Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 04/29/1999u Council Liaison: Ann Azari II Staff Liaison: Felix Lee (221-6760) N 11Chairperson: James Brown 11Phone: 482-6326 (W) 11 A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, April 29, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Brown, Rudy Hansch, Allan Hauck and Susan Kreul-Froseth BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Charles Fielder, Thomas Hartmann and Bradley Massey STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Director of Building & Zoning Delynn Coldiron, staff support to Board OTHERS PRESENT: None. AGENDA: 1. ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Brown and roll taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Board Member Kreul-Froseth made a motion to approve the Minutes from the March 25, 1999 meeting. Board Member Hauck seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the Minutes from the March 25, 1999 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. LICENSE HEARING — STEVE AYERS, D/B/A S.E.A. QUALITY CO.: Chairperson Brown explained the procedures that would be used for the hearing. BRB April 29, 1999 Page 2 Applicant, Steve Ayers, addressed the Board. He was requesting an exam waiver based on his 28 years of building experience. Applicant mentioned that he has been a contractor since 1987. He has spent the last six years doing work in Larimer County and surrounding areas. Applicant stated that he is able to use the UBC book; however, he has been instructed to use blueprints while on a job site. Applicant cannot make any alterations to the blueprints, and follows those, not the code book. He mentioned that this is another reason why a test waiver is appropriate. At the time applicant obtained the paperwork to get a license in January, he was told that no test would be required if he could submit documentation on five projects. Later, when he submitted the paperwork to the Building & Zoning department, he was told that the rules had changed on March 1, 1999 and he would now be required to take the test. Applicant was not informed of this change until the time that he presented his papers. He felt he had followed all necessary rules and should be able to get his license without having to take the test. Brown asked applicant why he did not want to test. Applicant answered that he has the necessary experience and was given the option to "grandfather in" back in January when he first obtained his paperwork. He did what he was asked to do at that time, but did not get the paperwork turned in before the change of rules took effect in March. It was his opinion that he should be able to get his license without the test since he completed the things he was told to do when he first picked up the contractor packet. Hauck asked if the project verification forms that were submitted were sufficient for the license that was requested by Applicant. Lee affirmed this. Hauck asked if there were any issues with violations, etc. Lee answered that there were none. Kreul-Froseth asked applicant if he was a union carpenter in California. Applicant answered that he was a union carpenter in California for 21 years. He went through a four year apprenticeship, followed by a journeyman program. He worked for 12-15 years for many of the large companies in California as a supervisor, inspecting and coordinating work. Kreul-Froseth asked applicant if he had any verification of his union experience. Applicant answered that he could obtain something from the union showing this. Hauck asked if the project verification fortes showed at least five years of experience. Lee confirmed this. Hansch asked applicant why there was a delay in getting his paperwork in. Applicant answered that he was not informed that a license was needed until the end of December, 1998. He obtained the paperwork in January. The contractors he tried to get the information from either did not respond or were slow in responding. Hansch asked about the date on which the rules were changed to require testing. Lee answered March 1, 1999. Applicant missed this date by approximately three weeks. BRB April 29, 1999 Page 3 Brown mentioned that the City implemented the framing license because of the number of reinspections that were necessary since work was not being done in accordance with the code. The only way to assure that contractors know the code is through testing. He added that he was in favor of the testing and would not be supporting applicant's appeal. Hansch asked if any other contractors had requested exam waivers since the time the rules changed. Lee answered that they have requested, but all have been told that they would have to get approval for this from the Board. Hansch asked if the Board had approved any waivers to date. Kruel-Froseth mentioned that the Board has previously waived exams based on a degree or some kind of certificate. Lee affirmed this. She mentioned that she would support an exam waiver if applicant could provide some documentation from the union. Kruel-Froseth made a motion to approve Mr. Ayers for a waiver of testing upon submittal of documentation from the union representing his experience. Hansch seconded the motion. Hauck asked applicant if he had completed any testing that was based on the code as part of his union training. Applicant mentioned that the union did not require any testing over the code, only hands-on field experience. Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on the reason for implementation of the framing license. Lee provided clarification. VOTE: Yeas: Brown, Kreul-Froseth, Hansch Nays: Hauck Applicant's appeal was granted. 