Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 10/30/2003Minutes approved by the Board at the December 18, 2003 Meeting FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting — October 30, 2003 I :00 P.M. Liaison: Karen WeitkLmat son: Charles Fielder Liaison: Felix Lee (221 -: 484-0117(W), 207-05 A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday October 30, 2003, 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 John McCoy BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Smilie STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Building and Zoning Director Greg Temple, Assistant City Attorney Delynn Coldiron, Contractor Licensing Administrator Stacie Soriano, Staff Support AGENDA: 1. ROLLCALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Fielder, and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Boardmember McCoy made a motion to approve the minutes from the August 28, 2003, meeting. Boardmember Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: Little, Jones, McCoy, Fielder, Massey and Carr. Nays: None. BRB 10/30/03 Page 2 3. Building Code Appeal — First Presbyterian Church, BCA #01-03. Fielder explained the procedures for appeals. Fielder excused himself from the Board due to a conflict of interest. Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. The Appellant was Rardon Bevill. Lee stated that the issue was that the property owned by the First Presbyterian Church (hereinafter FPC) of Fort Collins at 507 South College Avenue was a vacant building, and has been vacant since the 1997 flood. The Church wished to demolish the building and on two occasions requested in writing with documentation that the building be detennined dangerous as defined by the Code. FPC submitted for a demolition permit application and, to date, the application has not been processed due to the review process required for buildings constructed 50 or more years ago. Lee stated that based on Section 1471 of the City Code "any building of that age required review by the Advance Planning Department, in particular Historic Preservation, to determine the relevance and importance of the stricture to be demolished." On the first occasion FPC submitted written documentation in January, it was determined that the pennit could not be processed until a review of the building took place by the Historic Preservation office. Subsequent to that, the Church again requested in writing, sometime later in August, that the demolition be allowed to move forward based on the evaluation submitted showing that there were ample reasons for the building to be declared a dangerous building which, based on City Code, would negate the need for a review by the Historic Preservation office. Lee replied to FPC with a letter which stated that the building was not dangerous, although not habitable based on its current condition. The property was secured by a fence and did not pose a threat to the general public. Lee informed the FPC that they could appeal his decision based on a provision in the Code. Rardon Bevill, interim business administrator to FPC, addressed the Board. Bevill stated that FPC's presentation will be done by Jim Tanner. Massey informed the Appellant that he was the vice -chair and will perform Fielder's function as chair since Fielder excused himself due to a conflict of interest. Jim Tanner addressed the Board. Tanner provided the context for the appeal. The Church was first granted a demolition permit for 507 South College Avenue in the 1980s. Tanner stated the Church was within 24 hours of demolition of the building when a request for the donation of the building for charitable uses began. The charitable uses extended into the 90s and ended with the flood of 1997. The Church, during this period, continued to assume that demolition was an option. This assumption was corroborated by an intensive level historical survey made in 1995 by the City, which concluded that the building had "limited architectural value". The Church's assumption was also reinforced by being allowed to demolish three other buildings that were located on the Church property. Two of the buildings were pre - World War II houses and a laundromat. The City conducted a second intensive level historical survey in 1999 and this time concluded that the building was significant after all. FPC subsequently was hesitant to apply for a demolition permit under the circumstances, but eventually decided to apply for the permit in early 2002. The application was denied and the Applicant directed to the Landmark Preservation Commission (hereinafter LPC) citing section 1471-73 of the City Code. Church staff was not informed at that time of their right to appeal Building and Zoning's decision to refer them to the LPC. They also were not informed that a portion of Section 14 contained a relevant exclusionary provision regarding dangerous buildings. Thus began a series of protracted communications with the Historic Preservation office, in which BRB 10/30/03 Page 3 that office led the Church to believe it had no option but to designate the building as a landmark. The Church reapplied for a demolition permit on the grounds that its previous request might have been improperly denied. The Church specifically asked that if the application was again denied it be provided with an explanation of why Section 203 of the Uniform Building Code and Section 302 of the Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings did not apply. According to Tamper, Building and Zoning's explanation on its second refusal did not address those questions adequately. It reiterated the fact that the building could not be designated as dangerous since it was not occupied and was adequately secured and, therefore, would need to follow the prescribed process, including a review by the LPC. The Appellant was informed that the Church had the right to appeal the refusal to the Building Review Board. Tamper explained the points in FPC's appeal. The FPC found that the declaration that the building was not dangerous was questionable. Tanner stated that it appeared to him it should be designated as such based on Section 203 of the UBC