meetings, the discussion included permit fees in addition to review times and inspection process.
Staff received feedback that the permits, specifically residential, were expensive and did not
contain value from the plan review process. Developers at the meetings indicated that additional
costs of permits does impact the financial feasibility of a project.
The purpose of this memo is to provide a benchmark of where Mount Prospect fees are in
comparison to other communities. Recommendations on fees are also included to ensure Mount
Prospect remains competitive in the development environment.
Research
Staff surveyed ten surrounding communities including Arlington Heights, Palatine, Rolling
Meadows, Elk Grove Village, Prospect Heights, Des Plaines, Buffalo Grove, Park Ridge,
Northbrook, and Glenview. The survey results indicate that the average new single family home
permit costs for our neighboring communities is 1.37% of the cost of construction in comparison
to Mount Prospect's 1.6% cost of construction. In the fee comparison, Mount Prospect is $2,086
higher than the neighboring community average.
New Single Family Home Permit Fee Survey Results
Average Residential Permit Cost 1.37% $1.2µ313
Equivalent Square IFooita,go dost 40130 safe $3003,
Lowost (A H) S.IF. Cost 4000 safe $1.1.9,
H ighost (PaIIatiino) S.IF Cost 4WO safe $4048,
Municipality
New Single, Family Cost
UdIffifees
%Const.Cost
Mount Prospect
$14,398,00
12
1.610%
Adlington Heights
$4,76,7.10,0
Is,
10.53%
IPAatline
$17,528,00
110
1.93%
RoUhng Meadows
$20,834.00
22
2.32%
Elk Grove
$12,170.00
10
1.35%
Prospect Heights
$8,572.00
12
0. 55 %
DeslNalines
$13,820.00
3
1.54%
Buffalo Grove
$11,571.00
21,
1.29%
Northbrook
$11,770.00
14
1.31%
G�Ienviievv
$11,679.00
17
. 1.39%
Based om4,000s� AH has a $9400 Impact IFee that goes
and $}80JB00uaUueto ot�her taking bodies, not the ViUlage
l **
Shed and Driveway Permit Fee Survey Results
Basic permit costs for shed and driveway permits were included in the survey. Mount Prospect
was lower than the neicihboring community average for these types ofpermits. Mount Prospect
io$5O.00for sheds and approximately $75to$125for driveways.
Munkipality
Mount Prospect
Arlington Heights
Commercial Permit Fee Survey Results
Staff also surveyed the commercial permit costs. Commercial permits are more complicated to
compare and have more fee line items to 000u|ote, including storm water detention,
construction nuisance abatement deposits, maintenance guarantees, and development
guarantees.
Municipality
New 7',000 s,.f. cornmercial building ciDst # diff. fees,
'%C�onst.C�os,t
Mount Prospect
$3 3, sso.,00
12
4.84%
Arlington Heights,
$5,975.00
15
1.43%
Palatine
$30,153.00
10
4.31%
Rolling Meadows
$20,495.00
20
2.93%
Elk Grove
$32,163.00
13
4.59%
�Prospect Heights,
$34,905.00
81
4.93%
DesPlaines
$15,220.00
6
2.17%
Buffalo Grove
$17,497.00
25
2.5,0%
Northbrook
$25,423.00
18,
4.20%
Glenview
$29,860.001
18,
4.27%
Based mm7Q00s.f.and $7,00,1000 value
800amp service, 7,Qsprinklers,
2,Qplumbing fixtures
Average Commercial Permit Cost 3.31@ $23,184
Equivalent Square Footage Cost 7,000s.f. $3.31
Lowest (AH) S.F. Cost 7000�� $1.43
H �i ghest � �P H)�S,F. Cost 7000s.f. $4.8�9
Recommendation: Ways to Increase Single Family Home Reinvestment
The fee research indicates that Mount Prospect's new single family home permit costs are more
expensive than neighboring communities. Tospur additional reinvestment inresidential property
and ensure Mount Prospect is a leader in permit cost savings for the naginn, staff proposes the
Recommendation: Commercial Fees
The fee research indicates that the commercial permit fees are 1.53% higher than the neighboring
communities. Process improvements already made, such as providing plan review services by
Village Building staff (in-house), has already reduced the applicants' permit costs .25% to .5% by
using our own staff reviews in lieu of outsourcing. It is staff's recommendation that we leave the
commercial fees the same.
Staff believes these fee modifications will better position the Village of Mount Prospect within the
region to capitalize on the market for single-family home redevelopment and reinvestment.
