Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 02/26/2004Minutes approved by the Board at the March 25, 2004 Meeting FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting — February 26, 2004 1:00 p.m. (Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat IStaff Liaison: Felix Lee (221-6760) Chairperson: Charles Fielder Phone: 484-0117(W), 207-0505(H) A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday February 26, 2004, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: David Carr Charles Fielder Leslie Jones Gene Little Bradley Massey Michael Smilie BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: John McCoy STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Building and Zoning Director Delynn Coldiron, Contractor Licensing Administrator Stacie Soriano, Staff Support AGENDA: ROLLCALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Fielder, and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Little made a motion to approve the minutes from the January 29, 2004, meeting. Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed with Carr abstaining. BRB 02/26/2004 Page 2 3. Building Code Appeal —Jim Hillhouse, Project Architect, Case # BCO1-04 Carr asked the Board if Jim Hillhouse's appeal would be heard at the next meeting or if the case would be dropped. Lee stated that everything had been done to contact the Appellant but Lee has not heard from him. Massey asked staff if Hillhouse wanted the Board to render a decision without representation. Lee did not know, but stated that it was not likely. Fielder was concerned with the maintenance issue of Mr. Hillhouse's proposal. The Board discussed Hillhouse's options. The Board agreed that the Appellant would need to be present. Little made a motion to table the appeal until staff has heard from the Appellant regarding the course of action he would like to pursue. Can- seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: Little, Jones, Fielder, Massey, Smilie, and Carr. Nays: None. 4. Contractor Appeal —Ron Grace, d/b/a Grace Commercial Builders, Inc., Case #05-04 Fielder explained the procedures for contractor appeals. Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. The Appellant sought a one-time exemption to his current Class E license for a tenant finish that included structural work. The structural work consisted of the installation of a header to support a TJI floor system. Grace obtained his class E license five years ago. Lee explained that an E license was limited to modifications that do not involve the structural frame of the building. The work would fall in the scope of a Class C1 license. The Appellant took the Class C1 exam and he did not pass. The Appellant planned on pursuing the C1 exam until he passed. Ron Grace, Grace Commercial Builders, addressed the Board. Grace reviewed his past experience. Last year Grace perfonned two million dollars worth of tenant finish projects. He also built the addition on the Windsor High School. Grace noted that he once shutdown a job upon its grand opening in Castle Pines. Grace stated that he did not feel safe regarding some 20 foot long gluelams on the roof. Grace explained the structural component of the tenant finish in question. He said that the header was 5 1/4 x 19 '/z x 20, and placement of the header would take four to six hours. Grace stated that the tenant finish was for Verizon Wireless, and Verizon Wireless was taking over another section of the building. Grace stated that he planned on pursuing the C 1 license. Lee wanted Grace to describe in more detail the structural nature of the project. Lee asked if the header was part of the frame of the building system. Grace replied that the Verizon Wireless store was taking over the area that was previously Palmer Garden's administration offices. Lee asked if the tenant space was in a larger building. Grace responded yes. The building over the years has been added onto with different construction techniques. The front of the store was steel stud. Lee asked if Grace had plans. Grace replied yes. Lee looked at the plans. Grace said that the building was a two-story building with a mezzanine. Grace and Lee discussed the plans. Lee asked if the proposed element was essential to the entire building. Grace said no, but it BRB 02/26/2004 Page 3 assumed the floor load above. Lee stated that it was not part of the structural frame and that it was an interior support system for the deck above. The element was not a critical support for the structure of the building. Lee commented that the proposed work would be allowed under the Class E license. Massey asked if the mezzanine would be occupied while Grace was temporarily shoring it. Grace responded that there would be workers up there. Massey asked if the floor was slab -on - grade. Grace said yes. Massey asked Grace if the new bearing wall would be temporarily shored, and placed on the slab. Grace said yes and explained his shoring process. Massey asked staff if the City had any protocol on public safety. Lee stated that he understood Massey's concern and that primarily staff relied on the discretion and prudence of the contractor. Staff would look at interim structural support for the existing loads. Massey asked if an engineer would size the header for Grace. Grace replied yes. Lee reiterated that if the support was not a part of the structural frame of the building, and Grace would be allowed to perform the work under his class E license. Carr asked how many hours would be required to do the entire project. Grace said that the entire project would take one month. Carr asked if Grace meant a month of 40 hour work weeks. Grace said yes. Lee recommended that Grace withdraw his application. Lee apologized and stated that he was not privy to the plans. Lee noted that staff probably looked at it and from the description gathered that it was structural. Lee quoted from the code, "that structural frame shall be considered to be the columns, girders, beams, trusses, and spandrels having direct connections to the columns and bracing members designed to carry gravity loads, and members of floor or 'roof panels that have no connection to the columns shall be considered secondary members and not part of the structural frame." Lee stated that it was about the envelope of the building. The incidental bearing systems within the envelope do not contribute to the overall integrity of the building. Grace withdrew his application. 