Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Commission - Minutes - 12/16/2021City of Fort Collins Page 1 December 16, 2021 Alan Cram, Chair Location: Tim Johnson, Vice Chair This meeting will be held Brad Massey remotely via Zoom Katharine Penning Eric Richards Staff Liaison: Mark Teplitsky Russ Hovland Vacant Seat Interim Chief Building Official Meeting Minutes December 16, 2021 A regular meeting of the Building Review Commission was held on Thursday, December 16, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. via Zoom.  CALL TO ORDER Chair Cram called the meeting to order at 9:03 a.m.  ROLL CALL PRESENT: Cram, Johnson, Penning, Richards ABSENT: Massey, Teplitsky STAFF: Hovland, Manno, Guin, Brennan  PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None.  DISCUSSION AGENDA [Timestamp: 9:05 a.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 MEETING. Member Richards moved to approve the minutes of the September 30, 2021 meeting. Member Penning seconded. The motion passed 4-0. Building Review Commission DocuSign Envelope ID: 6532AE99-C859-4F94-8FC3-027ED58EA378 City of Fort Collins Page 2 December 16, 2021 2. GRANT EVERITT APPEAL OF DENIAL OF ONE TIME EXCEPTION TO BUILD A CLASS C2 LICENSE-LEVEL PROJECT (5-PLEX MULTI-FAMILY) DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to seek a determination from the Building Reivew Commission to whether or not Mr. Everitt should be approved as the permit holder and general contractor (GC) to build a 5-unit multi-family building (5-plex) which requires a higher-level license than his current D1, a Class C2 license. STAFF: Sharlene Manno, Admin Services Manager Disclosure of Conflicts None. Staff Presentation Ms. Manno presented the staff report outlining his current license allotments and noting Mr. Everitt has built 30 new single-family detached homes in city limits and is in good standing with his license. She stated he would like to be approved as the permit holder and general contractor to build a 5-unit multi- family building, which does not fall within the allotments of his current license; however, it would be the second project of this nature Mr. Everitt has completed as he was previously granted a one-time exception for constructing a 5-plex. Ms. Manno requested Mr. Everitt explain the relationship with his chosen mentor on the previous project and stated staff’s recommendation is to approve this request given the success of the previous project and the fact that this project is next door and is the same floorplan. She stated staff would like to ensure the fully licensed C2 contractor is listed on the project as a mentor and requested the Commission outline the expectations of the mentor. Mr. Hovland noted the mentor program is not an official program yet; if it were, this type of item could be handled administratively. He stated the program will hopefully be codified in 2022. Appellant and Parties-in-Interest in Support of Appeal Arguments Mr. Everitt stated his goal is to run this project under his license without the assistance of a mentor. He stated the previous mentorship program went well; however, the assistance of the mentor was not particularly necessary. He questioned if there would be any risk to the City should he complete this project without the mentor. Parties-in-Interest in Opposition to Appeal Arguments Ms. Manno noted the staff recommendation of approval is conditional upon the project being completed under a mentor. She stated Mr. Everitt is required to complete three projects and testing prior to getting the necessary C2 license. Mr. Hovland noted the Code allows the Chief Building Official to provide a supervisor certificate for 30 days; however, that would not be helpful in this case. Appellant Rebuttal Mr. Everitt asked if a license variance has ever been granted in a similar situation. Ms. Manno reiterated a 30-day temporary license could be granted; however, that could not be used on new buildings such as this outside of the realm of the licensing qualifications as that is not allowed by Code. Mr. Everitt was dubious that a variance had not been granted for this type of situation. Board Questions of Staff and Parties-in-Interest Member Johnson asked if the building permit is pulled under the mentor’s license or Mr. Everitt’s license. Mr. Hovland replied it was previously pulled under Mr. Everitt’s license with a mentor listed as being available to provide periodic guidance. Member Johnson stated he would support what has been done previously. Member Penning concurred and stated she believes the Commission has been consistent in requiring testing as well as mentored projects to get the next license. DocuSign Envelope ID: 6532AE99-C859-4F94-8FC3-027ED58EA378 City of Fort Collins Page 3 December 16, 2021 Member Richards asked Mr. Everitt if he is planning to attempt to acquire a C2 license so he can build these projects on his own. Mr. Everitt replied in the affirmative. He asked about the testing requirements and whether he had already met those. Mr. Hovland replied the test is the ICC national general contractor’s test. Ms. Manno replied Mr. Everitt would need to complete testing of the current Code year, which is G, or 2018, to request an upgraded license classification. She stated Mr. Everitt has completed level N, the 2009 Code year. Member Richards asked if the mentor was present for inspections or visited the previous construction site. Mr. Everitt replied he was not required to be present for inspections; however, he occasionally came by the site, and they had conversations. Member Penning noted it is important for contractors to be tested on current Codes as life and safety items are a consideration. Mr. Everitt replied he is aware of those issues as he has built this exact building before. Member Penning noted the goal of the mentorship program is to ensure builders have the resources to understand complexities. Mr. Hovland concurred with Member Penning noting the D1 versus C2 licenses involve two separate Code books and different life safety issues; however, he noted Mr. Everitt did satisfactorily build the previous project. He also noted the mentor is not required to be on site for inspections unless issues arise. Chair Cram stated the mentor provides a good safety net along the way to getting a C2 license. Board Discussion Member Richards agreed with Members Penning and Johnson that they should stay with the mentor program and not deviate as it was successful for Mr. Everitt previously. He suggested it could be beneficial to require the mentor to