4. LICENSE HEARING — BRAD JOHNSTON DB/A COLORADO CARPENTRY OF FORT COLLINS: Applicant, Brad Johnston, addressed the Board. He was also requesting an exam waiver from the Board. He mentioned that he had heard that the exam includes items such as snow loads on roofs, which is something determined by the project engineer, not by the framing crew. He also based his request on the fact that he has been a framer in Fort Collins for ten years. He submitted project verification forms which covered the last seven years. Applicant was building out of town during the time the new framing license was implemented. He was not aware of any of the associated deadlines, etc., which prohibited him from "grandfathering in" without taking the exam. Applicant stated that he is one of the cleaner and better framers in the area. He takes his time and does not cut comers to assure a quality job. Applicant has had very few times when reinspections have been required for his framing projects. For the reinspections that have been required, applicant has been able, many times, to successfully demonstrate to the inspectors how the project was built in accordance with code, eliminating the need for any BRB April29, 1999 Page 4 changes. Other reinspection requests have been for minor issues, i.e., a missing truss clip or fire block. Applicant mentioned that he and his wife recently had a child. Due to this, he would like to avoid having to pay any additional fees at this time. It was applicant's belief that his income was already somewhat reduced because of the fact that he takes additional time to produce a quality product. Brown asked applicant if his appeal was based primarily on the fact that he was out of town during the timeframe allowed to "grandfather W'. Applicant confirmed this and stated that he could get proof that he was out of town if required by the Board. Brown asked if all verification forms were in order. Lee answered that the application and project forms were received just prior to the meeting. Staff had not had an opportunity to check the references provided. There were approximately ten project forms submitted, documenting experience back to 1993. Kreul-Froseth did not feel comfortable supporting the appeal without knowing whether or not the project references were acceptable. Hauck mentioned that the latest version of the contractor licensing package states that exam waivers will be granted only upon receipt of testing information that is comparable to Ft. Collins and that covered the 1991 or later version of the UBC. He was concerned that the Board, by granting things outside of this, would be setting a precedent. Lee directed the Board to the licensing ordinance which allows the Board to consider other factors, i.e., additional education, circumstances, hardships, etc. Kreul-Froseth asked if there was a formal definition for hardship. Lee answered that there is no formal definition set out in the code. In his experience, a hardship has typically been something that has been experienced by the appellant for reasons beyond their control, or other special circumstances that mitigate the request. Typically a hardship has not included financial circumstances. Brown made a motion to approve applicant's appeal based on the fact that he was out of town, assuming that the project references that were submitted are satisfactory. Hansch seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Brown, Kreul-Froseth, Hansch Nays: Hauck Applicant's appeal was granted. BRB April 29, 1999 Page 5 5. LICENSE HEARING — BRADLEY BROWN D/B/A SYDNEY CONSTRUCTION: Applicant, Bradley Brown, addressed the Board. He mentioned that he was requesting an exam waiver from the Board based on his experience and education. He obtained his education from CSU in the field of construction management. In addition, he has in excess of 12 years of building/construction experience, including superintendent experience. Applicant submitted five project verification forms, but could submit many more if needed. Al Kulenski, a contractor who has been building in Fort Collins for 18-20 years, is the person who signed off on applicant's project forms. Applicant mentioned that he knows how to use, and understands, the UBC book. He also mentioned that he has a good working relationship with the City's inspectors and that they could provide further references on his building projects. Applicant has been helping Woodcraft Homes on some of their projects and has received feedback regarding the improvement that has occurred since he assumed responsibility for these projects. Kreul-Froseth mentioned that based on applicant's stated knowledge of the code and educational background in construction management, it should not be difficult for applicant to pass the required exam. It was her recommendation that he take the exam. She made a motion to deny applicant's appeal for an exam waiver. Hansch seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Brown, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Hansch Nays: None Applicant's appeal request was denied. 6. LICENSE HEARING — GREG A. YTURIAGA, D/B/A CON TECH: Applicant, Greg Yturiaga, addressed the Board. He was requesting an upgrade to his license from D2 to D1 based on his education background. Applicant submitted two project verification forms at the Dl level and one at the D2 level. He could provide many others at the D2 level, but does not have any additional projects that would qualify as a D1. Applicant stated that the knowledge he has gained through his education far exceeds the experience and knowledge he would gain from building one more house. Kreul-Froseth asked applicant about the year he received his degree. Applicant answered that he received his industrial technology degree in 1993. He has been working towards a masters degree in construction management, but has not completed this. All of the undergraduate classes for the masters degree have been completed. There was brief discussion on a possible conflict of interest in this case. It was determined that no conflict of interest existed. BRB April 29, 1999 Page 6 Hansch made a motion to approve applicant's request and upgrade his license to a Dl. Kreul-Froseth mentioned that she had some concern with applicant's request. There is a big difference between the construction that is allowed between the two license categories, and she was uncomfortable approving the request since the applicant had not completed his construction management coursework. Applicant mentioned that he did have an industrial technology degree. Kreul-Froseth stated that the construction management degree was more directly applicable. Hauck asked applicant if he had any projects pending at the D1 level. Applicant answered that he did not have any D1 projects pending in Fort Collins. He stated that he has houses in the County that are currently in different phases. Hauck mentioned that since there are no City projects pending at this time and applicant will be getting the Dl experience by completing the houses that have been started in the County, he does not see a hardship or other exceptional circumstances that would merit approval of applicant's request. There was no second to Hansch's previous motion; therefore, the motion died. Brown mentioned that it appears that applicant will be able to obtain adequate experience outside of the City that will enable him to upgrade his license without coming before the Board. He made a motion that applicant's appeal be denied. Kreul-Froseth seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Brown, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth Nays: Hansch Applicant's appeal was denied. 