and Section 302 of the Abatement Code. The building has been declared hazardous by a structural engineer whose report was submitted with the original request for demolition and also by an environmental specialist. The building has been declared uninhabitable by the City. Tanner submitted photographs to the Board to demonstrate how out of plumb the walls were to further demonstrate his opinion that the building should be designated as dangerous. Tanner also pointed out Section 1471 of the City Code which stated that "demolition request for dangerous buildings that have not been designated as historic landmarks and are not located in a historic district need not undergo LPC review." FPC felt the exclusion was there for a reason and that this was exactly the type of situation the Code provision was intended to be used for. Tanner stated that to deny the status of a dangerous building was to render that exclusion meaningless. FPC maintained that the refusal of Building and Zoning to grant their request for demolition subjected the Church to undue financial, ethical, and procedural hardship. Financially, FPC has been unable to continue their long range planning, commit funds, complete loan applications, procure insurance, and eliminate liability. Despite Historic Preservation's assurances that financial help was there, the Church had no certainty that grant and loan money applied for would be given. Tanner stated the building had to be declared a landmark before FPC was able to apply for the bulk of such funds. The matching funds required for most state grant money are financial prohibitive to the Church in the foreseeable future. FPC was opposed to all fornis of legalized gambling and the use of such proceeds for any purpose good or otherwise. Tanner stated that virtually all of the funding promised by the Historic Preservation office came from lottery proceeds. FPC cannot ethically accept such funding. Tanner stated that the FPC has been subject to undue pressure by the Historic Preservation office. Tanner stated the information was inaccurate and misleading. Tanner stated that the City's policy has been inconsistent regarding historic structures. Tanner remarked that he found several examples of the hitemational Style of construction in Fort Collins and, therefore, the demolition of this building would not be a detriment to the historic plamring efforts of the City. Tanner explained that the City will not be committed to the building until the building was declared a landmark and argued that the Historic Preservation Department's memo to the Board was inaccurate. Tanner concluded and asked that the Board grant FPC's request for demolition. BRB 10/30/03 Page 4 In support of the appeal: Richard McDermott, pastor of FPC, spoke in support of the appeal. McDermott listed the building's past charitable uses and provided information on why the demolition was desired. No other parties spoke in favor of the demolition. Lee stated that the issue to be addressed at this hearing was not the building's historic value or lack thereof, but whether the building was considered dangerous or not. Lee asked how the plumb measurement was taken and whether it satisfied the specific requirement of "whenever the exterior walls or vertical structures members list, lean or buckle to such an extent that a plumb line passing through the center of gravity does not fall inside the middle 1/3 of the base." Lee stated that the pictures did not give a good franie of reference. Lee asked if a structural engineer was present. Mark Middle addressed the Board and stated that he took the photographs with Don Garcia. Middle stated that Stewart Whittier, the engineer, prepared the report. Middle explained the steps taken for the plumb measurement. There was a discussion held regarding the plumb line photographs. Lee remarked that the method used was incorrect. Lee stated the photographs will be submitted into the record. Lee referred boardmembers to the engineer's report of December 2002. Lee felt the report should have remained an assessment and not a social commentary. Lee asked Middle about the shoring on the north wall. Middle stated that when the engineer informed him that it was not level the engineer stated the wall should be supported. This was done. In opposition to the appeal: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner, addressed the Board. McWilliams stated that it was the Advance Planning Department's position to oppose the request for a demolition permit. The property was a significant property in Fort Collins, was eligible for landmark designation, as well as designation on the register for National Historic Places. McWilliams stated that the City has spent numerous hours and a tremendous amount of effort working with the Church to try and preserve the building. McWilliams was under the impression from Mr. Bevill that the Church was supporting the historic stricture assessment grant. McWilliams stated that she was shocked to find the Church in the appeal process. McWilliams stated the City was willing to help the Church pursue other grants as well. The property was not found to be unsafe and was secure. The cost to rehabilitate the building was reasonable. McWilliams felt the FPC was trying to bypass the LPC's role. McWilliams stated a professional consulting firm was hired to go out an evaluate properties and specifically look at this property. The consultant found only three or four other residential properties and only a couple of commercial properties that were truly International Style construction. McWilliams stated that the City felt the value of this building to the community was such that they were willing to devote staff time to securing funds to clean the mold, resolve other interior issues, and f BRB 10/30/03 Page S restore the structural stability of the building. McWilliams noted that various representatives from the Historical Society and CSU were present if the Board would like to ask them questions. Lee reiterated that the issue was not the historicity of the building. Massey stated that he appreciated people addressing the Board regarding the value of the