Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/2022 - Building Review Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingPage 1 Alan Cram, Chair Location: Tim Johnson, Vice Chair REMOTE Via Zoom Gabe Dunbar Shaun Moscrip Eric Richards Staff Liaison: Mark Teplitsky Marcus Coldiron Ronnie Zimmerman Chief Building Official AGENDA NOVEMBER 17, 2022 9:00 AM Building Review Commission This remote Building Review Commission meeting will be available online via Zoom or by phone. No Board members will attend in person. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 8:30 a.m. Participants should try to join at least 15 minutes prior to the 9:00 a.m.. start time. ONLINE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: • You will need an internet connection on a laptop, computer, or smartphone, and may join the meeting through Zoom at https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/92888094308. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). Keep yourself on muted status. • For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to comment. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BY PHONE: • Please dial 253-215-8782 and enter Webinar ID 928 8809 4308. Keep yourself on muted status. • For public comments, when the Chair asks participants to click the “Raise Hand” button if they wish to speak, phone participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Board. When you are called, hit *6 to unmute yourself. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE ONLINE OR BY PHONE: Individuals who are uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or participate by phone may: 1) Email comments to mmatsunaka@fcgov.com at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. If your comments are specific to any of the discussion items on the agenda, please indicate that in the subject line of your email. Staff will ensure your comments are provided to the Board. 2) Come in person to 281 N. College Avenue to utilize City technology to participate in the meeting. Please arrive 15 minutes prior to the meeting and ring the doorbell at the north entrance so that staff may escort you into the building. Masks and social distancing will be required. To participate this way, it is strongly recommended that you contact us at least 24 hours prior to the meeting so that arrangements for proper social distancing and appropriate technology can be put in place to protect the health and safety of the public and staff. Contact Melissa Matsunaka at mmatsunaka@fcgov.com or 970-224-6070. Documents to Share: Any document or presentation a member of the public wishes to provide to the Board for its consideration must be emailed to mmatsunaka@fcgov.com at least 24 hours before the meeting. Packet Pg. 1 Page 2 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2022 The purpose of this item is to consider approval of the minutes from the October 27, 2022 regular meeting of the Building Review Commission. 2. ORDINANCE TO ALLOW REMOTE PARTICIPATION AT HEARINGS DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to give the commission the opportunity to voice support or concern with an ordinance intended to be presented to Council on December 6th to (re)-allow remote participation at hearings. While a recommendation on this matter from the BRC is not required, all potentially affected commissions are welcome to provide a recommendation about the new ordinance, which would re-establish the possibility of remote participation for meetings beginning in 2023. STAFF: Marcus Coldiron, Chief Building Official Russell Hovland, Co-Interim Sr. Mgr., Building & Development Review • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Packet Pg. 2 Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY NOVEMBER 17, 2022 Building Review Commission STAFF Melissa Matsunaka, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 27, 2022 BRC MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes of the October 27, 2022 meeting of the Building Review Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. BRC October 27, 2022 Minutes – DRAFT Packet Pg. 3 City of Fort Collins Page 1 October 27, 2022 Alan Cram, Chair This meeting was Tim Johnson, Vice Chair held at Council Chambers, Gabe Dunbar 300 LaPorte Ave Shaun Moscrip Eric Richards Staff Liaison: Mark Teplitsky Marcus Coldiron Ronnie Zimmerman Chief Building Official Meeting Minutes October 27, 2022 A regular meeting of the Building Review Commission was held on Thursday, October 27, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. •CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 8:01 a.m. •ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunbar, Johnson, Moscrip, Richards, Teplitsky, Zimmerman ABSENT: Cram STAFF: Coldiron, Manno, Guin, Matsunaka, Brennan •PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. •DISCUSSION AGENDA [Timestamp: 9:03 a.m.] 1.CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 27, 2022 MEETING. Richards moved to approve the minutes of the September 29, 2022 meeting. Moscrip seconded. The motion passed 6-0. 