Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 03/25/1999A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, March 25, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Fielder, Thomas Hartmann, Allan Hauck, Susan Kreul-Froseth, and Bradley Massey. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: James Brown and Rudy Hansch STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Delynn Coldiron, staff support to Board OTHERS PRESENT: None. AGENDA: 1. ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairperson Fielder and roll taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Board Member Massey made a motion to approve the Minutes from the February 25, 1999 meeting. Board Member Hauck seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the Minutes from the February 25, 1999 meeting were approved as submitted. • • BRB Mar. 25, 1999 Page 2 3. LICENSE HEARING — DOUGLAS E. BROBST, DBIA HELP AROUND THE HOUSE: Vice Chairperson Fielder explained the procedures that would be used for the hearing. Applicant, Douglas Brobst, addressed the Board. He mentioned that he had just recently moved to Fort Collins. He had a remodeling business for 14 years in South Carolina prior to his move. When Applicant applied for a Fort Collins contractor's license, he was given a license packet that had a revision date of October, 1998. According to this packet, applicant had several choices of contractor licenses. The one applicant thought most resembled what he had in South Carolina was the D2 license. In reading through the packet, applicant noted that if proof of testing could be provided from another city or county, this testing information may be considered towards the license being sought. Applicant provided testing information to Building & Zoning staff, along with the required project verification forms. Brobst pointed out that on page 2 of the license packet, it states under the exam equivalent section, that "subject to the approval of the Director, a license supervisor certificate applicant may qualify by having passed an equivalent written examination elsewhere, or qualify with experience in lieu of written exam." With this criteria in mind, applicant thought he would be able to qualify for a D2 license in Fort Collins. Applicant was told by staff that he did not qualify for the D2 license since the test information that was provided was for a test taken in 1989 that covered the 1986 version of the CABO code. Staff is currently granting exam waivers only for those applicants who have taken exams that are comparable to the one given by the City of Fort Collins and that cover a 1991 or later version of the UBC. Applicant wanted clarification on whether CABO was considered equivalent to the UBC. Applicant also mentioned that the contractors taking a test on the 1991 or later version of the code may have only a few years of building experience. Applicant, although he took his test in 1989, has 14 years of building experience, 10 years of which have been after the test. Applicant has also kept up on new code changes in South Carolina, etc. Applicant asked the Board to grant his license request based on the prior testing that he had done together with his 14 years of building experience. Board Member Kreul-Froseth asked if five project forms documenting experience are required for a license. Delynn Coldiron answered that five project forms documenting experience at the level of license being requested are required when an exam waiver is granted. If testing information can be provided, only three project forms are required. The level of those forms vary depending on the license being sought. Applicant mentioned that he does have a fifth project form that he can turn in. It had not been returned to him at the time he submitted his initial paperwork. • • BRB Mar. 25, 1999 Page 3 Kreul-Froseth asked applicant about the differences between CABO and UBC. Applicant answered that he called both the UBC and CABO offices to see if he could find that out. No one was willing to state what the differences were. Applicant thought there would be some variations based on differing geography issues, but did not believe that the differences were too dramatic. Board Member Hauck asked applicant what his objection was to taking the Fort Collins exam. Applicant mentioned that coming to Fort Collins and giving up an established business has created somewhat of a hardship for him. Applicant would have to pay an additional $75 fee to take the test. He worked very hard to get his license in South Carolina. The exam he took was not easy for him to pass. Prior to taking the exam, he took a course to familiarize himself with the code to enable him to pass the test. The course cost him $250. Applicant believes he is a qualified contractor, has the necessary experience, and has provided information that is sufficient to obtain his license. Hauck asked applicant what structures he had built under the UBC code. Applicant answered that he had not built any structures under the UBC code since he does not have a license here. Board Member Massey asked applicant if any of his projects were built under more recent versions of the CABO code than what he tested under. Applicant answered that one project was from as recent as 1996. Massey asked about the current version of the CABO code. Applicant answered that the most current version is 1995. Kreul-Froseth mentioned that she would be inclined to support applicant's request if she had more information on the differences between the CABO and UBC codes. Applicant answered that going through the two codes would be very cumbersome and if he were going to go through that much trouble, he might as well take the test. Massey mentioned that he is an architect and if he were to ask for reciprocity in another state, he would not be asked to explain the differences between building codes, etc., as long as his licensing was up