Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 05/27/2004FCouncT=LiaisonlKaren inutes approved by the Board at the June 24, 2004 Meeting FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting — May 27, 2004 1.00 .m. Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Felix Lee 221-6760 hai erson: Charles Fielder Ehone: 484-0117(W), 207-0505(H) A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday May 27, 2004, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: David Carr Leslie Jones arrived at 1:10 p.m. John McCoy Bradley Massey Michael Smilie BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: • Charles Fielder Gene Little 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 Vice -Chairperson Massey, and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Carr made a motion to approve the minutes from the April 29, 2004, meeting. McCoy seconded the motion. The motion passed. Contractor Appeal—Raju Jairam, d/b/a MBI Corporation, Case #10-04 • Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. Jairam's license had expired past the 60-day grace period and he was seeking Board approval to reinstate his Class A license and to waive the required exam. Lee explained that under the new licensing regulations, Jairam does not have sufficient documentation to support a Class A license. According to Lee, the ordinance requires documentation of a project that is more than five stories in height. Lee clarified that the applicant's license was originally issued in February of 1988 and that the documentation Jairam provided at that time is sufficient for a Class B license under today's ordinance requirements. Lee noted that staff issued a temporary Class B license to the applicant due to a pending project. Jairam addressed the Board. He explained the lapse in his license was unintentional. Jairam stated that he faxed project verification forms to the Building Department for projects that were four to six stories in height that were done as part of an ongoing contract with the government over the last five years in Colorado Springs. Massey asked Jairam to expand on the scope of the work. Jairam referred Massey to the delivery order section on the forms he submitted for the description of work. The work consisted of renovations to existing structures. Leo Peterson, project and office manager for MBI Corporation, addressed the Board. He explained his role and stated that he inadvertently overlooked the expiration date on the license. Peterson did not remember getting the courtesy letter. Lee asked if the projects submitted were all for renovations to existing buildings. Jairam said yes. Jairam asked if the ordinance stated that projects had to be for a new building. Lee said yes. Lee clarified that as of 2001, the ordinance required documentation of two complete buildings that were six stories or more to obtain a Class A license. Carr asked why Jairam received a previous exam waiver. Jairam declared that he was granted a waiver due to his previous experience and education. Massey asked if Jairam had ever constructed anything that would fall into a Class A building category. Jairam replied he was involved with 25 and 30 story condominiums in Hawaii. He acted as project manager. Lee added that staff had an original project form from January of 1988 wherein Jairam was the project manager for a six level parking garage. Smilie asked Jairam what his level of involvement was with the condo project in Hawaii. Jairam said he was the structural engineer. Smilie wanted to know if Jairam was ultimately responsible for the structural elements of the project. Jairam said he acted in several capacities including being an engineer, overseeing superintendents, and verifying that the structure was built correctly. Massey asked if he was an owner or employee of the construction company. Jairam replied he was an employee. Massey asked if Jairam had any other education or classes he would like the Board to consider. Jairam stated that he has taken code classes at CSU and has also been a CSU instructor. • Jairam and Lee had no closing statements. Smilie made a motion to grant an exam waiver and reinstate Jairam's Class A license. Carr seconded the motion. Smilie noted the Applicant had plenty of experience and he barely missed the deadline for renewing his Class A license. The motion passed with Jones abstaining. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Massey, Smilie, and Carr. Nays: None. 3. Contractor Appeal —John Duesing, d/b/a Yeti Mechanical, Case # 11-04 Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. He explained that in September of 2001, the Appellant appeared before the Board due to multiple violations that resulted in suspension of the Appellant's license for 90 days. He added that the Board required that the Appellant take the HVAC exam prior to the suspension being lifted, which the appellant successfully passed in October of 2002. Lee further explained that the Appellant appeared before the Board again in May of 2003 seeking reinstatement of his license. According to Lee, the Board denied the Appellant's request due to additional violations that had occurred and agreed to reconsider the Appellant's request after 180 days had passed. The Appellant was again before the Board to request reinstatement of his HVAC license. • John Duesing addressed the Board. He expressed his regrets for his infractions. He stated that he understood the seriousness of the license and permit requirements. Duesing assured the Board that he would not perform work without first obtaining a building permit. Duesing stated that his clientele in Northern Colorado was a substantial portion of his income. Lee asked Duesing if he worked as a contractor in Fort Collins during his suspension. Duesing replied no. Smilie asked why Duesing was willing to do a favor for a friend that would result in violations when he had similar problems in the past. Duesing explained that he performed the favor for one of his main clients. His client needed the work to be completed quickly. Duesing reiterated that he should not have done the work. Smilie asked about the volume of his work and where it took place. Duesing replied that he was based out of Greeley and he performed a lot of work in Greeley and Denver. Smilie asked if the record showed where he held other licenses. Duesing explained that his other licenses were noted on his renewal application. Duesing did not have a closing statement. Lee made no closing statements. McCoy made a motion to reinstate Duesing's HVAC license. Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed with Smilie abstaining. Vote: Yeas: Jones, McCoy, Massey, and Carr. • Nays: None. 4. Contractor Appeal— William O'Melia, d/b/a Reconstruction Experts, Case # 12-04 Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. He explained that the Appellant had applied for a Class B license in April but that the projects submitted were insufficient for the license requested. Lee stated that the projects submitted were essentially restoration projects and not complete buildings. Lee mentioned that the Appellant changed his application to request a C2 license and took the C2 licensing exam, but failed by one question. Lee explained that since his experience credentials do not comply with the City's licensing requirements, the Appellant was seeking a conditional license to perform reconstruction work. William O'Melia addressed the Board. O'Melia stated that his company does not perform new construction projects. According to the Appellant, his background is in restoration and remodeling. O'Melia noted he did not have a desire to build new construction projects. He sought a waiver for the project verification forms that required three new brand new buildings. O'Melia reviewed his past experience regarding reconstruction projects and said he was able to supply the Building Department with records. O'Melia referred the Board to several reference letters from engineering firms that were included with his application. O'Melia stated that has been in the construction business for the last 23 years and that he was licensed in California. O'Melia felt his company did not fit into the constraints of the City's licensing regulations but was seeking approval of a license that would enable his company to perform restoration work. Lee asked if O'Melia would perform commercial restoration projects. O'Melia replied not at this time. Carr asked staff if it was unusual to have a license restricted to restorations only. Lee said it was unusual because there are not many specialized contractors. He added that the City does not have a restoration license. Smilie asked O'Melia to expand on his scope of work. O'Melia said his restoration work included repairing fire damage, flood damage, water damage, construction defects, structural repairs, and mold abatement. Smilie asked staff if it would be possible to limit a license. Lee said it was possible and asked O'Melia if he replaced structural systems with mold abatement. The Appellant showed some photographs and stated that plywood sub -floors have to be replaced in order to change the joists. Lee asked if O'Melia considered his work to be restoration and reconstruction related to damage. O'Melia said yes. Massey asked if O'Melia performed additions and alterations. O'Melia said yes and he often took the work if it was incidental to the restoration work being performed. Massey asked if the Appellant wanted to be able to build additions. O'Melia replied that if the Board did not want his company performing additions, that was okay with him for now. O'Melia mentioned that he intended to take the C2 licensing exam again. McCoy asked if O'Melia's work was strictly residential. O'Melia said his work included some commercial work. McCoy asked if he had a job waiting in Fort Collins. O'Melia responded that he has been approached by potential customers. McCoy wanted to know • if a C2 license was limited to residential buildings. Lee replied a C2 license allowed construction on a two-story or less multi -family dwelling. O'Melia made his closing statements. He commented on the three brand new buildings requirement for a C2 license. Lee did not have any closing statements. Massey asked the Appellant if he had any other education that he would like the Board to take into consideration. O'Melia said his firm, including employees, was constantly taking ongoing education classes and training. Carr made a motion to approve the Appellant's request for a restricted C2 license that would enable him to perform any restoration construction. McCoy seconded the motion. Massey asked Carr if he wanted to include additions. Jones stated that he could not see the difference between the restoration of a building and construction of a new building. Smilie wanted a condition placed on the approval that the Appellant had to pass the C2 exam. Carr added Smilie's amendment to his motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Massey, Smilie, and Carr. Nays: Jones. • 5. Other Business Lee gave the Board an update on the IRC. The first reading was set for July 20, 2004. McCoy stated that over the last couple of months he has spoken to a couple of contractors. McCoy asked why a municipality required liability insurance for contractors, specifically residential contractors. Lee remarked that insurance indemnified the City because contractors were a potential risk. Lee noted that he intended to review the licensing ordinance and during that time it would be appropriate to review concerns regarding liability insurance. Meeting adjourned at 1:55 p.m. Felix Lee, Bui� c Zoning Director Bradley Moast�Vice on E