Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 08/26/2004Minutes approved by the Board at the September 30, 2004 Meeting • FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting — August 26, 2004 1:00 .m. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Felix Lee (221-676 Chairperson: Charles Fielder hone: 484-0117(W). 207-0505(H A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday June 24, 2004, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARDMEMBERSPRESENT: David Carr Charles Fielder Leslie Jones Bradley Massey Michael Smilie (arrived at 1:05 p.m.) BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: • Gene Little John McCoy STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Building and Zoning Director Delynn Coldiron, Contractor Licensing Administrator Ann Marie Gage, Staff Support AGENDA: 1. ROLLCALL The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Can made a motion to approve the minutes from the June 24, 2004, meeting. Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed. 3. Contractor Appeal, Bruce Ver Steeg, d/b/a Omni Building Corporation, Case #14-04 • Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. The Appellant represented Omni Building Corporation. The appeal related to a previous license that expired in March of 1999. The BRB 08/26/2004 Pg. 2 Appellant held a Cl license. The Appellant provided the required application forms including the sales tax application, but the exam on file was outdated. The Appellant indicated that he held a Class A license with Denver, Aurora, Westminster, Commerce City, Sheridan, and Loveland. Additionally, he stated that the company has been in business for 19 years and has built several buildings under the current building code. Lee explained that the Appellant was seeking an exam waiver of the current code (the 1997 UBC). The most recent exam taken by the Appellant, who was applying for both the license and certificate, covered the 1991 UBC. Bruce Ver Steeg addressed the Board. He did not know if the last exam he took was in 1991. He handed out a packet regarding his credentials and photographs of completed projects. He explained that he was licensed in 14 different jurisdictions. He mentioned that he took the exam in Denver, Boulder, Aurora, and the RCSE. He noted that he was also licensed in Fort Collins during the past 19 years. Ver Steeg stated that he had two reasons for not wanting to take the exam: (1) it was a pain and (2) the UBC would be outdated very soon. Ver Steeg stated that on a current project he had going in Denver, the Building Department was allowing him to design to either the UBC or IBC building code. He noted that he has never done a project without architects and/or engineers and felt it was their duty to design projects according to the building code. Ver Steeg reiterated that taking the exam was irrelevant. Lee wanted Ver Steeg to clarify that he was seeking a B license. Ver Steeg stated that he was confused about the actual licensing levels. Ver Steeg spoke with Coldiron and based on that conversation he felt a B license was applicable to the scope of his projects. Lee asked the appellant if he supplied staff with additional project verification forms since two projects did not name Ver Steeg as the project supervisor and wanted clarification on his role in the project pertaining to the Church of Nazarene. Ver Steeg stated that for all of his projects he acted as a project manager. Lee asked if he performed on -site supervision on a regular basis. Ver Steeg replied yes and stated that he visited the site two to three times a week. Lee asked if Ver Steeg was the company owner and Ver Steeg said yes. Lee asked Ver Steeg regarding the project at the Littleton Baptist Church. Ver Steeg provided clarification. Lee stated that a level of knowledge was expected of license and certificate holders and commented that this was the purpose of the test. Fielder asked Ver Steeg if he had any education or classes that the Board could consider. Ver Steeg stated that he was surprised about his last test being taken in 1991. He believed he also took a test in Aurora in 1998. Carr asked whether an individual who passed an exam 30 years ago and has regularly renewed the license was required to recertify. Lee replied yes and noted that with the adoption of the IRC contractors will be required to take a refresher exam. Ver Steeg asked if there was an effort to create a state-wide licensing process. Lee stated that he was not aware of any current efforts in this regard and added that similar endeavors in the past never came to fruition. Massey asked what RCSE represented. Lee said Reciprocal Contractor Supervisor Exam. Massey asked if it was administered by the state. Lee replied no that it was created by a voluntary group. BRB 08/26/2004 Pg. 3 • Smilie asked who would be Ver Steeg's on -site supervisor. Ver Steeg gave the names of three individuals. Smilie wanted to know their licensing and education status. Ver Steeg stated that he did not require them to be licensed. Lee noted that there was no specific requirement that all on - site supervisors be licensed as long as they are employees of the company holding the license. Lee clarified that the qualified supervisor was required to be on -site and in person on a regular basis throughout the entire construction; however, added that the ordinance does not define what "regular basis" means. Lee mentioned that this is left up to the interpretation of the qualified supervisor. Ver Steeg inquired about the employee ID cards. Lee stated that this was done as an attempt to avoid the problem of subsequent subcontracting to non -licensed contractors. Ver Steeg did not have any closing statements. Lee made his closing statements and stated that he understood the dilemma. Lee stated it was the objective of Fort Collins to have the person who holds the supervisor certificate familiar with the latest version of the Code. Jones made a motion to approve Ver Steeg's request for an exam waiver. Massey wanted the motion to include the reason the exam was waived. Jones stated that Ver Steeg was qualified according to the licenses he currently holds in various other communities in Colorado. Jones stated that Denver and Boulder contractor requirements were not inferior to Fort Collins. Jones also noted that the code transition will not be settled for another year. Massey seconded the motion. Vote: • Yeas: Jones, Fielder, Massey, Can, and Smilie. Nays: None. 4. Contractor Appeal, J. McElroy, d/b/a Penhall Company, Case #18-04 Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. Lee explained that this contractor was originally scheduled to go before the Board in July, but that the issues surrounding issuance of the requested demolition license had been resolved. The Appellant