Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 10/28/2004,Wmutes approved by the Board at the January 27, 2005 Meeting FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting — October 28, 2004 Lee Charles Fielder A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday October 28, 2004, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building atI300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARDMEMBERSPRESENT: David Carr Leslie Jones 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 Marcha Hill, Staff Support AGENDA: 1. ROLLCALL The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Smilie made a motion to approve the minutes from the September 30, 2004, meeting. Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed with Carr abstaining. 3. Contractor Appeal, John Watkins, d/b/a Watkins Construction, License #B-112, Case #23-04 Massey explained the procedure for contractor appeals. Lee stated that the Appellant was seeking a reinstatement of his license. An error occurred in the Appellant's office because the BRB 10/28/2004 Pg. 2 renewal notice was misplaced, and the sixty day grace period for automatic reinstatement elapsed. According to Lee, the Appellant took a test on the 1982 UBC, and he passed the exam. John Watkins, owner of Watkins Construction, addressed the Board. Watkins noted that he held a license with the City of Fort Collins for the past 18 years. He has been a contractor for 31 years, but he has been in the business for 42 years. Watkins moved to Colorado from Minnesota, and in Minnesota he served on a similar board. Watkins admitted that he filed the renewal form in a permit file for a completed job. Watkins found the renewal form when he was asked to perform some work on the completed job. Watkins found the renewal form when he looked in the file. Watkins stated that it was an honest mistake, and he called staff immediately for another application. Watkins mailed the application with the appropriate fees. Watkins felt he would be penalized if he had to retake the test. He noted he received a penalty because he paid for a reapplication fee. Watkins reiterated that the situation was an honest mistake. Lee had no further questions for the Appellant. Lee advised the Board that the Appellant's experience documentation was adequate for the license. Watkins added that he was in good standing with the City of Fort Collins, and he has never received a citation. Watkins said Mike Gebo, an employee of the Building Department, would vouch for him. Neither Watkins nor Lee had any closing statements. Smilie inquired how long the renewal form was in the wrong file. Coldiron commented that Watkins' license expired in February, and staff received Watkins' renewal form on August 31, 2004. Smilie asked if the grace period ended in April. Coldiron said yes. McCoy asked if the contractors were notified at the same time regarding the expiration of their license. Coldiron explained that renewal forms were sent out one month in advance of expiration. McCoy asked if Watkins' file contained any reprimands or complaints. Lee stated there was nothing on record regarding reprimands or complaints. McCoy made a motion to reinstate Watkins' license. Smilie seconded the motion, and noted that within a year every contractor will have to be retested or take an approved class on the IRC. Massey commented that Watkins asked for an exam waiver. Smilie asked if the exam waiver was for the current code. Massey stated that an exam waiver needed to be mentioned in the motion. McCoy made a motion to approve an exam waiver for the Appellant's license. Smilie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Jones, Massey, Smilie, and Carr. Nays: None. 4. Contractor Appeal, Chris Ray, d/b/a Vantage Properties, License #D-156, Case #24-04 Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. The Appellant requested a one-time exemption to his current Class -DI license that would enable the Appellant to remodel and perform minor structural modifications on the Cambridge House Apartment Clubhouse building. Lee noted that BRB 10/2=004 Pg. 3 the license required for such activity would be a minimum of a Class-C2 license. Lee wanted the Appellant to clarify the specifics of the project. Lee explained that the D-1 license was limited to single-family homes and duplexes. Lee commented that the proposal was similar to the Appellant's past experience. Chris Ray, owner for Vantage Properties, addressed the Board. Ray gave the Board documents pertaining to the project including an architectural plan and pictures of mechanical rooms. Ray felt knowledgeable about the Cambridge House heating and electrical systems. Ray noted that there was an existing indoor pool inside an old clubhouse. Ray wanted to remodel the clubhouse, and stated that a Jacuzzi and steam room will be added as well as upgrading technical items. Ray commented that the pool was outdated and he planned to build five interior units. The packet also included past projects performed by Ray. One project was Five Oaks, which consisted of 48 duplex and four-plex units. That project was completed approximately eight years ago. According to Ray, he built the project completely including the water and sewer lines. Ray noted that he has been licensed for 20 years, and commented that he has built over 300 housing units as well as performed various remodels. Ray gave a list of past work and felt he was well qualified. Ray intended to oversee the project. Ray noted that he was studying to take the test for a Class B license. Massey asked if the project was mixed -use. Ray said