building from a historical context, but the focus was whether Lee's determination that the building is not dangerous is incorrect. Massey stated that it was LPC's role to evaluate the historic value of the building. Carr stated that the building was not dangerous to the occupants because there were no occupants. Carr stated that the safety of the public was endangered and was specifically concerned with the fence around the building. Can- noted that putting a fence around a building does not preclude public access to the building. Can- stated that there are drug abusers and others who look for abandoned buildings for shelter. Carr said that locks, fences, and boards over the doorway do not prevent access to the building. Can- questioned the safety of the public in this instance since it is impossible to totally secure against public access to the building. Jones asked McWilliams if the building was designated as historical at this time. McWilliams stated that it was not. Jones asked why not. McWilliams replied that the FPC did not wish to have it designated as a Fort Collins landmark McWilliams stated that generally speaking the City does not designate buildings without owner approval. Jones interrupted McWilliams and asked if the situation had been going on a long time. McWilliams stated yes and that staff has been working diligently with the Church to resolve all outstanding issues. McWilliams said her earliest correspondence goes back to 1999. McWilliams stated that the property is a significant building, and although the City encourages people to designate significant properties as historic, this is not forced. Little replied that the situation did appear to be forced upon the FPC. Little stated that the building scared him. Little told McWilliams that she would not move her office into the building in its current condition. Little stated that he felt rehabilitation was questionable. Little felt it was not cost effective to rehabilitate the building for the purpose of historical designation. McWilliams reiterated that the City does not force people to designate their properties. McWilliams noted that there are numerous grants and funds available specifically for situations like this because they care about the history the buildings represent. Funds are still available with no forced designation to the Church. McWilliams stated she toured the building with Mr. Krasner and noted that the building did have some mold issues but thought these could be easily mitigated. McWilliams stated that she would be more than willing to move her office into the building. McWilliams noted that she has seen buildings that were far worse off and have been successfully rehabilitated. McWilliams stated that there was no reason why the building should not be given a second use and no reason why the Church could not use the building for another part of their progrannsning activities. McWilliams mentioned that the City would help fund the cost to perform a historic structure assessment to explore new uses, determine how these could be achieved, their related costs, and to evaluate the building and fund the grant application to repair the structure. McWilliams said that the Advance Planning Department was conunitted to fixing the building and helping the Church in whatever manner possible to maintain the building. BRB 10/30/03 Page 6 Little asked what kind of guarantees and dollar amounts could be given to the Board for this work. McWilliams stated that Allison McGee from the Colorado Historical Society could address the issue. Little stated that it would be up to the Board if they wanted to hear any testimony on the issue. Jones stated that he did. Jones asked McWilliams if she would be opposed to demolition of the building if it did not have any historical significance. McWilliams stated she would not be opposed to the demolition in that case. Jones said that McWilliams was using the historical significance to stop the demolition of the building. Jones stated that McWilliams was forcing the FPC to seek a designation. McWilliams stated that was not correct. McWilliams remarked that there was a process in place that the City developed that has been in place for many years, that enables the City to review a building's historic significance when 50 or more years old, prior to demolition or other construction processes. She added that this process was done for the Church and it was found that the building was individually eligible as a Fort Collins landmark and also individually eligible for the National Register. Due to the significance, the review process requires that the Applicant submit plans and go through the normal development review process. McWilliams stated that there are many options for the Appellant and that this process simply provides the City an element of protection for historic properties. McWilliams reiterated that she thought FPC was interested in the City's aid. McWilliams listed other properties that have gone through this procedure and declared that the Applicant should go through the normal process and should not try and circumvent the procedure by a finding that the building is dangerous. Jones inquired about the length of the development review process. McWilliams replied that if the Church would sign the agreement for the historic structure assessment grant they would have the answer back within six weeks. Jones stated that he went through the process recently and it took two years. Jones remarked that the successful rehabilitation structures that McWilliams noted were for profit corporations. McWilliams stated that she has worked with several non- profit organizations also, and gave an example of an equestrian group. Jones argued that private corporations get tax write offs, and this would not be available to the Church. McWillams gave a rebuttal to Jones' argument. Massey interjected that the focus should be what the Board was able to do, meaning that the Board cannot assess the historic value of the structure. Massey asked staff for clarification on what constitutes a dangerous building. Lee directed the board members to the