5. Contractor Hearing—Marven Roth, d/b/a Colony Construction, License #13-84, Case #06-04 Fielder explained the procedures for contractor hearings. Lee provided an introduction to the hearing. Lee stated that the attached stop work orders were issued on consecutive days in the same development. The contractor of records had applications on file, but the permits had not been issued. Lee noted that work proceeded as evidenced by the stop work orders. Foundations were installed and the contractor called for an inspection. Lee met with Marven Roth and Roth admitted that the work was started without a permit. Lee said that Roth's license was suspended as of February 23, 2004. Lee alleged the following violations: (1) Knowing or deliberate disregard of the building code or any other code adopted by the city related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the supervisor or license holder set forth in this Article; (2) Failure to comply with any provision of the Code related to a specific constriction project under the responsibility of the supervisor certificate holder or license holder as set forth in this Article; and (6) Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be perfonmed. BRB 02/26/2004 Page 4 Marven Roth, Colony Construction, addressed the Board. Roth has been a builder in Fort Collins since 1984. Roth explained the situation. The problem, according to Roth, was "logging in" plans for approval at the City of Fort Collins, as well as the preliminary work for the engineer such as test boring for foundations. Roth stated there was a designated time to finish building a home. Roth said it was not an excuse but an error on his part regarding the scheduling. Mike Coleman, Roth's partner, also dealt with taking in pen -nits to the City. Roth said that the plans were taken to the city on January 20, 2004 and January 23, 2004. Roth remarked that due to scheduling and weather conditions it was his fault that the foundation work finished prior to obtaining building permits on both properties. Massey asked Roth what he meant by "logged in". Roth explained what he meant by "logged in." "Logged in" meant submitting for a permit after all the drawings and paperwork was completed. Massey asked staff if applicants for building permits were notified when their building pennit was ready. Lee offered some clarifications. Lee understood that staff had not done the plans reviews. Lee noted that the permits were applied for with the appropriate documents. Carr asked when the plans were "logged in". Roth stated January 20`h and 23`a Roth remarked that the City was backlogged with items for plan review. Roth has been told that it takes two to four weeks to obtain plan review approval. Roth said it was getting close to that time frame for him to schedule to the foundation work. The foundation work was done and inspected by engineers. Roth said that he had documentation that the foundation work was done legally by an engineer. Roth commented that he builds approximately 20 homes a year and the violation properties got out of sequence. Roth had a hunting trip planned and he failed to stop the foundation work on the second property that received a violation. Mike Coleman, Colony Construction, addressed the Board. Coleman stated that he was the one responsible for taking items to the Building Department. Coleman said the period of time to receive the soils report and the building permit was lengthy. Coleman stated that he used the Professional Plan Review Option (PPRO) and the option did not cut the amount of time to obtain a building permit. Coleman felt the City should have better judgment as to when building permit would be ready. Roth reiterated that the main problem was scheduling. Roth stated that the procedures he followed were typical in his process for obtaining a building permit. Roth affirmed that the only time an inspection was called for was for underground plumbing. Roth noted that it was a formality and reassured the Board that the situation would not rise again. Roth stated that a better system was needed. Roth explained how many weeks each step took in order to obtain a building permit. Fielder asked staff the meaning of an F&F permit. Lee stated that F&F stood for foundation and frame. Lee explained the PPRO. The original intent was to allow construction on an at risk basis with an engineer's design. Lee stated the PPRO originated prior to staff requiring structural calculations on wall framing and foundation. The PPRO will be revised and restructured. Lee stated that it was difficult to predict when a building permit was ready for the contractor. Lee confirmed that the plan review process was three to five weeks. BRB 02/26/2004 Page 5 Roth commented on the process of obtaining a building permit through Larimer County. Roth noted that within five to ten days an F&F permit would be issued. Roth said an F&F permit through the City had to go through the full plan review process. Roth stated that several of his projects have to extend the closing date. Jones commented that a lot of people are confused by the F&F permit. The F&F permit was for foundation and framing. Jones asked how much plan review was done to obtain an F&F permit. Jones stated that the F&F permit was beneficial to contractors. Lee said structural calculations were reviewed due to the framing portion of the F&F permit. Lee commented that the purpose of an F&F permit was to delay fees. Jones asked if the roof system was required in the review process. Lee said no. Massey asked staff if a permit would still need to be issued even if the contractor used PPRO. Lee said yes. Massey asked Roth if he thought he had the building permit. Coleman said he was responsible for obtaining the permit and the permit was not ready when he came to get it. The contractor that Roth had lined up had an opening. Roth said he was at fault. Roth was