to date and he filled out the proper paperwork. He was in favor of granting applicant's request since applicant had been working under the most recent CABO code, even though his testing was done on an earlier version of the code. Hauck asked for clarification on exam waivers. Coldiron provided clarification. Hauck mentioned that he would feel more comfortable with requiring applicant to submit five project verification forms if a waiver is given for the Fort Collins' exam Massey added that he would like at least two of those projects to have been built under the current CABO code, if possible. Massey made a motion to approve applicant's appeal for an exam waiver provided that the applicant provide five project verification forms that meet the City's standards. Two of these projects must be for projects that were built under the most current CABO code. Fielder seconded the motion. • • BRB Mar. 25, 1999 Page 4 VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey Nays: None Applicant's appeal was granted with conditions. 4. LICENSE HEARING — DANE KOP.ASZ, D/B/A KOPASZ CONSTRUCTION: Applicant, Dane Kopasz, addressed the Board. He mentioned that he has been doing carpentry work in Fort Collins for approximately 9 years. He read in the paper that a license was required to do the work that he had been doing, so he applied for a license. Staff denied his license request for the reasons stated in Board packets. When applicant first started doing carpentry work, he called the Building Department to see if it was okay for him to work for homeowners who had a permit, without having a license. He was told that no license was needed. Applicant did not realize he was in violation of any City ordinance. Under the violations listed by staff, it mentioned that he did electrical and plumbing work. Applicant answered that he did not personally do this work; he simply worked with the electrical and plumbing contractors to determine what needed to be done for the project. Applicant stated that he submitted nine project verification forms. All of the forms showed high ratings for the work that was performed. Applicant mentioned that he did not know that he was in violation of any City ordinance. Hauck asked applicant what level of license he had applied for. Applicant answered that he applied for a D2 license. Hauck asked about the level of project forms that had been submitted. Applicant answered that most of the work was for framing and carpentry work. Hauck mentioned that these forms would not be sufficient for a D2 license. Applicant answered that he did have some projects which were at the D2 level. Hauck shared with the applicant some specifics on the licensing ordinance and asked if applicant was an employee of the permit holders on any of the jobs which were in violation of the ordinance. Applicant answered that he was an employee. Hauck asked if the permit holders withheld social security from his checks, etc. Applicant answered that he withheld his own social security. Hauck mentioned that applicant was not a true employee of the permit holder if this were the case, and that this is where the violation occurred. Applicant mentioned that he had submitted other projects from outside of the City. Coldiron confirmed this and mentioned that the projects submitted would qualify him for the D2 license. • • BRB Mar. 25, 1999 Page 5 Massey asked for clarification on how homeowners obtain permits, and if contractors have to be listed, etc. Coldiron mentioned that home owners are asked whether or not they will be doing their own work. For those who are doing their own work, staff usually obtains a homeowner's affidavit that affirms this. If the homeowner is not doing their own work, licensed contractors are required to be listed on the permit before it is issued. Massey brought up a potential conflict of interest for him in this case since one of the project verification forms related back to the firm that he is currently part-owner in. The firm was the architect of record for this project. Board Members briefly discussed this. It was determined that no conflict of interest existed since Massey was not the actual architect of record and was not an owner of the firm at the time this project was done. He had nothing to do with the project. Massey mentioned that he spoke with the architect who worked with applicant on the Deringer project that was submitted. The architect was very complimentary of applicant's work. Massey asked applicant if he would be willing to take the applicable exam. Applicant mentioned that he would be willing to, but felt that he had submitted adequate documentation to allow him to obtain the license he applied for without doing this. Applicant was under the impression that the licensing regulations changed in September, 1998. Hauck clarified that the only change was the implementation of the new D-Framing license. Hauck mentioned that the D2 license has been in effect for many years and was in effect at the time applicant completed the projects are in violation to the ordinance. Hauck asked if the remaining project verification forms that were submitted qualified for the D2 license. Coldiron mentioned that the projects qualified for at least the D2 license. There were a few projects for single family homes which qualify for a D1 license. Hauck asked if all of the projects were done in Larimer County. Coldiron mentioned that the projects were done in Ft. Collins, Bellvue, Red Feather Lakes and Pueblo. Kreul-Froseth asked if the project verification forms were filled out by owners. Coldiron mentioned that they were submitted by both owners and contractors. Coldiron also noted that two of the forms were submitted by applicant's wife and could not be considered. Massey mentioned that he is somewhat amazed that building permits are issued to homeowners without the assumption that much of the work will be contracted out. It was his