excerpt, "The Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Chapter 3 Definitions" in their packets. Lee read the first paragraph. Lee determined that based on the fact that the wall was shored (the most severely displaced wall) on the north side that it did not meet the definition. Lee stated that there were numerous standards and explained his position. Massey remarked that the fencing and the shoring were considered in Lee's evaluation. Carr recapped his previous comments regarding the fence. Little felt that the property owner had been disadvantaged by not being able to use the property due to the condition. Little remarked that he respected Lee's and the structural engineer's report. Little was ready to make a motion. Massey interjected and stated the Board needed to follow the procedures. BRB 10/30/03 Page 7 In opposition of the appeal: Christopher Koziol, Director of the Architectural Preservation Institute at CSU, addressed the Board. Koziol addressed safety in old buildings particularly related to abatement and remediation. Koziol felt that to walls away from the building would be a disservice to the mechanisms put in place by the City to help building owners. Koziol toured the structure and felt the structure could be restored. Middle stated that the Church has been broken into and it was a concern. Tanner noted that there was not a fence in the front of the building resulting in the front of the building being readily accessible to the public. Massey asked staff if the Building Department has labeled the building uninhabitable and if there was a red card on it. Lee replied no and added that it was strictly expressed in the correspondence that the building is not qualified for occupancy. The Building Department has not declared the Church building to be dangerous. Closing Statements: Tarmer commented that the Church did not wish to rehabilitate the building. Tanner recapped the events with the LPC. Tanner remarked on the definition of a dangerous building. Lee made his closing statements and stated that it was a question of degrees. Lee noted that he was unaware of any breaking and entering and said it was the property owner's responsibility to prevent that. Board Discussion: McCoy asked if it was only the Building Official that determined if the structure was dangerous or not. Lee replied yes. McCoy stated that the Church has cited numerous issues out of Chapter 3 to appeal Lee's decision. Lee stated correct. McCoy asked if there was any follow-up on the City's part. McCoy was concerned with having to make a decision with email printed pictures and no follow-up on Lee's decision. Lee connnented that the Board did not have to make a decision if they felt the information was insufficient as evidence. Assistant City Attorney Tempel explained that because this was a quasi-judicial hearing each party brought the facts that they wanted the Board to hear at the hearing. The Board was supposed to weigh those facts that were brought. Tempel stated a decision should be made on the facts that were brought and the evidence presented. McCoy asked that if the Board found the building to be dangerous would FPC be able to obtain a demolition permit. Lee responded that this was good question, although he would have to defer that because it would be a redevelopment of the property. Lee stated the site would have to conform to the Land Use Code, which would require further review. Lee was unable to answer the question and stated FPC may not get their demolition permit immediately. There was a discussion held regarding which parties would be able to appeal the Board's decision. McCoy had questions for Lee regarding the shored -up wall and whether it was sufficiently supported to BRB 10/30/03 Page 8 keep it from falling down. Lee stated that he did not get inside the fence area, but based on his observations, it appeared that the parapet was the obviously displaced portion, not the entire wall. He added that the parapet was non-structural and that the supporting walls did not appear to be significantly displaced. McCoy asked the Appellant why the wall was shored. Middle stated it was done on the advice of the engineer. The question of liability was discussed. Massey asked if Lee was allowed to evaluate portions of a building and require additional stabilization or shoring. Lee said yes. Little made a motion. Little stated that after looking at the available information presented under Section 203 of the UBC as it related to the requirements for requesting that a building be considered dangerous, that all buildings and structures related to this Code which are dangerous to humans are, for the purposes of this section, unsafe. Building and Zoning has inspected the building and declared it uninhabitable and also found the presence of toxic molds. The engineer's reports cited the presence of asbestos, exterior walls dangerously out of plumb, cracked foundations and other problems pertinent to the section. Little found the building to be dangerous and made a motion to approve the designation of a dangerous building. Jones seconded the motion. Massey informed the Board that he was going to vote no on the motion and explained why. Massey had a problem with not personally touring the building and evaluating photographs. Massey commented that once the building was gone there would be no turning back if the Board allowed it to happen. Little stated that he only has the information that was in front of him and explained his reasons for approving the appeal. Jones commented on the potential liability. Carr brought up health and safety issues. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: Little, Jones and Carr. Nays: McCoy and Massey. 4. Building Code Appeal — Xylem Design, Inc., BCA 402-03. Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. The Appellant was Mickey Willis on behalf of Xylem Design. The request was a waiver of Sections 310.4 and 1203.4.2 of the UBC regarding access and egress from the second -story. The appeal was based on redevelopment of an existing building that was partially damaged into a mixed -use occupancy that would essentially use the foundation and some of the existing walls. The south wall was only 16 inches from the property line. The conceptual design proposed that the upper level units have bedrooms and a mezzanine area, which will exit out onto the roof. The Code requires 44 inches for a multi -family occupancy for an exit court and the proposed building does not meet this requirement. Lee reviewed the Code requirements. The building must be fire -sprinkled and constructed entirely of one -hour fire resistive construction. The Applicant agreed with this requirement. Lee advised the Board of their authority. BRB 10/30/03 Page 9 Mickey Willis addressed the Board. Willis stated that the building was not a new building. The newest part of the building fell down after a three-foot snow load in March. Willis and the owner Greg Klieb came up with the idea to redevelop the property with eight residential units upstairs (one -bedroom lofts, less than 850 square feet) and commercial office spaces below. The current walls will be maintained, although windows will be cut. The back wall will remain unchanged. Willis stated that egress has been provided on all units. The problem is the exit corridor requirements for multi -family buildings. If the building is less than 50 units for a multi- family, a 36 inch exit corridor requirement applies. Willis stated he was unable to meet this requirement on three of the units. Willis wanted to use the mezzanine area as part of the egress to satisfy the requirement. Willis stated that he met with Kevin Wilson of the Fire Department. According to Willis, the Fire Department said the residents next door cannot build within five feet of the property line, and that an access of 16 inches was adequate if a rope ladder is provided. Willis noted that if the glass block were removed from the rear of the building that would add another 8 inches of egress to make 24 inches. Willis stated that the prices for the units are conducive to Martinez Park. Willis noted that the building is a Type V, one -hoar, 13 rated building. The house next door was bought to satisfy the 3-foot easement. Willis has worked with the property owner to the rear to obtain an easement but to no avail. Willis requested flexibility and felt he exceeded the need for safety. Willis stated a redesign of the building would be difficult because of the mechanics and bathroom placement. Willis reiterated the Fire Department's comments. Lee admitted that he has not personally spoken to either Kevin Wilson or Ron Gonzalez. Lee wondered about whether the potential for a building to be built to the property line on the adjacent lot was taken into account. Willis stated PFA did not have a problem with 16 to 24 inches, and it would be enough if rope ladders were provided. The units are small enough and individuals could fall over the balcony and land on the floor and walls out the door. Willis commented that this was not seen as a serious fire fighting risk, and the rear property had a setback of five feet. Willis invited Lee to call the Fire Department. Lee wanted more information on alternatives. Willis stated that one of the Building Review Board's obligations was to have flexibility from a strict adherence of the UBC. Willis felt the proposal did not violate the UBC because egress was met 100%. Willis commented that the difference was tying the UBC on emergency egress to a hallway rule that was City Code. Lee said no, and referred Willis to page 27 of the UBC regarding egress windows. Lee defined exit court. There was a discussion held between Lee and Willis regarding Code requirements and definitions. The definition of mezzanine was discussed. Lee noted that the footprint of the building will not be expanded. Willis stated that he could submit the engineer's report if Lee would like to see it. Willis had no closing statements but remarked he was committed to downtown redevelopment. Lee made his closing statements and stated the Board could not use a hardship in Code appeals. The Board had to consider alternatives not variances to the Code. There was a discussion held regarding the Fire Department's continents. Massey wanted to know the placement of the rope BRB 10/30/03 Page 10 ladder. Willis noted that the rope ladder would be placed on the side of the building and would take the individual to the ground. There was a discussion held regarding the zoning of the property and the possibilities of what the adjacent property owner would be able to do. Lee provided clarification from the Land Use Code. Lee attested to the veracity of Willis' statements. Coldiron was present at the time Mike Gebo contacted the Fire Department to confirm whether the statements included in the Appellant's information were accurate. PFA staff verified this to be true. Little stated that he did not have a problem with the request as long as it did not involve a health and safety issue to the occupants of the building. Little stated he relied heavily upon the Fire Department's opinion as to whether or not the facility structure would work for egress. Massey asked the Appellant about the sprinkling system and confirmed that the attic was sprinkled as well. Fielder wanted some clarification on the Board's role. Lee replied, "that the Board shall hear all appeals made to it and have the authority to rule in favor of the Appellant when the Board determines that the interpretation of the building regulations of the City by the Building Official were erroneous or when the Board determines an alternate design, alternate materials, and/or alternate methods proposed by the Appellant are equivalent to those prescribed by this code considering strength, effectiveness, fire -resistance, durability, safety, and any other pertinent factors. The Board shall require that sufficient evidence be submitted to substantiate any claims made regarding the proposed alternate design, interior methods, or methods of construction." Little wanted the 8 inch block depth on the rear of the building to be removed to increase the egress access to between 22 and 24 inches. Little also wanted the lot line adjusted on the adjacent property that the Appellant purchased as a condition of the approval. There was