Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 02/25/1999A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, February 25, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: James Brown, Charles Fielder, Rudy Hansch, Allan Hauck, and Bradley Massey. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Thomas Hartmann and Susan Kreul-Froseth STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Building & Zoning Director 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 Massey made a motion to approve the Minutes from the January 29, 1999 meeting. Board Member Fielder seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the Minutes from the January 29, 1999 meeting were approved as submitted. • • BRB Feb. 25, 1999 Page 2 3. LICENSE HEARING — STEVE SPANJER, D/B/A SPANJER CONSTRUCTION: Chairperson Brown explained the procedures that would be used for the hearing. Felix Lee provided clarification of the Board's authority in appeal situations that pertain to contractor licensing. Applicant, Steve Spanjer, addressed the Board. He mentioned that he currently has a C2 license. He has been a builder in town for many years. Several years ago he began doing some multi -family work, in addition to single family. He has purchased a condominium project that is 64 units and has an option on a 56 unit condominium project. The proposed condominium units are three stories, and his current C2 license does not allow for the construction of any building over 2 stories. The proposed condominiums are the same wood frame structure that he has been building. The units were designed by an architect. Applicant mentioned that he builds things according to code and that he has never been in trouble with the City. He asked for the opportunity to upgrade his contractor's license to a B license to enable him to complete the condominium projects. Applicant has no desire to do anything other than Type V construction. He is not interested in any steel/concrete construction, only in residential single- and multi -family housing. As a business owner, applicant is coming before the Board to get an upgrade for his license as plan A. He mentioned that he has risked capital, acquired the land, is prepared to build the project, etc. Plan B for applicant would be to hire someone into his organization who has a license that is sufficient to build the units. However, applicant would like to be the license holder on the project if possible. Brown asked applicant if he had completed any B-level projects. Applicant said he had not. Applicant has built some commercial buildings of 5,000 square feet outside of the City, but these do not qualify as a B-level project. Lee provided clarification on license categories. Class C2 allows for any -size multi -family residential construction up to 2 stories in height. Class C1 allows for construction of buildings in all occupancies up to 2 stories in height, and/or 7,500 square feet. Class B allows for construction of buildings in all occupancies over 2 stories in height, and/or over 7,500 square feet, but not more than 5 stories. Class A is unlimited. Fielder asked if a contractor must take an exam and provide documented experience in order to obtain a B license. Lee confirmed this. A Class B license requires at least 2 B-level projects and 1 project at no less than the Cl -level, in addition to an exam. If a contractor wanted to apply for an exam waiver, five B-level projects would be required demonstrating no less than 5 years of experience. Board Member Hauck asked applicant if he was applying for a waiver of the exam. Applicant answered that he is willing to take the exam. • • BRB Feb. 25, 1999 Page 3 Fielder asked if there is any precedent for issuing a license with a restriction on it. Lee answered that there is history of the Board authorizing a conditional license. Brown mentioned that typically the Board has been very reluctant to grant this type of appeal in the past since there is ample opportunity for contractors to get the required experience somewhere else. He mentioned that there have been a few one-time project license upgrades approved. It does not appear that applicant is asking for a one-time exception in this case. Applicant agreed that his company is committed to staying with this type of construction. He mentioned that if the license was restricted, he would ask that it be restricted on a continual basis for Type V construction. Board Member Massey asked applicant to clarify his hardship. Applicant answered that other companies have a more diverse business plan than his company has. His business plan limits them to single- and multi -family wood -frame construction. As an owner, applicant has to acquire the property, build on it, market it, etc. He cannot go to work for someone else in order to get the required experience that would enable him to upgrade his license because he has to manage his company. He has no interest in learning how to build B-level commercial buildings. This is not what his company is good at. They are good at single-family construction, and this is where he wants to stay focused. Brown asked Lee to outline the additional knowledge that would be required of applicant to build a 3-story Type V building as opposed to a 2-story Type V building. Lee answered that the difference between a 2-story conventional framing Type V construction and a 3-story construction of the same type would not require a lot of structural difference. The difference would be in fire sprinkler systems that might be involved, area separations that might be involved, etc. Generally speaking, the