aware that he did not have the building permit but he did not want to get off schedule. Coleman explained his role. Massey asked Coleman when he started the foundation work Coleman replied that he had it staked out on January 28, 2004. Massey asked if true constriction was started when a hole was dug. Coleman stated that excavation was on February 16, 2004. Lee said that excavation and the placement of forms were not allowed without having a building pen -nit. Roth reiterated the scheduling issue with the contractor having an opening. Massey said it was a conscious decision for Roth to keep his schedule. Car asked when Roth obtained the building permits. Roth responded on February 23, 2004. Fielder wanted clarification on whether the Respondent applied for an F&F or a full permit. Lee stated that the first project was a PPRO. Massey asked if the PPRO authorized work to commence. Lee replied no. Jones stated that in order for work to begin an F&F permit was needed. Lee said that was correct. There was a discussion held regarding what work could be done under an F&F and a full permit. Lee had no further questions. Roth had no closing statements. Both Roth and Coleman were apologetic. Lee made his closing statements and noted that the appreciated the concern regarding the time it took to obtain a building permit. Lee noted that Colony Construction had no blemishes on their record. Lee reiterated the facts. Finding of Fact Little made a motion for the finding of fact and noted that the Respondent was guilty of 1, 2, and 6. Massey seconded the motion. Smilie was concerned with the willful nature of the offense. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: Little, Jones, Fielder, Massey, Smilie, and Carr. Nays: None. BRB 02/26/2004 Page 6 Determination Little noted that Colony Construction had a good reputation. Little was sympathetic regarding scheduling and weather issues. Little made a motion to place a letter or reprimand in Colony's file. Little requested that the license be reinstated. Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: Little, Jones, Fielder, Massey, Smilie, and Can-. Nays: None. 6. Contractor Hearing—Jarnes Larm, d/b/a Choice City Heating and Air Conditioning, License #C2-77. Case #07-04 Lee provided an introduction to the hearing. Lee stated a detailed letter and notarized statement from the customer was included in board packets. The letter addressed problems raised in the process of installing the air conditioner and heat pump. Lee said that a permit was not issued when information from the customer was received by staff. A permit was issued later after the installation on November 7, 2003. The installation tools place in mid -July and the inspection failed because the filter was on the wrong side of the cooling and heating coil. Lee suspended the Respondent's license as of February 23, 2004. Lee alleged the following violations: (1) Knowing or deliberate disregard of the building code or any other code adopted by the city related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the supervisor or license holder set forth in this Article; (2) Failure to comply with any provision of the Code related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the supervisor certificate holder or license holder as set forth in this Article; and (6) Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed. There was a dispute about the work performed. Rocky Mountain Air was hired to repair the heat pump and their letter was included in board packets. The Respondent does not have any other violations. James Laren addressed the Board. Larm explained why the inspection failed. He stated the filter and the coil were changed around at the time of installation, but the reason was unknown. Larm said that according to the customer, the coil was damaged. Larm admitted that he overlooked it. Larm said that he always obtained a permit prior to performing work. Laren was unsure of why a permit was not obtained. Laren said it was his fault. Larm has been licensed with the City of Fort Collins since 1981. Lee asked Larm if he was the license and certificate holder for the license. Larm replied yes. Lee asked Larm if he did the actual installation. Larm said yes. Larm noted that he was there with his partner. Lee wanted Larm to describe his experience with air conditioning and heat pump systems. Larm explained that he started in the field in 1968 in Boulder, Colorado. He mainly performed work for custom homes. Larm has been in the commercial business for eight years. The majority of his experience was residential, although he has done some light commercial. He also has approximately eight to nine years of commercial installation experience. Lar n explained that he did installations the old way. He remarked that he had BRB 02/26/2004 Page 7 fabrication experience as well. Larm joined the union. Lee asked Latin if he was certified in air conditioning and heat pump systems. Larm had a certification for CFC disposal and knowledge of Freon systems. This certification qualified him for air conditioning installations. Lee questioned Larm's union certification and if it covered general HVAC systems or refrigeration. Laren responded that the union certified him to do installations in skyscrapers. Lee asked Larne if he had seen Rocky Mountain Air's invoice. Latin said he looked at it. Lee wondered if Lann disputed any other their claims. Larm replied that there are two sides to a story and felt rocks were being thrown at him due to competition. Larm felt the letter was exaggerated. Latin stated that the system needed to be charged with Freon. The customer denied Laren to come back and charge the system. Carr stated the situation entailed a lot of "he -said, she -said" which was hard to document. Carr asked why there was a five month delay in obtaining a permit. Lann stated that it was his fault he did not obtain a building permit and he could not remember why. Larm assured the Board that the situation would not happen again. Larm said that the customer never used her air conditioning and the system was not checked. If the customer had turned on her air conditioner, according to