a discussion held regarding the width requirement and an alternative equivalent. Fielder brought up the idea of a dry sprinkler system. Massey wanted to place a condition on the approval that the design stay a mezzanine style with a maximum 43 inch high railing, which could not be enclosed. Fielder made a motion that the interpretation of the Building Code determined by staff was correct. Fielder stated that he has not heard any alternative equivalent construction to substantiate the appeal. Massey seconded the motion. The motion failed. Vote: Yeas: McCoy and Fielder. Nays: Little, Jones, Massey, and Carr. McCoy stated that there was practically more than 36 inches because of the setback on the lot next door. Other board members commented not necessarily because the property owner could place a structure right on the property line. Little stated that he respected the Fire Department's comments and this type of issue was common in Boston and Chicago. Little thought the case was unique due to it being a retrofit project with an existing building. McCoy was concerned with the property owner next door not being able to use the zoning regulations to the fullest. There was a discussion held regarding McCoy's comments. BRB 10/30/03 Page 11 Little made a motion to approve the request for a less restrictive adherence to Section 310.4 and 1203.4.2 and the UBC regarding emergency egress. Little placed as a condition of approval that the adjusted dimension of egress be approved by the Poudre Fire Authority in writing, that the 8 inch block depth be removed along the rear of the building to increase the egress access to between 22 to 24 total inches, and that the lot line adjustment for the property owned by the Appellant be increased or changed to allow for the appropriate width and dimension between the two properties. Fielder wanted Little to add fixed rope ladders (or a suitable substitute per Poudre Fire Authority) and the partial height wall separating the mezzanine level with the floor below be constructed at no more than 43 inches. Little agreed. Jones seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Little, Jones, Massey, and Carr. Nays: McCoy and Fielder. 5. Contractor Appeal — Karl Weits, &b/a Weits Construction, Case # 19-03, and License #D-496 Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. Weits has a Class D license. Weits was seeking approval of two one-time project exemptions that would fall in a Class E license category. The projects include a spa tenant finish (1400 square feet) and a church remodel with a non-structural addition of a sound room and provisions for a window in an existing non-structural partition. The above work was not allowed tinder Weits' D license. Karl Weits addressed the Board. Weits stated that both projects have sought commercial contractors to perform the work, but to no avail. Weits stated that he will be volunteering to perform the work at the church. He has been in the area for ten years and earned a Construction Management degree from CSU in 1993. Weits has been doing residential work in the range of 1,200 square feet to 14,000 square feet. Weits stated the houses he has constructed are much more complicated and difficult than the proposed projects. Weits was hoping to gain experience to seek a commercial license. Lee had no questions. Weits had no questions. Weits made his closing statements. Lee had no closing statements. Massey asked Weits if the trusses in the church were free span and verified that Weits would not be adding a structural header. Weits confinned this. McCoy made a motion to approve Weits' request for the two projects. Carr seconded the motion. Massey wanted the motion to be amended to include: (1) for the Southside Baptist Church to tie it to the plans as submitted for a framed wall and a new opening; and (2) that the spa be no more than 1,600 square feet; and (3) neither project has structural elements. Vote: Yeas: Little, Jones, McCoy, Fielder, Massey, and Can-. Nays: None. BRB 10/30/03 Page 12 6. Contractor Appeal — Alan Strope, d/b/a Savant Homes, Case # 20-03, and License # C2- 77 Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. Strope requested a waiver to his current license to do a non-structural tenant finish. Strope addressed the Board. He stated that he obtained a Construction Management degree from Colorado State University. Strope listed his experience and stated that he has worked on similar projects in Loveland. Strope also has an employee that has an extensive commercial work background including tenant finish. The employee has a Class A license in the City of Thornton. Strope made his closing statements. Lee had no closing statement. Carr made a motion to approve Strope's request and placed a condition on the appeal that the project remain non- structural. Carr also placed a limit on the square footage to 4,000 square feet. Little seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Little, McCoy, Fielder, Massey, and Carr. Nays: None. 8. Contractor Appeal — Craig Singleton, d/b/a Outer Space Decks, Case # 21-03 Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. The Appellant at one time had a Home Improvement license that was converted to the Miscellaneous and Minor Structures license in 2001 as a result of adopted changes to the contractor licensing regulations. The Appellant allowed his license to expire. The Appellant was found working in August building a deck and sunshade structure without the required permit and contractor's license. The Appellant was again found to be working on a separate project without the required permit and license, which resulted in a court summons. Lee referred boardmembers to the disposition. Lee noted that the Appellant was seeking to get approval for a license through the appropriate process. He noted that the Appellant was also asking for an ongoing exemption to the Miscellaneous & Minor Structures license that would allow him to construct decks exceeding the 200 square foot limitation up to 800 square feet. Lee stated that because the Appellant was in violation, the licensing ordinance required that before a license was granted the