construction would not be that different. Applicant answered that he can demonstrate dozens of homes where he has installed residential fire sprinkler systems. He also mentioned that fire separation walls are commonplace in his multi -family projects. Hauck asked applicant if he was the president of his firm. Applicant affirmed this. Hauck asked applicant who generally supervises the construction of his projects. Applicant answered that he typically has a designated project manager on the site, but that he also is typically on the job site five days a week. Hauck mentioned that the intent of the licensing process is to assure that the person who is responsible for the daily supervision on the job site has demonstrated experience at the necessary level of license; in this case, type B construction. Hauck asked applicant if it would be possible for him to hire someone who has an adequate license. Applicant answered that this would be possible, but mentioned that he would most likely be on the job site more than the person that was hired. Massey asked Lee for clarification on whether or not the square footage criteria for the building code was the same as the square footage criteria for the contractor licensing regulations. Lee answered that the criteria is different. The square footage criteria in the • • BRB Feb. 25, 1999 Page 4 contractor licensing regulations refers to the square footage under one roof, despite whether or not there are area separations. Massey mentioned that he was having trouble finding an undue hardship in this situation. Brown mentioned that if this was a one-time request to allow applicant to do Type V construction, he would be in favor of the request. However, based on what the Board has done in the past, for situations where the exception will be ongoing, the contractor should get the necessary experience to obtain a license upgrade. He was not in favor of applicant's request. Lee mentioned that the licensing regulations do not require that an appeal be granted only when there is a demonstrated hardship. The regulations also state that an appeal can be granted when an appellant possesses other qualifications such as specialized training, education or additional experience which the Board determines qualifies the applicant to perform in a competent manner any construction authorized under the license or certificate sought. Fielder mentioned that it appears that the project will be done whether applicant obtains a B license or not. Therefore, he made a motion that this appeal be denied. Hauck seconded the motion. Hansch asked Lee if there was a way that a C 1 license could be granted that would allow applicant to construct Type V buildings up to 3 stories. Lee mentioned that the Board has a fair amount of latitude in these types of decisions. Based on what an appellant presents to the Board, the Board can vary the ordinance. Hansch asked if C1 was the appropriate category. Lee answered that C1 is all occupancies, but is still limited to only 2 stories. Brown asked applicant if this would fall into his business plan. Applicant answered that as long as he is allowed to build multi -family units up to 3 stories, it would work. Brown answered that he would be more in favor of this direction. Fielder asked applicant if he could provide three C1 project documentation forms. Applicant answered that he did not think he had any projects that would qualify for this. He has some major commercial remodels, but that is it. Massey suggested that the Board consider an exception to the current C2 license that would enable him to construct the additional third story. Applicant answered that this would be agreeable with him. Hauck asked if the square footage was an issue. Lee answered that the C2 license does not have a square footage limit imposed on it. The C 1 license has a square footage limit imposed since the license covers all occupancies. Fielder mentioned that he would not be opposed to this direction as long as applicant would be willing to take and pass the B exam. Applicant mentioned that he would do this. • • BRB Feb. 25, 1999 Page 5 There was clarification of the motion that was on the floor — The motion was to deny the appeal for a B license. VOTE: Yeas: Hansch, Fielder, Brown, Hauck, Massey Nays: None Applicant requested that the Board grant him a C2 license with an exception that allowed him to build Type V construction with an additional third story. Massey made a motion to grant a C2, Type V, 3-story exception to applicant's current license upon successful completion of the Class B exam. Fielder seconded the motion. As a point of clarification Lee added that this motion would allow applicant to build a third story. Massey confirmed this. Applicant asked for clarification if this was three stories as defined under the UBC where if there is a basement, he can still go three stories above ground. This was confirmed. Hauck asked applicant to describe the Class C2 projects that were submitted for his license. Applicant provided a summary of those projects. Fielder seconded the motion on the floor. Hauck asked if by granting this appeal a new precedent would be set that in essence created a new license category that many other contractors would try to obtain. Lee mentioned that every case is individual. As appeals come before the Board, the Board would have to decide the case based on its individual merit. Massey mentioned that with the additional requirement of applicant having to pass the B exam, obtaining this license exception will not be easy. VOTE: Yeas: Hansch, Fielder, Brown, Hauck, Massey Nays: None Applicant's appeal was granted. Fielder thanked applicant for taking responsibility for pursuing this upgrade to his license. 