7. LICENSE HEARING — THOMAS GREGORY, D/B/A NORTHWIND MECHANICAL Applicant, Thomas Gregory, addressed the Board. He was requesting approval from the Board for a Class E license. Staff denied his license request based on violations for work that was done without a permit and work that was done by an unlicensed contractor. Applicant mentioned that he has been a union builder for 23 years. He went through a four year apprenticeship in Colorado. He also passed the required City exam for the license he is wanting to obtain. Applicant completed the job for Teledyne and assumed that Teledyne obtained all necessary permits, etc. He stated that he should have checked into this further to assure that this had happened. BRB April 29, 1999 Page 7 Hauck asked applicant for further clarification on the appeal request. Applicant provided this clarification. Hauck asked for clarification on the number of projects that had been submitted and whether or not they were acceptable. Lee answered that the applicant has submitted two projects that are acceptable. There were violations associated with the Teledyne project. Brown asked Lee to provide further information on the violations. Lee mentioned that there was no permit obtained for the work that was done at the Teledyne site. Lee referenced a letter that was included in Board packets from Johnny Bellington, who is the Facilities Manager with Teledyne Water Pic, which explained some of the mitigating factors surrounding the reasons why a permit was not obtained for the work that was done. In addition to there being no permit, the contractor who performed the work was not licensed. Hauck asked if there was evidence of a willful violation on the part of applicant. Lee answered that staff had no indication that the violations were done willfully. Applicant mentioned that he now realizes that he should have checked out licensing and permit regulations more thoroughly. Hauck asked if applicant could provide additional project forms. Applicant stated that he had some additional forms with him. Kreul-Froseth asked if Johnny Bellington was a licensed contractor. Lee answered that he was not. Kreul-Froseth asked how the violation could be cross-referenced if Bellington wanted to obtain a license in the future. Lee answered that the information would be in applicant's file and he was not sure that there would be an obvious connection made unless staff happened to remember the specifics from this hearing. Lee added that there was also work done in Loveland without permits which added to staffs concern about issuing the requested license. Brown asked if there were other trades involved in the work that was done at Teledyne. Applicant answered that there were no other trades involved. The project involved pouring a foundation next to the existing building and installing a pre-fab building. Brown asked for clarification on the E license category. Lee answered that the class E category allows for commercial tenant finish work. Brown asked applicant if the Teledyne job was done prior to being employed by Northwind Mechanical. Applicant confirmed this. Brown asked if the work being done by Northwind was strictly mechanical. Applicant answered that they are trying to get licensed to do construction work, too, so they can install soffits to cover pipes, etc. Hauck asked for clarification on the other projects that were done in Loveland without permits. Lee answered that the work was done by another individual, but under the same company name as applicant's, and confirmed that no permits were obtained for the work. BRB April 29, 1999 Page 8 Hauck asked if applicant's other project forms had appropriate permits. Lee confirmed this. Hauck mentioned that he did not see evidence of a willful violation on the part of applicant for the work that was done at Teledyne. Because there were violations, this project form should not be considered as supporting information for the license that has been requested. He made a motion that applicant be granted a Class E license upon submittal of one additional project verification forth that is adequate for the class E level. Hansch seconded the motion. Kreul-Froseth asked if the information from this hearing would be placed in applicant's permanent file. Lee confirmed this. Hauck stated to applicant that it is important that all contractors understand the significance of work being done without a permit; that this is an issue the Board takes very seriously; and that if the motion on the floor passes, and applicant is granted a license, any additional work done without a permit could result in revocation of applicant's license. Applicant stated that he understood this. Hauck amended his motion to include that the information from this hearing be placed in his permanent file and that a letter be issued to applicant stating that any further violations involving doing work without a permit would place his license in jeopardy. VOTE: Yeas: Brown, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Hansch Nays: None. Applicant's appeal was approved. 8. OTHER BUSINESS: Board Members were provided with a memorandum from the Deputy City Manager regarding budget input. Board Members were encouraged to submit their feedback. Meeting adjourned at 2:15 p.m. Felix Lee, Dire t of Building & Zoning