Lann, the situation could have been remedied. Laren understood that the customer used the system when the weather got colder and the unit froze due to a low charge of Freon. Fielder stated the issue before the Board was the permit. Larm made his closing statements and apologized for the incident. Lee made his closing statements. Lee noted that a permit was not obtained until Rocky Mountain Air was called to investigate. Lee was concerned with the implications in the letter regarding the installation. In September, the customer allegedly found a huge space between the filter and the cabinet which allowed access for unfiltered air into the crawl space. Lee was concerned with Larm's technical skills. Fielder stated that there was no proof. Lee agreed and stated it was an allegation. The only proof staff had, was the improper location of the filter. Massey asked Larm how many jobs he averaged in Fort Collins in a year. Larm replied that most of his work was in Greeley, Severance, Windsor, Loveland, and Larimer County. Laren said three percent of his work was in Fort Collins. Massey asked what the jobs usually entailed. Laren responded replacement of a furnace or air conditioner. Larm noted that most of his work was for new construction. The general contractor was responsible for obtaining a building permit. Massey agreed with Lee in that the letter from Rocky Mountain Air brought attention to some specific points. Fielder noted his personal experience with heating and air conditioning companies. He said their own people verbally destroy each other. Fielder felt that Rocky Mountain Air's comments should be taken with a grain of salt. Jones wanted Larm to expand on his comments regarding the customer not wanting the air conditioner. Laren explained that the customer lived in a house that was covered with trees and air conditioning was not needed. The heat pump was needed due to the fact that the customer did not have gas in her house. Laren explained that a heat pump was very efficient when natural gas was not available. Jones felt that the customer had the right to have a working air conditioner. Lann reiterated his comments that the situation could have been taken care of if the air conditioner was turned on. Larm said he was not trying to deprive the customer. Massey BRB 02/26/2004 Page 8 stated that the letter implied that Larm was given four to five chances to fix the unit. Lana said that when the customer called she was outrageous and upset. Larm went over and looked at the unit. The unit was frosted up and he attempted some corrections. At the time Larm was unaware that it was the Freon charge. According to Larm, the customer called again to tell Larm that the unit was frosting, and it was at this time the customer denied Larm permission to repair the unit. There was a discussion held between Larm and Jones regarding how long an air conditioner would be able to nm without it frosting up. Jones was concerned with Lann's ability. Massey wanted to know why the customer contacted Larm in November. Can and Fielder stated that the permit was the issue. Finding of Fact Carr made a motion for a finding of fact that Larm was guilty of items two and six. Smilie felt that there was some negligence involved and that item one should be included. Smilie wanted the motion amended. Can agreed. Little seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: Little, Jones, Fielder, Massey, Smilie, and Carr. Nays: None. Determination Carr asked if the Board could recommend a fine. Lee stated that the Board was unable to impose a monetary fine. Massey had some concerns about the installation, but there was no proof. Smilie stated there were some oversight and supervision issues. Smilie wanted some way to inform staff that inspections done for Larm would need to be done carefully. Massey asked Larm if he performed the work. Larm said yes and that he worked together with his partner. Little was troubled that two individuals were perfonning the installation and it was still done incorrectly. Little also stated it was important to note that no other complains against Larm have been filed. Little commented that inspections were extremely valuable and it was verification that the job was performed correctly. Smilie asked staff if the Board was in a position to require proof of competency. Lee said yes. Smilie asked how the rest of the Board felt about such an imposition. Smilie stated that it could be done through retesting. Lee stated that Lamm took the exam and scored well. The code has not been changed since Larm took the exam. He took the exam in March of 2001. Fielder was hesitant about imposing a proof of competency. Massey made a motion that a letter of reprimand be placed in Larn's file and that his license be reinstated. Fielder wanted to amend the motion that future inspections be done with extra caution. The Board discussed Fielder's amendment. Staff informed the Board that it was possible to notify the inspector about any of Larm's inspections. Massey agreed to the amendment. Smilie seconded the motion. The motion passed with Jones abstaining. Vote: BRB 02/26/2004 Page 9 Yeas: Little, Fielder, Massey, Smilie, and Carr. Nays: None. Abstain: Jones. 7. Other Business Lee gave board members an update on the IRC. Lee stated the City Council meeting date for first reading had been changed to April 20, 2004. This would allow more time to discuss issues that Council raised during the study session on February 10, 2004. Lee noted that the majority of the discussion was centered on radon mitigation. Smilie asked staff if the Board should have a recommendation ready by the next meeting. Lee said yes. Lee noted that he would have a final draft ready for the Board to consider. Little asked staff if the position of the Homebuilder's Association was known regarding radon. Lee commented that he had not seen an official written position. Fielder stated he may not be at the March 25, 2004, meeting. Lee wanted a written recommendation from Fielder prior to the March 25, 2004, meeting. Meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m. Felix Lee, Building & Zoning Director 1-7 Charles Fielder, Chairperson