Appellant had to appear before the Board to be formd suitable for a contractor's license. Singleton addressed the Board. He mentioned that he is the builder and designer for his business. He has been building decks in the area for approximately eight years. He has a super customer base, and referred boardmembers to the letters for recommendation included in packets. Singleton stated the business supported his family and not approving his license request could end his business and would be devastating. Singleton remarked that licensing was important if he wanted to remain professional. Lee asked Singleton about letting the license expire and if the events described earlier were accurate. Singleton replied yes. Singleton was surprised and dismayed about the licensing requirements and chose not to obtain the appropriate license. Singleton stated that 90% of his BRB 10/30/03 Page 13 projects are below the requirements (height and size) that precipitate the need for a license or permit. Singleton remarked that it was rare that he would need to use his license. Lee questioned Singleton about his awareness of the licensing and permit requirements based on the fact that he previously held a City license. Singleton confirmed that he was aware of the permit and licensing requirements. Singleton made his closing statements. Lee made his closing statements. Lee noted that Singleton knowingly violated the licensing ordinance and made a conscious decision not to obtain the required license or permits. Carr asked why the violations occurred. Singleton explained why he chose not to obtain his license. Singleton stated that he was remorseful and going to court made him made him fully aware of the consequences that could occur by not adhering to the City's requirements. Massey asked Singleton if he was willing to take the exam and pay the fees. Singleton stated yes. There was a discussion held regarding the square footage limitation. Massey made a motion to approve Singleton's request to be able to sit for the exam contingent on the project verification forms being verified. Massey stated that the appellant must pass the test and pay all licensing fees and fines before the license can be finalized. Fielder seconded the motion. There was a discussion held regarding the square footage limitation. Massey amended his motion to increase the square footage of decks to 800 square feet and noted that the exemption is strictly for decks and no enclosed structures. Fielder seconded the amendment. Vote: Yeas: Little, McCoy, Fielder, Massey, and Carr. Nays: None, 9. Contractor Hearing — Arnold Drennen, d/b/a Drennen Custom Contracting, Case #: 22-03, License #: D-187 and Berk Conway, d/b/a Conway Construction, Case#: 23-03, License #: C1- 126 Lee stated that these cases were inter -related and suggested they be heard simultaneously. This case was a result of work done without the proper documents and credentials. Both Respondents' licenses were suspended as of October 27"' . Respondent Drennen applied for a roofing permit and, based on the level of license Mr. Dremlen has with the City, a Class D-1, the license was insufficient for the roofing work proposed since it was for a commercial building. A roofing license or a Class C 1 license would be required. Mr. Drermen was informed of the issue and given instructions on ways he could complete the job without violating any City regulations. The options that were explained included: (1) to hire a licensed contractor with the appropriate level of license to complete the job, or (2) to work as a qualifying employee of the licensed contractor completing the job. Since the permit was not issued due to the license discrepancy, the Respondent later returned with Berk Conway, who was a licensed Class C1 contractor and both individuals were informed of the specifics and limitations of doing such work including that Drennen and his employees were not able to perform the work unless they were hired as employees of Conway Construction. BRB 10/30/03 Page 14 Later that day an inspector detennined that Respondent Drennen and his employees were performing work at the address despite the instructions that had been given earlier. The inspector witnessed tear -off in progress when he stopped the job. However, no one from Conway Construction was on site. A stop work order was issued. Respondent Drennen was alleged to have committed the following: (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 certificate holder 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 certificate holder or license holder as set forth in this Article; and (3) Performance of work for which a license or supervisor certificate is required without a valid, current license or supervisor certificate. Lee stated there was no licensed roofer performing the work —it was Mr. Drennen and his employees. Mr. Conway, the contractor holding the license and permit, allegedly committed the following: (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 certificate holder 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 certificate holder or license holder as set forth in this Article; (3) The authorized holder of a license or supervisor certificate lending of or consenting to the use of such credential by person(s) other than the holder thereof, and (4) The act of employing compensated workers who are performing construction or who are working in a trade for which a license or certificate is otherwise required under this Article when such workers are neither employees nor exempt specialized trade subcontractors as defined under this Article. Carr left the meeting at 5:00 p.m Arnold Drennen addressed the Board. Drennen stated he has been a contractor for thirty years. Drennen stated that he did go in and apply for a building permit. Drennen said that he has been pulling roofing permits for commercial jobs for many years. He made a mistake because he lost the ability to perform roofing jobs due to the licensing change in 2001. Drennen stated that he was informed that he was unable to do commercial roofing. Drennen stated that he contacted Conway about the job and that Ewing Roofing was the