Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 12/18/2003Minutes approved by the Board at the January 29, 2004 Meeting FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting — December 18, 2003 1:00 D.M. LCouncil Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff 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 December 18, 2003, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: David Carr Charles Fielder Gene Little Bradley Massey John McCoy (arrived at 1:34 p.m.) Michael Smilie • BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: Leslie Jones 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 Carr made a motion to approve the minutes from the October 28, 2003. Smilie seconded the motion. The motion passed. The Board discussed the minutes from the November 20, 2003 meeting. Carr wanted the following correction made: page four, second paragraph, necessarily to unnecessarily. The Board agreed. Carr made a motion to approve the November 20, 2003 Is meeting. Little seconded the motion. The motion passed. BRB 12/18/2003 Page 2 Lee had an agenda revision. Lee wanted to defer the IRC update until the next meeting due to some changes. Can' stated that he will not be at the January meeting, and he had some suggestions and revisions. Fielder stated he had already submitted Carr's changes, and Lee stated that he has received them. Little made a motion to differ the IRC update meeting until the January Building Review Board meeting. Smilie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: — Yeas: Little, Fielder, Massey, Smilie, and Carr. Nays: None. 3. Contractor Appeal — Larry Schaap, d/b/a American Mechanical Service of Denver, 924-03 Fielder explained the procedures for contractor appeals. Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. The Appellant has applied for a license, but no project verification forms have been submitted. There was no evidence of a recent exam, although the Appellant has held a Denver license for several years. The Appellant requested an exam waiver based on his experience. Larry Schaap addressed the Board. Schaap explained that on October 10, 2003, he did a project for Wells Fargo Bank. On October 20, 2003, Schaap came to Fort Collins to obtain a license (the previous license he held with the City of Fort Collins expired), and was informed that he would have to take a test. Schaap gave an overview of his previous experience. Schaap started the job at the Wells Fargo Bank prior to having his license and received a stop work order. Schaap has been involved in mechanical contracting since 1960 and reviewed his experience and education. American Mechanical Services was a product of the merging of four separate smaller companies. Schaap stated that he has been involved with the Denver Building Code Committee for refrigeration for approximately six years. Schaap has also held offices in the National Organization for Air Conditioning Contractors of America for seven to eight years. Lee asked if Schaap was advised that a temporary license would be possible. Schaap stated yes and he leanied of it just before Thanksgiving. Due to personal circumstances Schapp has been unable to apply for a temporary license. Schaap stated that he sent out five project verification forms to be filled out, but he has only received two of them back. Schaap made his closing statements. Lee made his closing staterents. Lee noted that Schaap admitted to violating the licensing regulations. Lee stated that the Board would have to determine if Schaap could be issued a license based on the violation that has occurred. Smilie asked staff if there were any formal policies as to what licenses from others cities would be recognized by the City of Fort Collins. Lee stated that the City does not reciprocate licenses. Smilie made a motion to grant Schaap a temporary license, and consider later the exam waiver after the project verification fonns have been submitted. Fielder asked what the time period was for a temporary license. Smilie stated 90 days. Lee noted that the licensing ordinance stated that the building official could grant a 30 day temporary license. Smilie replied that 30 days would not be sufficient due to the next Board meeting not being held until January 29, 2004. Smilie BRB 12/18/2003 Page 3 then suggested 60 days. Massey asked Smilie if he was only looking at a • temporary license and not an exam waiver. Smilie replied yes. Massey asked staff if Schaal) would be at the next Board meeting due to the violation. Coldiron stated that typically contractors are sent a warning letter on their first violation. If another violation would occur then the contractor would have to appear before the Board. Massey questioned why the Board would have Schaap come up next month. Smilie stated that the temporary license would allow Schaap to get over the license hurdle. Smilie said that the Board could consider an exam waiver today, although Smilie wanted Schaap to provide project verification forms. Massey also wanted to consider the exam waiver. Massey seconded Smilie motion's regarding the 60 day temporary license. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: Little, Fielder, Massey, Smilie, and Carr. Nays: None. Massey made a motion to approve the exam waiver based on Schaap's previous experience and committees that he has been on, and other licenses that Schaap holds around the state. The approval was contingent on the submittal of project verification forms, insurance, and paying licensing fees. Fielder wanted a violation letter placed in his file per the direction of the Board. Massey agreed. Carr seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: Little, Fielder, Massey, Smilie, and Carr. • Nays: None. 4. Contractor Appeal — M. Timothy Nolting, 425-03 Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. The appellant has applied for a D2 license, has submitted a copy of one project verification, and a reference letter from a personal friend. The Appellant has not taken the exam. The appellant wished to perform structural alterations to a garage. The Appellant requested a waiver of the remaining experience for a Class D2 license or approval of a temporary license that would enable the Appellant to complete the project. Timothy Nolting addressed the Board. Nolting explained that he has just started a new business focusing on home repair and remodeling. His experience was based on personal work he has done for himself and his family. Nolting attended pre -engineering classes at Highland College. Nolting has been laid off for a year and a half, and decided to start his own business. Former co- workers have asked him to build an attic floor in the garage for storage purposes. Plans have been drawn with the aid of an architect. Nolting stated he has applied for a permit to add a two-story addition to his own home in the county. Nolting does not intend to be a contractor, but a handy man. Nolting stated that his request was two prong: (1) a temporary license to construct the attic floor; and (2) a waiver of project experience to obtain the D2 license. Nolting stated that the only project he had to submit to the City of Fort Collins was his own home. 0 BRB 12/18/2003 Page 4 t Nolting made his closing statements. Smilie asked if the Appellant has investigated liability insurance and if the insurance company covered this type of work. Nolting replied yes. Can- asked when Nolting was going to take the licensing exam. Nolting responded next month. Lee made his closing statements. He mentioned that one of the fundamental aspects of the licensing regulations was to assure that applicants possess experience sufficient to obtain a license or demonstrate to the Board -that they have some other type of experience that can be considered. Lee read out of the code. Smilie asked the Appellant if he sought a temporary license. Nolting replied no. Lee commented that a temporary license would not be issued because Nolting was not qualified. The Board discussed previous situations where individuals have not had the required experience and exemptions they have given. Massey and Nolting discussed the one project verification form that Nolting had submitted. Little stated that there were a lot of ways to gain experience. Little stated the attic floor project was not complicated. Little commented that Nolting had the right to gain experience, but also needed to pass the test. Little made a motion to approve a temporary license that would enable Nolting to complete the attic floor project. Nolting would have to first take and pass the licensing exam. McCoy seconded the motion. The motion failed. Vote: Yeas: Little, McCoy, and Fielder. Nays: Massey, Smilie, and Carr. 5. Contractor Appeal — James Rowan, d/b/a J. Rowan Design and Construction, Inc., #26-03 Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. The Appellant has a Class D1 license, and has the opportunity to complete projects that are outside the scope of his license. The first was an addition to a clubhouse at Parkwood East Apartments, in which a C1 license was required. The second was to repair some fire damage to a multi -family unit. The Appellant sought exemptions to perform the proposed projects under his current license. Jaynes Rowan addressed the Board. Rowan explained the project pertaining to the fire damage. The structural aspect was to replace trusses with no modification to the exterior walls. Lee asked if the Appellant was speaking of the roof truss system. Rowan replied yes. Lee replied that the trusses would be a part of the structural frame, and Rowan would need a C2 license to perform the work. Rowan stated the clubhouse project was an addition of a maintenance garage, which was party to one of the walls of the existing clubhouse. Also part of the project was an addition to the front of the existing clubhouse. Lee explained the C2 license requirement to Rowan. Rowan stated that he has built three homes where the scope of work was higher than the proposed project. Rowan was confident in his ability to perform the work. Lee asked Rowan if the clubhouse addition would include a fire -resistive separation wall. Rowan explained that currently it was all concrete because there were handball courts on the l BRB 12/18/2003 Page 5 • other side of the wall. The separation wall was all concrete. Lee replied that it