Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 03/31/2005Minutes approved by the Board at the April 28, 2005 Meeting FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting — March 31, 2005 1:00 P.M. innil Uaianre Karen WeitkunaY IlStaff Liaison: Felix Lee (221-6760) Fielder A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, March 31, 2005, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. 114M ' I W3 IUKA David Carr Charles Fielder Gene Little John McCoy Jim Packard Michael Smilie Leslie Jones 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 McCoy made a motion to approve the minutes from the February 24, 2005 meeting. Packard seconded the motion. The motion passed. 3. Contractor Appeal, Perry Todd, d/b/a Todd Construction, Case #07-05 Fielder explained the procedure for contractor appeals. Lee introduced the appeal. Appellant had submitted a contractor license application, passed the Cl contractor license exam and provided five projects in order to obtain his license. However, two of the projects lacked complete documentation. The Appellant was seeking a C1 license approval based on his exam results and resume. BU 01/27/2005 Pg. 2 Todd addressed the Board. Todd stated that his past work was completed in Montana where certificates of occupancy were not issued. Todd stated that commercial jobs were designed by architects and reviewed by state inspectors upon completion. Todd stated that he completed approximately $50M in commercial work in Montana including air traffic control towers and a steel stud constructed addition. Todd referred to letters from the architects of the projects stating that the work was completed per code. He also referred to a letter from the State of Montana that affirmed that project documentation for these projects could not be located. Lee remarked that Todd listed about 50 projects such as a school addition which had a building permit and recorded inspection results, as well as an assisted living center. Todd submitted a letter from Tim Russell from the Stillwater Assisted Living Center, a county -owned facility. The letter stated that the project was completed in July 2000 and all code requirements were met upon completion. Lee questioned Todd as to why he could not provide further documentation such as building permits and final inspections for more of his 50 completed projects. Todd stated that he destroyed project records five years after completion upon the advice of an attorney. Lee stated that only the first three projects Todd submitted were applicable to a Cl license and projects two and three needed further documentation. Fielder asked if Todd's .assisted living projects were reviewed by the state. Todd confirmed that they were. Lee stated that there was no record of building permits ever being issued for either project. Todd stated that the letters of recommendation were evidence of his work being completed per code. Lee stated the need for a building permit and project verification from a building code official in order to assess code compliance. Little asked Todd if he was currently bidding on any projects in Fort Collins. Todd stated that he was currently restricted to smaller projects such as cosmetic remodeling, but wanted to be licensed for commercial work. Todd reiterated that building officials in Montana were unable to locate records for building permits issued to his past projects. Little stated that the issue was for Todd to submit qualifying projects in order to build a portfolio of projects to qualify for a Cl license. Lee stated that Todd needed a final inspection and official record for projects that were significant enough to qualify for a Cl license. Todd stated that he wanted the highest license level possible to give him the opportunity to complete larger projects. Fielder asked how many project verifications were acceptable. Lee responded that the school addition was applicable toward a C1 license. Fielder stated that in the past the Board had granted exemptions for contractors to gain the experience needed to qualify for a license. Packard asked if the Board could identify past projects that would fulfill the Cl requirements and let Todd try to gather the proper documentation in order to qualify for the license. Little recommended that Todd be allowed to submit projects for a one-time exemption per project until he was able to provide the project history that fulfilled the license requirements. Little asked if Todd was able to qualify for a lower license level. Lee answered that there was insufficient documentation for any license, but reminded the Board that it could determine if a hardship was present. Todd stated that he did have other verifiable projects but that they were not of Cl caliber. Packard stated that Todd first needed a license before being able to ask for an exemption to that license. McCoy asked for clarification on the number of projects that were BRB 01/27/2005 Pg. 3 acceptable toward any license. Lee stated that one project qualified for a Cl license and that the other projects were smaller or not reviewed for license consideration. McCoy asked Todd how long he spent trying to verify projects. Todd responded that he contacted the State of Montana in November 2004 and on December 15, 2004 was told that they could not locate the records for his projects. McCoy recommended that Todd find verification for past projects that would qualify him for some level of license and then proceed. Fielder asked if Todd had any specific projects that he would like to ask for consideration to perform. Todd described a small, residential remodel on Dodson Ct. and a conversion of apartments to condominiums on Meldrum St. Todd stated the he is most comfortable working on commercial projects. Fielder asked for clarification on what licenses would cover such projects. Lee provided clarification. Lee asked if Todd was aware that Larimer County had no licensing requirements for work done outside of the city limits. Todd stated that he had no projects outside of the city. Lee asked about Todd's current projects. Todd described cosmetic work. Lee asked what type of work Todd would be performing immediately. Todd answered that he wanted to do commercial tenant finishes, residential additions and remodels. Lee stated that such work requires a Cl license. Fielder and Lee discussed which license Todd might qualify for based on past projects. Todd stated that he would be able to submit verification for some smaller projects. Lee stated that the school project would qualify for a class B license and the western wear addition would qualify toward one class E project. Lee stated that an E license would allow Todd to do commercial and residential finish work and minor structural work such as partitions. Fielder stated that the Board could grant a one-time exemption in order for Todd to gain the experience to fulfill the requirements for an E license, and then review a C level license at a later time. Todd stated that his business records were discarded in 2001 when his business was sold, and so the permit numbers were irretrievable. McCoy recommended that Todd gather documentation on other past projects