4. LICENSE HEARING — PATRICK SMITH, D/B/A PW SMITH CONSTRUCTION: Applicant, Patrick Smith, addressed the Board. He mentioned that a new requirement was implemented for framing contractors in the City of Fort Collins and he did not hear about it until the last minute. He runs three framing crews and heard about this new requirement right before the deadline. When Applicant found out about the new requirements, he contacted the Building & Zoning department and proceeded to get scheduled for the test, etc. • • BRB Feb. 25, 1999 Page 6 Applicant provided Board with an overview of the specifics of his case. He mentioned that on February 1, 1999, building inspectors started enforcing this new licensing requirement. Applicant had not had a chance to complete the process and did not have a valid framing contractor's license for himself, or other members of his crew. The inspectors started shutting down applicant's jobs. Applicant again contacted Building & Zoning staff and obtained contractor packet information, etc. After reviewing the information, applicant realized that the process and testing was more in depth than he had originally thought. At that point, he determined that additional study time, etc., would be needed before he or his crew members attempted to test. Applicant had two framing projects going in the City at this time. He was not in a position to shut these down. Applicant's income, as well as his crew members' income was at stake. The inspectors shut down both of these jobs since applicant did not have a valid framing license. One of the jobs was shutdown twice. After the inspectors shut down applicant's jobs, Smith started the process for getting framing licenses for other members of his crew. Once this had been done, the jobs were restarted. However; applicant had not yet obtained a framer's license for himself. He took the test, but failed it. Applicant then attempted to obtain a license through demonstrating five years of adequate past experience, which was set out in the contractor packet information, and for which he obtained approval from Building & Zoning staff. He had not submitted adequate project documentation to Building & Zoning staff since he waiting on a signature from someone who was out of the state. Applicant was again found on one of the job sites before he was actually issued a framing license and stated that it appeared to a layman that he was framing since he had his tool belt on, etc. He talked with an inspector who was on the job site in the morning and told him that he was not doing any of the supervising of the project, but more or less just helping out. Applicant submitted the rest of his paperwork to the Building & Zoning department later that day and returned to the job site in an effort to not lose the contract that he had on the job. Applicant said he was already on bad terms with the general contractor because of the stop work orders and he did not want to make things worse. Staff members from Building & Zoning went back out to the job site later in the day and put another stop on the project since applicant appeared to be doing framing work, and told applicant that he would have to pursue getting approval of his license from the Board. Applicant requested permission from the Board to obtain his framing license based on the documents that have now been submitted to Building & Zoning staff. Brown asked Lee for a status on the job verification forms. Lee answered that given the initial circumstances, he did agree to look at other project verifications and possibly waive the exam requirements in order for applicant to obtain a framing license. In the meantime, applicant was issued two additional stop work orders and in light of this, Lee did not process • • BRB Feb. 25, 1999 Page 7 the application further due to the violations. Because of this, the most recent project documents that were submitted had not been reviewed. Hauck asked for clarification on staff's position related to approval of applicant's license. Lee answered that if there is a history of violations, staff has taken the position that no license will be issued and the applicant must appear before the Board for final determination on the license request. Hauck asked whether or not the license would have been withheld in this instance had applicant passed the exam. Lee confirmed this based on the violations that had occurred. Brown asked if the additional project forms were available now. Lee answered that three additional projects had been submitted by applicant. One form, which would demonstrate the length of experience required for an exam waiver, had not yet been signed by the contact person listed and was not valid. Lee added that in this case the issue is not so much the process, but the fact that the applicant, in the opinion of staff, violated the ordinance willfully, and that this is the question that the Board needs to deliberate. Massey asked applicant if it was made clear to him when the stop work orders were issued that he was not to work on another Fort Collins site until a valid license was obtained. Applicant said that this was made clear to him and that he obtained a license, or pending license, for a lead framer on each job and then went back to the job site to help out. Applicant mentioned that he was not supervising the job, but moving material, scrapping, etc., for the licensed lead framer on the job. Hauck asked if applicant was an employee of the lead