was two occupancies an S and a B occupancy. Lee asked if there was any specialized construction pertaining to the front office addition. Rowan and Lee discussed the scope and technicalities of the project. Massey asked if an architect or engineer drew the plans. Rowan replied yes. Rowan made his closing statements. Rowan noted that he had an architectural engineering degree from the University of Colorado and reviewed his other qualifications. Lee had no further comments. Little wanted clarification regarding the exemptions and the license classes that would be required for each. Lee stated that the work on the clubhouse would require a Class C1 license, and the fire damage repair would require a C2 license based on the involvement of the structural frame. Little asked what the limitations were on the D1 license. Lee responded single and two- family dwellings. Massey made a motion that based on Rowan having a D1 license, having built more complex residential homes, and the fact that the two projects are generally similar to residential (light wood frame, etc.) that the Board grant him an exemption to his D1 license for these two projects. Carr seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: Little, McCoy, Fielder, Massey, Smilie, and Carr. Nays: None. 406. Contractor Appeal — Pat Sullivan, d/b/a J.P. Sullivan Building Maintenance Management and Remodel, #27-03 The application was withdrawn. 7. Contractor Appeal — Bill Temes, d/b/a Custom Design Storage Sheds, Inc., License 4D2-62 (temporary and expired), #28-03 Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. The Appellant was granted a temporary D2 license in October of 2002, although the Appellant needed to finalize the exam. The Appellant has failed the exam on two occasions. The last time he took the exam he received a score of 71%, and a 75% was needed to pass. The Appellant specialized in storage buildings, garages, decks, steps, and landings. The Appellant does not get involved with additions and new homes. Lee remarked that there was only one D category test because both D1 and D2 license holders are able to build major portions of a building (D1 the entire building). The Appellant was not familiar with entire residential construction requirements. The ordinance specified that once an applicant failed the exam twice there was a six-month waiting period, unless the Board granted other criteria or the Appellant took a course. The Board granted an eight month extension to his temporary license which expired in September. The Appellant took the exam for a third time and failed. The Appellant requested that the 71% exam be considered as a suitable score for approval of a Miscellaneous and Minor Structures license. The Miscellaneous and Minor BRB 12/18/2003 Page 6 Structures license would cover most of the Appellant's projects. The Appellant also sought an exemption to include a 1500 square feet limit or the maximum size of the proposed buildings. Bill Ternes addressed the Board. Temes stated that the 1500 square feet waiver could be lowered to 1000 square feet because he has discontinued his 30 x 40 garage. Ternes stated that the biggest garage that he builds is a 24 x 36. Ternes stated that he did not understand why he had to take a D1 test to build garages and stated his case. Temes noted that be wanted a Miscellaneous and Minor Structure license with an exemption regarding the size. Temes stated that he was not good at taking tests. Theresa Temes, Bill's wife, addressed the Board. Mrs. Temes attested to her husband's struggle with taking exams. Lee said that on the application Ternes requested a D2 license, and asked Temes if that was his intention. Temes replied that he was told that he had to have a D2 license. Lee stated that a D2 license was required for a garage. Temes noted that his largest product was 720 square feet. Lee reiterated that a D2 license was required. Lee said that the Miscellaneous and Minor Structures license does not allow construction of private garages. It was a specialty license. There was a discussion held regarding the differences between the D2 and the Miscellaneous and Minor Structures license. Carr asked staff if the statement in Temes letter was true regarding not having failed inspections. According to the permit database, Ternes has passed items where permits were required. Temes made his closing statements. Lee made his closing statements, and stated Temes sought a limited D2 license. Massey made a motion to approve a limited D2 license. The limitations include: (1) single story; (2) up to 1000 square feet; and (3) to include garages, sheds, decks, carports, and steps. Massey based the approval on Temes' experience and his nearly passing test score for a full D2 license. Little seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: Little, McCoy, Fielder, Massey, Smilie, and Carr. Nays: None. 8. Other Business Lee stated that City Council met on the 16`h and a quick overview of the IRC was presented. There was considerable discussion afterwards. The IRC will be scheduled for ordinance in early March. Meeting adjourned at 3:01 p.m. Felix Lee, BUcVg & Zoning Director Charles Fielder, Cl irperson