feeling that the violations listed in this case were an honest mistake and that applicant thought he was doing the right thing. He appreciated the fact that applicant was trying to make things right by obtaining a license. Kreul-Froseth asked applicant about his responsibility on the projects that were submitted by contractors for projects outside of Fort Collins. Applicant answered that he oversaw the entire project. • • BRB Mar. 25, 1999 Page 6 Hauck made a motion that it is the finding of this Board that the violations relevant to this case were not willful, and that the applicant should be allowed to obtain a D2 license upon successful completion of the applicable City exam. The project verification forms that were submitted for projects outside of the City of Fort Collins could be used as the required project documentation in support of the license. Fielder seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey Nays: Abstain: Hartmann The motion carried. Applicant will be allowed to obtain a D2 license based on the above criteria. Board Member Hartmann abstained from participation on this issue due to a conflict of interest. 5. LICENSE HEARING — JEFFREY J. MOORE, DB/A J. MOORE CONSTRUCTION, INC.: Applicant, Jeffrey J. Moore, addressed the Board. He mentioned that many of his issues parallel the previous applicant. Prior to applicant's call from staff explaining that his license had been denied, he had no idea that he was in violation to any regulations. He believed that as long as a permit had been pulled, he could do his carpentry work under that permit. He now understands that he was in violation. He mentioned that this was an honest mistake and that he never intended to mislead anyone, which was evident by the fact that the jobs were used as documentation for his license request. Applicant mentioned that he had taken several courses which focused on the 1994 and 1997 UBCs and historical preservation. He also recently attended a weeks worth of ICBO courses in Denver. Applicant believes he has become a better builder due to this. Applicant started working in 1981 with his dad and completed a 14 year apprenticeship with him. Applicant said it was also his dad's belief that as long as a permit had been pulled, any carpentry work that they did would be covered. This is another reason applicant was not aware that he was doing anything wrong. Applicant stated that he obtained a license in the City of Loveland a few years ago. As part of that licensing process, he successfully passed their required exam. This license is current at this time. Hauck asked applicant about the remaining project forms that he had submitted. Applicant stated that one was for a residential addition that was done in 1996. Coldiron added that there was a second residential addition, and two single family homes, also done in Loveland. • BRB Mar. 25, 1999 Page 7 Coldiron mentioned that only three of the project forms submitted were at a level adequate to support the requested license. However, one of those project forms was a project in violation to the licensing ordinance. Kreul-Froseth asked applicant if he could come up with another project at the required level. Applicant answered that he was not sure and needed further clarification from staff. He mentioned that he would get together with staff to talk about this issue further. Hauck mentioned that the Board still needed to deal with the violations that have occurred. Applicant said that he understood this. Kreul-Froseth mentioned that it did not appear, based on applicant's information, that the violations were willful. She mentioned that she would be supportive of applicant taking the required exam and providing the additional project form necessary to support applicant's license request. Massey asked for clarification on who had pulled the permits on the commercial projects that were in violation to the ordinance. Coldiron answered that for the photography studio, the homeowner pulled the permit. This was an addition to the homeowners residence for use with his photography business. Applicant mentioned that he did not view this project as commercial since it was really an addition to the owner's personal residence. Massey asked about the classes applicant took on the 1994 and 1997 building codes. Applicant answered that they were classes that were given by Larimer County. Massey asked about the length of the courses. Applicant answered that it was an evening course once a week for a couple of months. The other courses were taken at the Denver Tech Center at the ICBO conference. Hauck asked if staff had any reason to believe that these were willful violations. Coldiron answered that staff had no reason to believe that the violations were willful. Hauck made a motion that it is the finding of this Board that the violations relevant to this case were not willful, and that the applicant should be allowed to obtain a DI license upon successful completion of the required exam and submittal of all necessary project verification forms. Fielder seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey Nays: The motion carried. Applicant will be allowed to obtain a D 1 license based on the above criteria. • BRB Mar. 25, 1999 Page 8 6. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Memorandum from the City Manager regarding budget: Staff mentioned that if Board Members have any feedback they would like submitted as part of this process, they can submit it to staff and it will be forwarded to the City Manager's office. B. Training Opportunity for Boards & Commissions Members: Staff provided information on a training opportunity for Boards & Commission members scheduled for April 30, 1999. No Board Members were able to attend. C. Memorandum from Senior Advisory Board: Staff provided this information to Board Members for their review. Meeting adjourned at 2:15 p.m. Li Delynn : oldiron, Staff support to Board