2.USA EAGLE CARPORTS NEW LICENSE REQUEST WITHOUT EXAM DESCRIPTION: Mr. Holland of USA Eagle Carports, Inc. is requesting a new license and supervisor’s certificate to be issued without a passing ICC testing certificate. Building Review Commission DRAFTITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 4 City of Fort Collins Page 2 October 27, 2022 Disclosure of Conflicts None. Staff Presentation Admin Services Manager Manno presented the staff report. The appeal was a new license request for a waiver of the testing requirement for a Class C1(DR) license and supervisor’s certificate to build carports for a development. Mike Hall would be presenting for USA Eagle Carports. An application was received in September of 2021 for David Murphy, which was incomplete and returned. In April 2022, she received an email from Jordan Mike asking which license classification would be needed. Hall also called and emailed to ask what was required for a license to be issued. Manno answered those questions several times. In April 2022, a new incomplete application was received for a person named Clark. Manno again communicated with employees of USA Eagle explaining what was missing from the application and why testing was necessary. In June 2022, Hall informed her the individual did not work for USA Eagle anymore and a new application would be sent. No new application was received, and USA Eagle had instead chosen to appeal to the Commission. The City was following the 2021 ICC Codes, but since new testing had not been made available the CBO allowed for the highest year testing available, as well as the year below it. The City would accept 2018 testing, with some exceptions where 2015 was the most recent available. The C1(DR) license was required because the carports would be assembled at a multi-family dwelling. Staff recommended denial of the request based on current testing requirements and lack of a complete licensing application packet; to issue a license, the Commission could require a current testing certificate. However, the Commission could grant the request and allow issuance of a new license without testing. Appellant Presentation Hall and Mike spoke to the Commission on behalf of USA Eagle. Hall stated USA Eagle was solely a carport company, and it had been hired by the main contractor to fabricate and build the carports onsite in Fort Collins. It had been in business for 30 years, operated nationwide, and had never needed to apply for a license to do work as a subcontractor working under the General Contractor license. He had been in contact with Manno because he was unsure about what kind of license would be needed. They had worked in Denver and Colorado Springs previously. An employee had taken the required testing twice and fallen short. USA Eagle was appealing to the Commission because it was pressed for time on the project and needed work to begin as soon as possible. Mike worked for the general contractor of the multi-family dwelling project. He stated his company had multiple building projects underway in Fort Collins. It was important to have licensed supervisors onsite and to continue a good working relationship with the City. He was supporting USA Eagle’s request. They built carports for a variety of project classifications across the country. His company would ask them to solely focus on carports, nothing more. Board Questions of Staff and Parties-in-Interest Vice Chair Johnson asked if USA Eagle had anything to add and Hall pointed out carports were treated as relatively minor on the ICC Exam. He directed the Commission to the Commercial Buildings Tab under General Contractor on the City’s Contractor Licensing website and asked why they could not fall under a Class MM license. Manno clarified it was for single family or residential areas. Class C2 was held by the General Contractor and was for multi-family residential buildings, but everything else constructed in the development is considered commercial in nature by the Code. Hall pointed out that sometimes carports fall under the same section as awnings and he would not need a license to attach an awning to the buildings here; could the carports be considered as something attached to the building? Moscrip asked for an explanation of the design of the carports. Hall provided drawings to the Commission with engineer stamps. There were two 36-foot long structures. Due to snow in Colorado, the materials are strengthened compared to carports they build elsewhere. Their engineers were very good at tailoring the carports to the project. The two carport designs were identical structures, with one 43 feet and one 36. They would be married together to make a big carport. DRAFTITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 5 City of Fort Collins Page 3 October 27, 2022 Richards asked Staff if the General Contractor holds the appropriate license, what the requirement for Subcontractors would be. Manno answered they had the same standards, each one must turn in a complete application license packet for the applicable license and hold a license with the City. In this particular instance, the C1(DR) was needed for a structural addition on a commercial property. Richards asked if there was any other classification the City could use for this specific type of work. Manno said no, MM licenses were for residential carports but the Commission could possibly find some common ground there since the structure in the development is residential in nature. Coldiron stated it would not work because