in order to qualify for a license, and 'then request exemptions on a case -by -case basis. Todd reiterated his difficulty in getting acceptable project documentation from the State of Montana. Little inquired about the accessibility of certificates of occupancy. Packard recommended contacting county land managers. Lee stated that an official certificate of occupancy would be accepted if it referenced a building permit and was generated by a government authority. Little stated that Todd had many past projects to draw permit information from in order to qualify for some level of license. Little made a motion to deny the Appellant's appeal but for the Appellant to determine what license level might be issued based on available completed requirements, and provide the Building Department with the project verification for the highest license level possible, while continuing to try and qualify for a Cl level license. If not, the Appellant is directed to return to the Board for exemptions toward obtaining a Cl license. Smilie seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: Carr, Fielder, Little, McCoy, Packard, Smilie Nays: None BRB 01/27/2005 Pg. 4 4. Contractor Appeal, Russell C. Larson, d/b/a R&R Carpentry, Case #08-05 Lee introduced the appeal. The Appellant holds a class D license and was seeking a one-time exemption to allow him to perform a commercial tenant finish, a class E project. Larson addressed the Board. Larson explained that this request was his second tenant finish exemption request. The first request was in 2003 for Terry Danielson's insurance office on S. Lemay Ave. Larson described the current project as a tenant finish to include six offices, a bathroom and break room, as well as a sprinkler system. Larson stated that he had already gone through the bid process with subcontractors for this project. Lee asked Larson to describe the work performed under his previous exemption. Larson stated that the project included three offices, a bathroom, a break room and a reception area in approximately 1000 f Lee asked if Larson had taken the E license exam Larson replied that he had not because he thought that he had to provide three letters of recommendation in order to take the exam. Lee stated that one can test at any time without providing any documentation; there are no requirements to take an exam. Larson stated that he would take the exam Larson clarified that he was trying to accumulate the experience to qualify for an E license. Smilie stated that it would be easier for the Board to grant an exemption if Larson had passed the exam. Larson stated that he was aware of the building codes that apply to the project and reiterated that he intended to take the E license exam. Packard asked if Larson's license was in good standing. Lee stated that Larson had no violations or disciplinary actions. Packard asked the time frame of the proposed project. Larson stated that he anticipated starting in the middle of April and working for three months. Packard made a motion to grant a one-time exemption with the stipulation that Larson complete and pass the E license test. Carr seconded the motion. Fielder asked when the next exam was to be held. Lee replied that the next testing day was the following Thursday. Little requested a friendly amendment to the motion that the exemption not be contingent on Larson passing the E license exam, but only that he attempt to pass the exam. Packard agreed. Smilie added that, before pursuing a third exemption, Larson should have successfully passed the class E license exam. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: Carr, Fielder, Little, McCoy, Packard, Smilie Nays: None 5. Contractor Appeal, Brad Fritz, d/b/a Fritz Construction, Inc., Case #09-05 Lee introduced the appeal. The Appellant was applying for a Miscellaneous and Minor Structures license, but desires to build decks that exceed the limitations of the Miscellaneous and Minor Structures license (up to 200 ft). The Appellant was also seeking a variance to allow him to build decks up to 800 fte. Fritz addressed the Board. Fritz described his work to include deck building and interior trim work, primarily for US Homes and homeowners, where the deck plans exceed the 200 fie limit. Fielder asked Fritz about his experience with decks larger than 200 ftoutside of Fort Collins. BRB 01/27/2005 Pg. 5 711 Fritz described working in the area for six years including building decks in Loveland and Longmont from 520 to 612 ftZ. Fielder asked if the projects had certificates of occupancy. Fritz confumed that they did. Smilie asked the purpose of the 200 fl size limit. Lee responded that the size limit was set to avoid using a specialty license to build garages. Smilie made a motion to allow the Appellant an exemption of up to 1000 a for uncovered decks and maintain the 200 ft2 limit for covered decks or other allowed structures. Fielder added a friendly amendment that the decision was based on Fritz's experience outside of Fort Collins. Little seconded the motion. The motion passed Vote: Yeas: Carr, Fielder, Little, McCoy, Packard, Smilie Nays: None Contractor Appeal, Doug Bothwell, d/b/a Custom Wood Interiors, Case #10-05 Lee introduced the appeal. The Appellant was applying for a Miscellaneous and Minor Structures license, but desires to build decks that exceed the limitations of the Miscellaneous and Minor Structures license (up to 200 ft ). The Appellant was also seeking a variance to allow him to build decks up to 800 e. Bothwell addressed the Board. Bothwell described working with Fritz for US Homes, which included decks that exceed the 200 ft limit. Lee asked if Bothwell's experience with larger decks outside of Fort Collins was the same as Fritz's. Bothwell replied that they had worked together on the projects. Bothwell asked Lee to explain again why the license limits deck size to 200 ftZ. Lee stated that the license was intended for building structures smaller than a garage. Smilie suggested to Lee that the deck size limit be extended when contractor licensing review committee resumes in order to eliminate such appeals. Smilie moved to allow the Appellant an exemption of up to 1000 ft for uncovered decks and maintain the 200 & limit for covered decks and other structures. Little seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: Carr, Fielder, Little, McCoy, Packard, Smilie Nays: None 7. Other Business Lee asked the Board to offer any suggestions for budget preparation in regard to service enhancements, modifications or reductions by April 25, 2005. Fielder commended staff for taking steps to reduce costs by emailing board information. He will email comments to Coldiron. McCoy asked Lee if contractor liability insurance requirements will be reviewed Lee stated that the Northern Colorado Home Builders' Association is officially in favor of eliminating the BRB 01/27/2005 Pg. 6 requirement for liability insurance. Smilie stated that insurance will probably be maintained as a requirement. McCoy stated that it removes the option of self-insurance in light of high insurance costs. Meeting adjourned at 2:45pm. Felix Lee, B . g & Zoning Director Charles Fielder, Crerson