framer. Applicant answered that he was not. Hansch asked applicant if he was more of a laborer than a framer on this job. Applicant confirmed this. Brown asked if the framing contract was with the applicant. Applicant confirmed this and said that he contracted with subcontractors to help him finish the work. Brown asked if he had employees. Applicant answered that he had no employees on the projects that are pending. Hauck asked applicant when he first heard that framing contractors in Fort Collins needed a license. Applicant answered somewhere between the 20th and 25" of January. Hauck asked applicant what he did about it at that time. Applicant answered that he called Building & Zoning staff and set up a scheduled time to take the exam. Applicant scheduled five of his crew members to take the test at the same time. Hauck asked applicant if he understood that the grace period would be expiring at the end of January? Applicant answered that he did not know anything about the grace period. He knew it was a new regulation, but he did not understand all of the logistics. He thought he was okay to frame temporarily as long as he was on the list to test. • BRB Feb. 25, 1999 Page 8 Hauck asked if applicant received his first stop work order on February 1, 1999. Applicant confirmed this. Hauck asked applicant if he understood what the stop work order meant. Applicant said that he did and mentioned that he came to the office to find out from Building & Zoning staff what he needed to do to get a license. Applicant left with nine contractor license packets. Hauck asked applicant what he did with the two other crews that were on other job sites in Fort Collins on February 1, 1999. Applicant mentioned that he had one other crew working in Fort Collins and one in Windsor. He did not stop work on the job that his other Ft. Collins crew was working on. This job was for the same contractor and applicant was in fear of losing his contract. Hauck asked if another stop work order was issued on February 4, 1999. Applicant confirmed this. Hauck asked if this crew stopped working. Applicant confirmed this. Hauck asked about the stop work order that was issued on February 5, 1999. Applicant mentioned that this was for 2315 Sweetwater and was the job where applicant was acting as a laborer, and not supervising the job. Hauck asked if the inspector claimed that applicant was acting as a framer. Applicant confirmed this but mentioned that he was not actually doing framing work. Massey mentioned that it was his understanding that if you are framing you need a license, whether there is supervision involved or not. Employees under someone who has a valid framing license can frame, but subcontractors are required to have individual licenses and if they are framing without one, they are in violation of the code. Applicant mentioned that pursuant to his conversations with Building & Zoning staff, as long as he was not doing framing work it was okay for him to be onsite. He mentioned that there is a lot of work that can be done on a framing site that has very little to do with framing. Applicant mentioned that he was not willfully trying to disregard the regulations by being present on the job site. Brown asked for clarification on staffs position. Lee answered that given the violations that occurred, staff was unwilling to issue a license pending a decision from the Board on this matter. ' Massey asked for clarification on how long it would be before staff would be willing to reconsider applicant's license request if the Board denied this appeal. Lee answered that at this point it is considered a violation and, unless the Board determines otherwise, no license will be issued. Fielder asked for clarification on staff s view of whether the violations that occurred were a misunderstanding or truly willful on the part of the applicant. Lee answered that staff s view is that the applicant's actions were willful and he offered to allow Delynn Coldiron to give her account of what she observed out on the job site on February 5, 1999. • • BRB Feb. 25, 1999 Page 9 Coldiron mentioned that she spoke with Jon Estabrook, the inspector who had visited the site earlier in the day, and he mentioned that applicant was again out on the job site. He said that he talked with the applicant was told he was acting only as a laborer and not doing any framing work. Coldiron visited the site later in the afternoon and observed applicant on the second floor, with his tool belt on, hammering, sawing, etc. Coldiron called the inspector, who came back out and observed the same. Estabrook called applicant down from the second floor and issued the stop work order. Hauck asked for clarification from the applicant regarding whether or not he was framing. Applicant answered that he did have his tool belt on. Hauck asked if he was hammering. Applicant mentioned that there are lots of things you might use a hammer for, i.e., nailing a brace of the wall, etc. He again mentioned that he was not in a position of supervision. He was merely moving material around, etc. Hauck mentioned that supervision is not the question since applicant had no employees. The issue was whether or not an unlicensed person was performing framing. Applicant said that he was not performing framing. Robert Smith of Robert Smith Construction addressed the Board. He was at the meeting to provide support for the applicant. He asked Lee for clarification on whether or not all framing crew members had to have an individual license. Lee answered that it was dependent on whether the crew members were bonafide employees. Bonafide