MM holders build smaller carports for individual homeowners. Guin advised variances from the strict application of the Code could be granted if the Commission found there was an exceptional difficulty or undue hardship or if the Commission found the applicant had other qualifications not specifically listed in Code which would qualify the applicant to perform the construction in a competent manner but there would not be substantial detriment to the public good. Richards asked what inspections and oversight would be required from the City for a structure like the carports. Coldiron said these kind of structures would typically need to be inspected by a credentialed third party inspector but if the Commission preferred a City inspector could do it as part of the Commission’s requirements if granting the applicant’s request. Teplitsky asked if the General Contractor had a supervisor onsite would it waive the requirements so USA Eagle could build the carports under its umbrella. Manno answered it did not because all trades were required to have a license or registration. No one could use another’s license to cover their work. Johnson asked if the General Contractor had to have the supervisor’s certificate and license and each subcontractor had to have their own, as well. Manno said that was correct. Teplitsky asked Hall if they had scored 66 and 62 on attempts at passing testing, with the passing grade being 70. Hall said they failed the structural part of the test, which was 22 percent. Hall asked if the requirement was for a General Contractor to build the carports. Manno clarified a licensed party had to build them, but the way the City’s licensing worked the C1(DR) was a General Contractor’s license. Hall emphasized that time was of the essence in beginning work on the carports. The next test would be offered in December, but it took seven or eight hours away from someone that could be working on other projects in Colorado. Hall provided a document showing what topics were on the test, how they were weighted, and how employees had scored in each area on the test. Richards asked Hall how many projects with which they were involved and how many licenses USA Eagle currently held. They did not hold licenses because they had never need them. USA Eagle was a nationwide company that had been around for 30 years and had built over a million carports. It averaged from $14 to 20 million in revenue each year. Dunbar asked about the differences between residential and commercial carports. Manno did not know and would have to look it up. Teplitsky asked which project Hall had under contract within the City. Hall did not have any because he could not sign a contract in good conscience knowing he was not yet allowed to work within the City. He wanted to work with Mike’s company on the project discussed and there were others wanting to hire him. Hall wanted to work in the City. Mike wanted to have USA Eagle build carports for them for current projects in Colorado Springs and other locations in Colorado. He had a development in Fort Collins next year for which he wanted to hire USA Eagle. His company had supervisors with certificates in the City and they would be onsite supervising USA Eagle staff for that project. Teplitsky asked if USA Eagle’s request was granted that day, when would the project begin. Mike said roughly two weeks in November. The duration would be less than two to three weeks. Teplitsky asked if there was another project in Fort Collins for which he would hire USA Eagle in the future. No project as described was set in stone. Manno stated the G11 testing covers the International Building Code (IBC), G12 covers both the IBC and the International Residential Code (IRC), and G13 covers the IRC only. As to licensing, G13 was the class C, G12 was the Class B, and G11 is the Class A. Teplitsky asked Manno if the project was permit ready, aside from the USA Eagle license issue. Manno looked it up, and the permit was just waiting on a contractor license to be approved. Teplitsky asked Guin what the protocol was for the Commission to talk amongst themselves. Guin said once questions were satisfied, the Chair could open up discussion. Alternatively, a motion could be made, then discussion about the motion would follow. Vice Chair Johnson clarified that he could open discussion but if there were more questions, the Commission could ask them. Guin affirmed. DRAFTITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 6 City of Fort Collins Page 4 October 27, 2022 Teplitsky thanked Manno for looking up the permit information and verified the project in South Fort Collins was the one for which USA Eagle was requesting a license. Manno replied it was a project with five pending permits on Horizon Drive waiting for USA Eagle’s particular license. Motion and Board Discussion Vice Chair Johnson closed the hearing and asked for discussion. Richards felt that USA Eagle had demonstrated vast knowledge and experience with carports. He thought it would be unreasonable to ask them to demonstrate a much wider knowledge on a test than what they perform. Third party inspections and a licensed supervisor onsite were sufficient to guarantee safety. The licensing requirements were overly burdensome and restrictive in this specific instance, but he wondered