be onsite for inspections and noted mentors could also be helpful in providing information related to material substitutions given current supply issues. Member Penning concurred and stated the mentor program is designed to guide and teach; therefore, a phone call may not be sufficient. She agreed more onsite presence of the mentor should be required. Member Johnson stated he would support a slightly less stringent requirement for the mentor to be onsite, particularly given Mr. Hovland’s confidence in Mr. Everitt’s ability to complete this project successfully. Member Richards suggested there should be a minimum amount of contact or presence for the mentor going forward. Member Penning agreed with Member Richards and stated that may not be necessary for this project, however, some type of minimum contact should be required for the mentorship program moving forward in order for it to achieve its teaching goals. Mr. Hovland noted the mentor program agreement states that if a project is not going well, the mentorship can be revoked. Member Richards asked Mr. Hovland what would rise to the level of revoking the program. Mr. Hovland replied multiple failed inspections on the same items, large life safety items not being considered, and supervision being obviously lacking would be reasons to revoke the mentorship program for a project. Chair Cram asked Mr. Hovland if it was possible to include in the agreement a certain level of requiring the mentor to be onsite. Mr. Hovland replied the agreement form could be changed to include anything; however, he noted the number of required inspections on a multi-family project could lead to an undue hardship if the mentor was required to be present at all of those. He stated he does not believe that requirement is necessary at this point. Ms. Manno clarified Mr. Everitt is licensed under the correct level of exam, just under an older Code cycle. Chair Cram noticed item number 2 of the mentor agreement requires some onsite supervision by the mentor. Mr. Hovland noted that amount is not specifically quantified and asked if it could be modified. Mr. Guin replied this mentorship agreement was based on an order from the Commission in 2019 and the Commission could modify the agreement as it desires for this new request. DocuSign Envelope ID: 6532AE99-C859-4F94-8FC3-027ED58EA378 City of Fort Collins Page 4 December 16, 2021 Member Richards suggested testing requirements should exist for builders prior to mentorships being granted and stated the Commission should set a minimum of perhaps four onsite contact dates to be submitted to the Chief Building Official as part of the mentorship agreement. Member Johnson questioned whether the Commission may be requiring too much as the ability for the City to request more oversight based on the progress of a specific project already exists. He stated Mr. Everitt has a good track record and giving the City the leeway to exercise its best judgement makes sense. Member Penning reiterated this particular situation may not need to include these requirements; however, they should be part of the mentorship agreements in the future. She stated the agreements should also be clearer that the exam requirement is for an updated exam. She stated there should be more discussion about what the official program looks like in the future. Member Richards agreed with Member Penning that for this particular situation, he would like to see the correct ICC testing achieved; however, the current agreement is fine in this case, given Mr. Everitt’s track record. Chair Cram stated a mentorship could help Mr. Everitt prepare for the exam. Member Johnson stated the test is not as valuable as practical experience. Member Penning stated she does believe Mr. Everitt should pass the exam and noted the exams are valuable in learning how and where to access Code information. Motion Member Richards moved to approve Mr. Everitt’s request for a license and supervisor’s certificate for this project based on the completion of a mentorship agreement similar to the one used in the past, pursuant to completion of the correct ICC exam as required by the City of Fort Collins. Member Penning seconded. The motion passed 4-0. [Timestamp: 10:05 a.m.] 3. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE BUILDING REVIEW COMMISSION’S 2022 ANNUAL WORK PLAN DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to approve the 2022 Annual Work Plan of the Building Review Commission. STAFF: Russ Hovland, Interim Chief Building Official Staff Report Mr. Hovland presented the 2022 Work Plan for review. Public Input None. Board Questions and Discussion Member Penning suggested the inclusion of defining the mentorship program in the Work Plan. Chair Cram replied that is not a full-blown function of the Commission; however, it does have the opportunity to review the mentorship program. Mr. Hovland stated staff would bring its proposal for the program before the Commission for discussion. Board Deliberation Member Johnson moved to approve the 2022 Annual Work Plan of the Building Review Commission. Member Penning seconded. The motion passed 4-0. [Timestamp: 10:09 a.m.] DocuSign Envelope ID: 6532AE99-C859-4F94-8FC3-027ED58EA378 City of Fort Collins Page 5 December 16, 2021 4.PRESENTATION OF THE BUILDING REVIEW COMMISSION’S 2021 ANNUAL REPORT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to review the 2021 Annual Report of the Building Review Commission. STAFF: Russ Hovland, Interim Chief Building Official (**Secretary’s Note: This item was not considered.) OTHER BUSINESS Chair Cram noted Member Penning will not be returning to the Commission. Mr. Hovland announced Marcus Coldiron will be the new Chief Building Official. Chair Cram discussed other upcoming vacancies on the Commission, including Member Massey’s seat. Ms. Manno stated she was unsure if the City Clerk’s Office has received any applications for the vacancies. Member Penning stated she would be willing to reapply if necessary for the Commission to have a quorum. Members discussed residency requirements and the possibility of changing the meeting times. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cram adjourned the meeting at 10:19 a.m. Minutes prepared by TriPoint Data and respectfully submitted by Aubrie Brennan. Minutes approved by a vote of the Board on _________________________________ ______________________________ Marcus Coldiron, Chief Building Official Alan Cram, Chair 02/24/2022 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6532AE99-C859-4F94-8FC3-027ED58EA378