employees do not have to have an independent license. Smith asked applicant if there was a framing contractor present when the violation occurred. Applicant confirmed this. Smith asked if applicant was allowed on the site. Lee answered that a person can be on a site but, without a license, is not allowed to perform framing work unless they are a bonafide employee of a licensed contractor. Smith mentioned that he has known applicant for nearly four years now. He works as a framing contractor for Robert Smith Construction. Smith ran a framing crew for the last 13 years and, as of September, stopped running a personal framing crew. Applicant has taken over all of Smith's framing obligations. The houses average between $500,000 and $800,000; very high end and complicated. There seems to be some indication that over the past six months information regarding implementation of the new framing license never made it to all of the framers. Smith mentioned that there has been no formal paperwork submitted to local framers, etc. Smith asked if inspectors were instructed to inform people prior to the first of January that this was coming. Lee answered that staff published a number of fliers and sent at least two fliers to all home builders in the City's license registry. There was an article in the newspaper, there were several articles in the homebuilder newsletter, and fliers were made available at the public counter. Staff did not try to track down every individual framer to inform them of the new requirements because there was really no practical way to do this. Staff also starting alerting builders in the field late last summer and an additional grace period was allowed up to January 31, 1999. • • BRB Feb. 25, 1999 Page 10 Smith mentioned that he knows the applicant quite well, he checks in to make sure that the work being done is according to code, etc. Smith said that applicant would have never willfully violated the regulations. If he was on the site, and not supposed to be there, any other person who was in the same situation would have found the circumstances to be very difficult. Times are very hard right now, very busy, lots of deadlines, etc. When applicant was told that he was not going to get a license, he was basically told that he was not allowed to work for the next 2-3 weeks. That is just about an impossibility for any builder right now. Maybe applicant did not act perfectly according to code, but he will not do anything wrong on the sites, and Smith would use him for framing over hundreds of other framers. Smith asked the Board to show applicant some grace and do what needs to be done in order to help him get his license as quickly as possible. Applicant is a taxpayer, owns a home, has things to do, etc. Brown mentioned that he does feel some sympathy for applicant in the sense that his livelihood has been interrupted and he knows how hard that can be. He said that he also feels some sympathy for the building department because of the violations. Massey mentioned that the Board has known about this new framing license regulation, and knows that this will not be the only appeal brought before the Board. It was his feeling that the Board should be careful with the type of precedent that might be set in this case. He also agreed that it is difficult when dealing with someone's livelihood. Brown made a motion to give applicant a second chance at this process. He would still need to meet all of the Building Official's requirements related to testing and/or experience, with the condition that he have no more violations. Massey seconded the motion. Massey mentioned that he did feel that the applicant willfully disregarded regulations. He understood why this might have happened since applicant's livelihood was at stake. However, he cautioned applicant to not misstep again. Hauck mentioned that in past cases the Board has instructed that a letter of reprimand be done so that there is record in the contractor's permanent file in case there are future violations. He suggested that this be considered in this case. Brown amended his motion to include that a letter of reprimand be added to applicant's permanent contractor file, with the stipulation that if there are any more violations, applicant cannot get a license. Applicant asked Lee for clarification on what else might be required for him to get his license. Lee answered that it is his position that the exam waiver is somewhat discretionary on the Administrator's part and he is now reluctant to allow an exam waiver in this case in light of the violations that have occurred. Hauck supported this and mentioned that it was his feeling that exams should be waived infrequently. • • BRB Feb.25,1999 Page 11 Massey clarified that the motion on the floor is to grant the applicant a second chance, that the applicant fulfill the remaining requirements at the discretion of the Building Official in order to get his license, which, in this case, will include successfully passing the exam, and that a letter of reprimand be placed in applicant's permanent contractor file. VOTE: Yeas: Brown, Hansch, Hauck, Massey Nays: Fielder The motion carried. Fielder mentioned that his no vote was due to applicant's apparent willful disregard of the inspector's orders to stop work. 5. FOLLOW UP ON CARL GLASER, D/B/A ADVOCATE, INC.: Board briefly discussed the letter of reprimand that was prepared. A signature was obtained from Board chair. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: None. Meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m. i� Felix Lee, B ' ding & Zoning Director