what would happen if USA Eagle wanted to join another project in Fort Collins in the future. Johnson said when Guin reviewed the Code, the thing that struck him was the public good. He felt that was why Code was in place and established specific processes. He did not think it was the Commission’s place to say parts of the Code were unnecessary. It existed to protect the public. Guin reminded the Commission they could approve the request with conditions. Zimmerman asked which was better: if the General Contractor built the carports because it had the license to do so or if USA Eagle built them with its vast specialized experience. He posited the public would be safer if USA Eagle built the carports. Teplitsky was encouraged that USA Eagle had taken the test twice and come close to passing. If the test taker had gotten two more questions correct, he would have passed and been qualified to build structural items. He was not engineering the carports, but instead they would be engineered and inspected by a third party. The safequards were already in place to ensure safety and Code compliance. However, his strong preference was to follow the Code and require normal licensing procedures, which was what the Commission usually required in the spirit of fairness and precedent. He pointed out the Commission had granted temporary licenses in the past to allow time to take the test, as well as variances which Guin had suggested. Moscrip said it did not undermine the public good to allow this one project to go forward. The Commission could consider requiring USA Eagle to take the test for subsequent projects. He asked the contractors on the Commission what their experience was like with construction of pre-engineered shelters. Dunbar said they always hire a third party, Teplitsky said they had done it both ways, and Johnson said they used a third party and the permitting and licensing of that part was all through the subcontractor. Teplitsky wanted to move toward crafting a motion. He would be in favor of granting an exemption to allow USA Eagle to build the current project with the requirement that any further projects require a passing test grade to be licensed; if there was no passing grade, a similar appeal would be required. Vice Chair Johnson asked if Teplitsky would allow USA Eagle to build one carport or all five involved in the project, and Teplitsky said all after verifying that the entire apartment complex, including carports, would be built in 30 days or less. He thought if necessary, they could apply for extensions on this project, but USA Eagle should provide required testing for the next project. Richards read through a proposed motion drafted by City staff and asked if there was a way to require the General Contractor to have a supervisor onsite and were there safeguards from the City to ensure it happened. Coldiron replied Code required a supervisor to be onsite during inspections. If a license was granted to USA Eagle, its supervision would be sufficient to build carports and the General Contractor’s supervision would not be necessary. Richards asked which company was the permit holder. USA Eagle would be the permit holder for the carports. Vice Chair Johnson clarified from a practical standpoint, the named supervisor was not always onsite but would be for inspections. Guin asked if the Commission would like to tweak any conditions for the proposed motion on their screens. Dunbar asked City staff if a third party inspection report would be required before issuing Certificates of Occupancy for this project. Coldiron said that was correct. Richards moved based on Staff’s report and analysis, and the evidence and testimony presented today I move to APPROVE the applicant’s request for a variance from the licensing standards in this Appeal in accordance with Section 15-156 of the City Code, WITH CONDITIONS. DRAFTITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 7 City of Fort Collins Page 5 October 27, 2022 I find that: The applicant has demonstrated to my satisfaction that they possess other qualifications such as specialized knowledge and significant experience in building these types of structures that is not specifically listed in our Contractor Licensing section of the City Code that would qualify the applicant to perform construction authorized under the license or certificate sought in a competent manner. AND The applicant has demonstrated that, if the relief requested were granted, there would not be substantial detriment to the public good and would not substantially impair the intent and purpose of this section of the City Code, particularly as there is a general contractor and supervisor with the requisite license on site and Building Services will still perform inspections. The CONDITIONS upon the approval I want to require are: This variance is applicable to this project only and only as to carports; no other work in the City of Fort Collins is to be performed by Applicant until such time as the Applicant meets all requirements of the City’s building code, including passing the required ICC exam. Moscrip seconded. The motion passed 5-1. Manno stated Staff would need an application packet from USA Eagle, minus the testing, so she had their information to put into the City’s system. Vice Chair Johnson asked if the motion would need to be amended. Guin suggested getting an affirmation from the applicant on the record; they asked for a variance from the examination but would have to meet all the other requirements so an amended motion was not necessary. Vice Chair Johnson asked the applicant on the record if he understood the additional requirements. Hall understood and would follow them. [Timestamp: 10:10 a.m.] 3. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE BUILDING REVIEW COMMISSION’S 2023 ANNUAL WORK PLAN DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to approve the 2023 Annual Work Plan of the Building Review Commission. Staff Report Coldiron presented the staff report. The Work Plan covered the normal scope of BRC activities and the Commission was welcome to ask questions. Moscrip requested Coldiron to do a readthrough and Coldiron obliged. He stated the Contractor Mentorship Program would allow an additional path of compliance for contractor licensing with project verifications. Vice Chair Johnson stated the Commission had seen many instances where such a program was necessary. The Contractor Licensing item would make the process more streamlined and simple. It would be more in line with licensing throughout Northern Colorado. Board Deliberation Moscrip moved the Commission approve the Work Plan as presented in the October 27, 2022 Agenda. Vice Chair Johnson seconded. The motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 10:16 a.m.] • OTHER BUSINESS Coldiron reminded the Commission with the retraction of the Covid Emergency Order, they would now be meeting in person. Many had voiced concerns that in person format did not allow for meeting quorum or public comment. The City was looking at presenting an ordinance to Council in December DRAFTITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 8 City of Fort Collins Page 6 October 27, 2022 that would allow for virtual and hybrid meetings. He asked the Commission to think about and discuss if it would support the change in the November meeting. Guin stated the City Code did not allow for virtual and hybrid meetings. The Emergency Order allowed for remote meetings, but now the City had gone back to in person Boards and Commissions meetings. There was a proposal going before City Council in December to change Code to allow remote and hybrid meetings. Coldiron was asking them to consider if they would support it. • ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:19 a.m. Minutes prepared by Aubrie Brennan and respectfully submitted by Melissa Matsunaka. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on _________________________________ ______________________________ Marcus Coldiron, Chief Building Official Tim Johnson, Vice Chair DRAFTITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 9 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 1 STAFF REPORT Meeting Date Building Review Commission STAFF Marcus Coldiron- Chief Building Official SUBJECT ORDINANCE TO ALLOW REMOTE PARTICIPATION AT HEARINGS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to give the commission the opportunity to voice support or concern with an ordinance intended to be presented to Council on December 6th to (re)-allow remote participation at hearings. While a recommendation on this matter from the BRC is not required, all potentially affected commissions are welcome to provide a recommendation about the new ordinance, which would re-establish the possibility of remote participation for meetings beginning in 2023. BACKGROUND An emergency declaration approved by City Council in 2020, included allowing remote participation at all hearings in the interest of public safety during the pandemic. This emergency declaration was lifted in October 17th, 2022 which pivots hearings back to in-person and prevents remote participation. A draft ordinance to (re)-allow remote participation hearings is not yet available but will be based on the concept as follows: 1. Allowing remote participation by Commission members. Our observation is that this allows for greater participation by Commissioners, allows Commissioners to participate even if they are feeling unwell, and hasn’t detracted from the quality of participation. 2. Allowing remote participation by members of the public. Our observation is that this has opened up opportunities for members the public to provide comment who wouldn’t/couldn’t otherwise. 3. Allowing remote participation by applicant team members. Our observation is that we are more likely to get all of the specialist professionals who worked on the plan to be available for Commission questions if they can participate remotely. For some Commissions this has also made it easier to get projects scheduled for hearings. SAMPLE MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL: I move that the Building Review Commission recommend approval of the proposed ordinance to allow for remote participation in quasi-judicial meetings based on the above staff finding(s) [and/or the following additional findings (if applicable, list here)]. SAMPLE MOTION FOR DENIAL: I move that the Building Review Commission recommend denial of the proposed ordinance to allow for remote participation in quasi-judicial meetings based on the following findings: [list here]. Packet Pg. 10