William M. Schroeder
Village of Mount Prospect if
Community Development Department
** CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM ** \A
TO: MICHAEL J. CASSADY, VILLAGE MANAGER
NELLIE BECKNER, ASSISTANT TO THE VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & INSPECTION SERVICES
DATE: JANUARY 9, 2018
SUBJECT: Residential Fire Sprinklers and Single Family Reinvestment Program
Introduction
As part of the building department's process improvement evaluation, the Village held a series of
roundtable meetings with both residential and commercial developers. In addition, we sent out
approximately 3000 surveys to permit applicants to seek feedback about our development permit
and inspection process. At the roundtable meetings, the discussion included permit fees, review
times, third party consultant inspectors and plan reviewers, and the requirement for sprinklers in
single family residential. All the feedback from the surveys are being utilized to improve process
and improve service to the community.
The purpose of this memo is to provide additional information about residential sprinkler systems,
whether the Village of Mount Prospect is more restrictive than neighboring municipalities, and if
this is having an impact on the amount of investment we are seeing in our single family housing
stock.
There has been significant debate in the residential construction industry through the last several
code cycles on whether or not residential sprinklers should be mandated by local authorities.
Developers at the recent roundtables provided feedback that any additional costs including
residential fire sprinklers does impact the financial feasibility of the project.
There is no debate that residential fire sprinklers have the potential to save lives. The question
is not whether they work, but whether they are the only option for making single-family homes
safer for occupants.
Research
The purpose of residential sprinklers is to allow more time for an occupant of a single family home
to exit the house. The reason occupants need more time to exit is due to an increase in the rate
of burning that is found in modern building materials versus those same materials produced 40
or 50 years ago. Specifically, wood in general and engineered lumbers burn faster and warp or
twist, causing failures roughly 10 to 15 minutes faster than those same materials tested from
many years ago.
In addition, due to environmental concerns, building materials are not allowed to have as many
chemicals added to them in the manufacturing process. In turn, without those chemicals such as
fire retardants, glues, and sealant products, building materials do not withstand the damage
caused by fire as well as they used to. Hence, the introduction of residential sprinklers to offset
that decreased time to exit.
While it seems very clear that residential sprinklers are useful, the local community of developers,
builders, and architects are steadfastly opposed to them being mandated as the only option to
protect occupants in single-family homes. Developers point to other communities such as
Arlington Heights and Palatine that allow for enhanced building techniques and specific material
exclusions within their local ordinances that appear to meet the same intent of residential
sprinklers, without nearly as much cost.
In addition, many developers have said the sprinklers are not aesthetically pleasing to their clients.
Cost and aesthetics of residential sprinklers are the two main concerns raised by this group, which
they contend is contributing to a lack of new single-family reinvestment in Mount Prospect.
Staff surveyed the municipalities that are within two concentric rings around Mount Prospect.
These communities were Arlington Heights, Palatine, Rolling Meadows, Elk Grove, Prospect
Heights, Des Plaines, Buffalo Grove, Park Ridge, Northbrook, and Glenview. Our staff routinely
survey these same communities to make comparisons to the Village of Mount Prospect. Of these
locations, Arlington Heights, Palatine, Buffalo Grove, and Glenview do not mandate residential
sprinklers for single-family homes, while the other six do require sprinklers. There is a 60/40 split
in favor of communities that require residential sprinklers.
The next question is: how does the requirement of sprinklers impact the development within each
community? This is not easily answered, but the survey simply requested how many new single-
family homes were built within each municipality in 2016. Arlington Heights topped that list with
127 new homes, none of which were required to have sprinklers.
None of the communities surveyed came close to matching this Arlington Heights number,
regardless of an active sprinkler ordinance.. Des Plaines responded with 33 new homes, and
they do require sprinklers.
In a conversation with Prospect Heights, it was revealed they are booming with teardowns and
they require sprinklers. Prospect Heights was quick to point out that all their development has
been limited to 20,000 square feet lots (1/2 acre) and that the houses being reconstructed are a
minimum of 5,000 square feet. For homes at a minimum of size of 5,000 square feet, the cost of
sprinklers has no impact to a million dollar plus home.
The next area of focus is the actual cost of residential sprinkler systems. Sprinkler lobbyists will
routinely state the cost is between $1.50 and $2.00 per square foot, whereas developers and
builders will quote a number closer to $3.50 or $4.00 per foot.
In order to get an actual cost of a residential sprinkler system, staff worked with a well-known
residential sprinkler contractor who routinely installs systems within Mount Prospect and the
surrounding communities. After additional research by the residential sprinkler contractor, they
pointed to specific project in the Village and provided the following detail:
For a house noted to have 4,959 square feet of space sprinkled, cost equates to $10,960
or $2.21 per square foot. The costs in this case are close to the values provided by the
Sprinkler Lobbyists ($2.00 per square foot).