provided sufficient project verification forms and the license was issued. The Appellant was now before the Board to request the allowance of partial demolition work under his current license. Lee stated that the demolition license was a specialized trade license, not a general contractor's license. He explained that the license allows the license holder to completely remove/raze structures. He added that the license does not allow for partial deconstruction or dismantling. Lee said partial demolitions and dismantling are required to be done by a general contractor who has demonstrated experience with the codes and reconstruction. Jim McElroy addressed the Board and stated that he was with Penhall Company. McElroy stated that he was advised that he needed a general contractor's license to perform selective demolition. He noted that his company does not install or construct anything. He explained that he has cut concrete, removed foundations and is routinely involved in partial demolition of buildings. Until he had spoken with staff, McElroy noted that he was unaware that he needed a general contractor's license to do this. McElroy clarified that he always works under the supervision of 0 the general contractor and relies on their knowledge for partial demolition jobs. McElroy noted BRB 08/26/2004 Pg. 4 that many general contractors do not want to be involved in the demo type of work he performs and noted that they do not have the equipment to do it. McElroy said he had the equipment and remarked that the company was very specialized in the nature of the work it performs. He added that the company has been in business for 40 years and provides services from coast to coast. McElroy stated that he did not need a general contractor's license, just an exemption to his current demolition license that would enable him to perform partial and/or selective demolition work. Lee asked McElroy if he only performed concrete demolitions. McElroy replied no, but stated he does a lot of concrete/asphalt demolition work. Lee asked if he removed structural steel. McElroy stated that in the past he has removed structural steel elements. Lee asked McElroy if he was involved in demolition of mechanical and heating systems. McElroy said the only project that he could think of recently was the Kmart store in Boulder wherein the building was gutted to the shell. McElroy said that it was common for the contractor to exclude such items from a demolition. He added that if he does perform this type of work, appropriate tradesmen will cut, cap, and make safe any of those utilities so they are terminated prior to the demolition. Massey wanted to know why partial and complete demolitions were differentiated and asked if anything would be left for a certain amount of time requiring temporary shoring and bracing. Lee said that this was a safe assumption. Massey asked if partial and complete demolitions were always under a general contractor with immediate construction planned and whether the appellant's current license would allow him to obtain building permits for demolitions. Lee said under the Appellant's current license he could obtain a permit to totally demolish a building without a general contractor. McElroy stated that any type of temporary shoring, under pinning, etc. was not performed by him. He noted that at this point he assures that a general contractor is involved because he does not want to be responsible for the shoring since his company would already be gone and not be available to monitor any bracing or shoring work that had been done. Fielder wanted to know if the Appellant was here because he wanted to be able to perform demo work under a general contractor. Lee stated Fielder was correct and noted that the specialty demo license was very specific. The license authorized the dismantling and razing of entire buildings and other structures regulated by the building code excluding such work that was partial or interior demolition associated with alteration. Fielder said the Board could limit the license. McElroy felt that he could be listed under a general contractor. Smilie wondered if McElroy would be able to perform demolition tasks prior to the permit being obtained. Lee said typically the contractor obtained the building permit, but it depended upon how the Board crafted the approval. McElroy stated that he would not randomly perform demolitions. Smilie was concerned that if McElroy was not limited to having the work done under an existing, approved permit that he could potentially be called by somebody and perform the work. BRB 08/26/2004 Pg. 5 • Fielder asked if it was possible for staff to track if McElroy working under a general contractor. Lee said yes. McElroy stated that he rarely pulled a building permit and the issue was whether he could act as a subcontractor. McElroy made his closing statements and stated that he wanted to play by the rules because he did not want to stop working in Fort Collins. Fielder stated that the contractor licensing regulations changed three years ago. Lee said that most general contractors were not aware that demolition work could not be subcontracted out to a company that was not licensed. Lee did not have any closing statements. Carr made a motion to approve an exemption to McElroy's current demolition license that would enable the Appellant to perform selective, partial, interior, and exterior demolitions and projects in the City of Fort Collins on a subcontracting basis. Smilie wanted to clarify that the subcontractor status would not allow McElroy to obtain a partial demolition permit. Carr agreed to add Smilie's comments to the motion. Coldiron repeated the motion, "a motion for approval of an exemption to his current demolition license that will allow the Applicant to perform partial or selective demolition on a subcontractor basis as long as a licensed general contractor is listed on the permit." Massey seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Jones, Fielder, Massey, Carr, and Smilie. Nays: None. 0. Other Business Carr asked staff what happened to Case #17-04. Lee said the Applicant was trying to collect information to submit project verification forms. Lee remembered issuing a temporary license. Lee commented that the IRC with a passive radon system component passed on second reading. The amendments were on the City of Fort Collins website. Lee noted that the Contractor Licensing Ordinance will be revised and a draft outline was included in Board packets. Lee has just recently started recruiting contractors to serve on the task group. Lee said that he wanted to convene the task group for only three or four months. Smilie and Jones volunteered for the task group. Meeting adjourned at 2:00 p.m. Felix Lee, Building & Zoning Director Charles Fielder, Chairp rson