licensed roofer that would be listed on the permit. He added that later in the day Conway obtained the permit. Conway took the permit over to the building site and Dremnen's crew delivered materials to the site because he had ordered them, and it was at this time that the inspector came on site. Drennen stated he was no longer on site and his crew was just delivering materials. Lee asked if Drennen was suggesting that he did not get complete information. Drennen stated that it was his understanding that he was not to frame or install the roof. Conway understood that Drennen's people were allowed to deliver the materials and perform site clean-up. Drennen wished to call Conway to the podium. Berk Conway addressed the Board. Conway made his opening statement. Conway stated that he did not consent to the use of his license by another person to do work they were not authorized to do. The pennit card showed that a roofer other than Drennen Custom Contracting would be used to complete the roofing portion of the job. Conway stated that at no time did he discuss with BRB 10/30/03 Page 15 Drennen doing anything that would be considered a violation to the Code. Conway did have conversations with Drennen about what he could do on the job. Conway noted that also had a conversation with the front counter staff at the Building Department about what Dremien could and could not do at the job. He was informed that Drennen could deliver material, perform site clean-up and supply the trash container. Conway declared that there was not a knowing or deliberate disregard of the Code on his part. After learning of the stop work order, Conway stated that he went to the Building Department to ask what he should do and if he would be able to go to the job and work. Conway stated that he never received the stop work order and noted that it listed Drermen Custom Contracting as the contractor and not Conway Construction, even thought he was the general contractor on the job. Conway stated that the job was classified as a commercial roofing job, which he felt was deceiving. According to Conway, more than half of the work was related to removing what he referred to as "trash" before the actual roof could be and re -roofing could occur. Conway understood that Drennen had a D1 license, which allowed him to perform work on miscellaneous and minor structures including carports. Conway stated the description did not make a distinction between commercial and residential carports. Conway said the building was unusual and he believed fit under the criteria of the Miscellaneous and Minor Structures license. The building included a commercial carport with a structure above the roof. Conway explained the situation regarding the second roof. Lee asked if Conway implied that there were not people tearing off the roofing materials. Conway stated that he instructed Drennen's people not to do anything that they were not licensed to do. Drennen's people were up on the roof to remove unwanted trash weight. Conway noted that the shingles they were removing were decorative and not part of the actual roof. Conway felt the problem was in the naming and categorizing of the job. Conway's argument was that Drennen did not need a license to get rid of the trash. There was a discussion held regarding why and the time an inspector arrived at the job site. Lee remarked that it was the Board's decision to decide if the structure was a roof. Lee gave Conway a copy of the notarized statement of the inspector. Massey asked if the original building was a flat roof. Conway replied yes. Massey then asked if the sloped rafters with shingles over the top were added later. Lee stated that he assumed that was the case. Conway confirmed this. Massey stated that there were basically two roofs and that snow caused the second roof to stress and buckle. Conway agreed and reiterated his previous cormnents. Massey agreed that it was a gray area. Little commented that both the Respondents got caught in the web of time. Little noted that as far as staff knew there had been no previous complaints with either of the Respondents. Lee stated that was not the case for Drermen due to an incident with a mechanical contractor. Conway made his closing statements. Lee made his closing statements. McCoy recommended that the Board deal with each Respondent individually. Lee stated that made sense. BRB 10/30/03 Page 16 For Respondent Drennen, Little was unsure about the first item listed. Little made a motion for a finding of fact that Drennen was guilty of violating item numbers 2 and 8. Fielder seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Little, McCoy, Fielder, and Massey. Nays: None. Little made a motion to have a letter of reprimand placed in Drennen's file noting the finding of fact with the provision that if he was found to violate any issues of code relative to his license in the next six months that it would be suspended for a period of time. Little reinstated his D license. The Board discussed the language of the motion and decided to strike the language related to the six month probationary period from Little's motion. Massey seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Little, McCoy, Fielder, and Massey. Nays: None. Little made motion for a finding of fact for Respondent Conway. Little found that Conway was not guilty on item numbers one and five. Little found Conway guilty of item numbers two and six. Fielder seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Little, McCoy, Fielder, and Massey. Nays: None. Little made a motion to have a letter of reprimand placed in Conway's file expressing the findings of fact and reinstated the contractor's license. Fielder seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Little, McCoy, Fielder, and Massey. Nays: None. 10. Other Business Lee gave an update on the IRC. Lee indicated that for the November meeting he planned on dedicating the entire meeting to the Code. Lee also noted that the next meeting will be held on November 20, 2003, due to Thanksgiving. Meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m. Felix Lee, ing & Zoning Director Charles Fielder, C airperson