no because one room was an indoor pool, and the other room was a clubhouse. Lee stated that the project would be allowed under a C-2 license. Lee asked Ray to clarify the exterior work. Ray commented that the exterior work would include curb and gutter, adding new asphalt for parking, and a new roof. Massey asked Ray if he had any employees. Ray responded that he wanted to act as the general contractor. Lee clarified that Ray will be using licensed subcontractors and that he considered the proposed work major structural work. Massey commented that Ray would construct a second floor. Ray said that the minor structural changes included the clubhouse, although the addition of five residential units would include footing and foundations. Ray commented that nothing would need to be done with the roof because the existing beams were adequate to maintain the existing roof. Ray noted that the foundation will hold up the second floor, not the roof load. Lee wanted the Appellant to elaborate on his experience. Lee asked if Ray had built the four- plexes approximately eight years ago. Ray replied yes. Lee noted that the license ordinance changed three and a half years ago to prohibit D-1 contractors from building multiple attached units. Lee said the Appellant built what would now require a C-2 license. McCoy asked whether the Appellant's passage of the C-2 licensing exam would enable him to use the four-plex units for experience documentation. Lee said yes but noted that there were other stipulations required for a C-2 license, particularly the square footage amount. McCoy asked Ray if in the past he requested a waiver for other proj ects. Ray responded yes. The Appellant addressed Lee's question regarding the elaboration of his experience. Lee asked Ray if he has ever built anything larger than a four-plex. Ray replied that he owned Tailgate Tommy's, and he planned to do future projects there. Ray felt that his oversight of large projects BRB 10/28/2004 Pg. 4 at the Cambridge House, has given him the required experience. Ray gave examples of work he had performed at the complex. Ray stated that he was a businessman and he managed 180 units. On occasion, he has constructed new dwelling units and remodels. Ray did not want to work for a general contractor. Ray noted that he will by overseeing the project as a general contractor and a manager. Ray commented that he wanted to upgrade his license, although he felt it was difficult because he managed several properties. According to Ray, starting a construction company was not feasible. Ray spoke with staff regarding upgrading his license, and he mentioned that classes were no longer offered on the 1997 UBC. Ray said the only class that was offered was by the ICC. Ray felt he was in a quandary due to the change from the 1997 UBC to the 2003 IRC. Lee said the issue was a request for a one-time exemption to Ray's current D-1 license. Lee commented that it was up to the Board to entertain other issues. Lee wanted Ray to be more specific in terms of the license. Ray felt it made more sense to wait for the transition and take the ICC class. Lee said that he was unable to advise Ray of timing, and that he could only speculate when the code change would happen. Massey mentioned that Ray could study the UBC, take the UBC test, and then he would only need to take a refresher course to obtain a license under the IBC. Jones noted that the current test was a measure of Ray's ability to interpret the building code, and Jones felt that the difference between the 1997 UBC test and the 2003 IBC test would be minimal. Jones inquired why Ray wanted to delay taking the exam. Ray responded that the pool was in dire need of repair, and the clubhouse has not been remodeled since 1965. Ray commented that the rental market was intense, and he needed to remodel the Cambridge House in order for the property to remain competitive. Jones felt Ray deliberately put off taking the exam and came before the Board to seek relief. Ray responded that other projects have not allowed him to sit for the exam. Ray made his closing statements and reiterated that he felt the proposal was within his scope. He commented that he planned on upgrading his license. Lee made his closing statements and clarified that the Appellant was not seeking an exam waiver but a one-time exemption to his current license. Jones reiterated his comments that Ray was essentially obtaining an exam waiver. Massey commented that Ray intended to upgrade his license and take the exam. According to Massey, Ray's request was similar to ones that the Board has heard in the past. Smilie was in favor of Ray's request and noted that the Appellant owned the property. McCoy made a motion to grant a one-time exemption to Ray's current D-1 license for purposes of improving Cambridge House Apartments Clubhouse building. Carr seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Massey, Smilie, and Car. Nays: Jones BRB 10/2=004 Pg. 5 5. Other Business Lee asked the Board to review the 2005 Work Plan, and noted that contractor licensing and the IBC have been added to the work plan. Smilie made a motion to approve the work plan. Carr seconded the motion. The motion passed Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Jones, Massey, Smilie, and Carr. Nays: None. Snvlie asked if the meeting in November would be held on the 18a'. Lee said yes. The November meeting for the Building Review Board will be held on November 18, 2004, due to Thanksgiving occurring on the last Thursday of the month. Meeting adjourned at 1:50p.m. Felix , Building & Zoning Director rson �Rt�es