When investigating this further, there is a substantial issue with the $2.21 per square foot
value that was calculated: the building permit for this new construction lists the house as
2,962 square feet. The sprinkler contractor calculated the unfinished basement into the
overall square footage of the house. While it is understood that the basement is sprinkled
and they want to include that space in the square foot pricing, the house is only listed as
a 2,962 square foot house on the market.
All developers figure their saleable square footage based on the finished space within a
house. They do not include unfinished space (i.e. basement) in the size calculation. When
factoring in the saleable square footage into the costs, the sprinklers actually cost $3.70
per square foot, about double the costs advertised by the lobbyists.
$3.70 per square foot is enough cost to affect the finishes of a house. If on a tight budget,
a prospective owner will have to decide between granite and laminate counters, ceramic
tile and vinyl sheet flooring, or downsize the size of the house to offset these costs and
still get the amenities they want.
In addition to the cost of the initial installation of a residential sprinkler system, there is an annual
certification test for the backflow device installed on the water system. This backflow device
protects the stagnant water that sits in the sprinkler pipes from being released back into the
potable drinking water system of the rest of the house. The annual test runs about $100.
Fire sprinkler advertisements market that the installation of a residential fire sprinkler system will
save the owner money on their homeowner's insurance, which helps to justify the costs of the
installation. Staff contacted a local Allstate agent and asked for a price comparison of a current
customer that lives in Mount Prospect. This agent randomly selected a home on Palm Drive. A
house not equipped with fire sprinklers on Palm Drive has an annual premium of $845.85. When
a sprinkler system was added to the safety feature discounts of the home, the premium dropped
to $779.85, or a total of $66 per year. There is a savings, but it doesn't even cover the annual
backflow certification costs or offer a potential long term payback of the system. It is safe to say
the savings in insurance are negligible at best when discussing residential sprinkler systems.
The research indicates to two primary points:
First, sprinklers make homes safer in a fire.
Second, the cost of residential sprinklers can clearly have an impact on the redevelopment
within the single-family home market.
Options to Increase Single Family Home Reinvestment
Staff has gathered a number of concepts that have been evaluated below including the use of fire
rated drywall, localized domestic sprinklers over known fire sources, and the elimination of certain
engineered products.
Scenario A
Staff looked at a typical house in Mount Prospect to evaluate the cost implications of finishing an
entire house in fire rated (type x) drywall, as opposed to standard unrated drywall. A typical house
that measures 2,700 square feet will contain about 212 sheets of 4x8 drywall. At Lowes and
Home Depot, the cost difference between standard and type x drywall is $1.50 per sheet. The
total cost increase over standard drywall is $318 for this hypothetical home. The installation,
taping and finishing of the type x drywall is exactly the same as with standard unrated drywall, so
the only impact is in the material cost.
Type x drywall is used in rated wall assemblies throughout the country and is certified by
Underwriters Laboratory. The paper surface is imbedded with fiberglass fibers that help the
drywall hold up longer when exposed to fire. When used in a wall assembly (where all the
components of a wall make up a system that resists fire, rather than each individual component
acting alone) wood studs with type x drywall on either side can carry a one hour rating. This
means that a simple 2x4 wall with type x drywall can hold back a fire for up to one hour before
that wall system fails. This is a great improvement over the standard drywall assembly that carries
no rating. While this will not potentially extinguish a fire like a residential sprinkler system, it will
contain a fire to a smaller fire area for a longer period, allowing occupants more time to exit the
rest of the house and get to safety.
Scenario B
Staff evaluated a concept of limited localized domestic sprinkler heads being required at typical
fire producing areas within a house, as opposed to a full separate sprinkler system. The theory
behind this is most fires within a home begin in one of several common locations: the kitchen,
laundry room, utility closets, water heater and the furnace.
The Illinois Plumbing Code allows for a limited number of sprinkler heads to be tied directly into
the domestic water system with a looped design system to avoid stagnant water and eliminate
backflow protection.
The most common fire sources within a house all tend to be near the normal use of water fixtures,
the cost to loop in domestic sprinkler heads can be limited. Staff's licensed plumbing inspector
suggests that each head can be installed for a cost of $250.
Assuming these four areas are equipped with fire sprinkler domestic head, the total cost is $1000.
This is 1/10th the cost of a full residential sprinkler system and covers the most common fire
sources within a home. In addition, with this system there is no need for annual backflow
prevention testing.
Scenario C
Staff looked at an idea witnessed in Palatine and Glenview, where full residential fire sprinklers
are only required if wood trusses and engineered lumber are used in the construction of a single
family home. The background on wood trusses is mixed. Instead of using heavy dimensional
lumber that can span smaller distances, smaller members are used in a truss design that can
typically span from exterior wall to exterior wall.
This engineered lumber truss design speeds up the construction framing process. On the other
hand, these small members tend to warp and burn through faster than larger dimensional lumber
in a fire situation. With engineered trusses, the connection points of the truss tend to fail quickly
due to the warping of the burning wood, which causes the overall truss to fail and collapse.
Engineered lumber was originally seen as a great compromise between open web trusses and
dimensional lumber. The engineered lumber uses small dimensional lumber at the top and
bottom and is spanned with a vertical piece of solid plywood in between. The engineered lumber
can span longer distances than conventional dimensional lumber, but proved to be less reliable
in a fire situation than dimensional lumber, thus decreasing safety.
As a result, communities like Palatine and Glenview have recognized this discrepancy in safety
and limited the requirement for full residential fire sprinklers to those single family homes that
utilize engineered lumber and roof trusses. It doesn't specifically prohibit the use of these
structural members, but it acknowledges the fact that they are less safe in a fire situation and
requires them to upgrade the overall safety of the home with a full sprinkler system when they are
used.
Synopsis
While the Village values residential fire sprinklers as a key component to our life safety
ordinances, we also recognize the impact this requirement may be having on redevelopment in
the Village of Mount Prospect's single-family residential community.
We are proposing a modification to the residential fire sprinkler ordinance that allows alternative
construction methods to offset the requirement of full 13D fire sprinkler system.
Rather than choosing from the number of options outlined above, Staff is recommending a
combination of enhanced construction methods and options to provide improved safety in single-
family residential built structures.
Recommendations on Fire Sprinklers in Single Family Homes
All New Single Family Detached Homes
All new single-family detached homes are required to be equipped with a full 13D Residential Fire
Sprinkler System. The requirement for a full 13D Residential Fire Sprinkler System in completely
new single-family detached dwellings can be waived if all of the following conditions are met:
1. The entire interior of the structure is finished with type x fire rated drywall
2. A single domestic sprinkler head is provided at the following locations: kitchen, laundry room,
utility closets, water heater and furnace. Installation must meet the requirements of the Illinois
Plumbing Code and provide a minimum of four residential sprinkler heads in the structure.
For the purposes of this code, this limited system will be referred to as a limited residential fire
sprinkler system (LRFSS).
3. The use of engineered floor and roof trusses are prohibited in the structure with a limited
residential fire sprinkler system. If engineered floor or roof trusses are installed, a full 13D
residential fire sprinkler system will be required.
Remodeled Single Family Detached Homes when 50% or more of the total existing walls
are removed and/or where any house addition is double or more the existing square
footage. The structure is defined as new construction.
All remodeled single-family detached homes that remove 50% or more of the existing walls
are required to be equipped with a full 13D Residential Fire Sprinkler System. The requirement
for a full 13D Residential Fire Sprinkler System can be waived if all of the following conditions are
met:
1. The entire interior of the structure is finished with type x fire rated drywall
2. A single domestic sprinkler head is provided at the following locations: kitchen, laundry room,
utility closets, water heater and the furnace. Installation must meet the requirements of the
Illinois Plumbing Code and provide a minimum of four residential sprinkler heads in the
structure. For the purposes of this code, this limited system will be referred to as a limited
residential fire sprinkler system (LRFSS).
3. The use of engineered floor and roof trusses are prohibited in the structure with a limited
residential fire sprinkler system. If engineered floor or roof trusses are installed, a full 13D
residential fire sprinkler system will be required.
Remodeled Single Family Detached Homes when less than 50% of the total existing walls
are removed and/or where any house addition is less than double the existing square
footage.
Remodeled single-family detached homes that have less than 50% of the exterior walls
removed require any residential fire sprinklers. The installation of residential fire sprinklers are
optional.
Recommendations on Permit Fees to Incentivize Single Family Home Reinvestment
In addition, based on fee surveys of surrounding communities, staff is recommending that permit
fees be temporarily adjusted for new constructed single-family homes and remodeled homes
where more than 50% of the exterior walls are removed.
All New Single Family Detached Homes that are equipped with a Full 13D Residential Fire
Sprinkler System
Any new permitted and constructed home meeting these parameters where the permit is issued
and is fully constructed between the period January 2018 and December 31, 2019 will receive
the following permit fee concessions:
1. Discounted permit fee equivalent to 1 % of the cost of construction.
2. Waiver of the Single Family Detached Village Donation (a.k.a. Village impact fee)
3. Waiver of parkway tree fee.
4. Waiver of Building and Fire Plan Review fees. Full code plan review compliance required.
See attached single-family home fee survey and comparison.
We believe these modifications, in addition to the improvement being made in review times, in
conjunction with the use of Village Inspectors and plan reviewers will better position the Village of
Mount Prospect within the region to capitalize on the market for single-family home
redevelopment.
William M. Schroeder