Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 12/17/1998A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, December 17, 1998, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: James Brown, Rudy Hansch, Susan Kreul-Froseth, Thomas Hartmann, Allan Hauck, and Bradley Massey. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Charles Fielder. STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Building & Zoning Director Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Delynn Coldiron, Staff support to Board OTHERS PRESENT: Kevin Wilson, Fire Marshall, Poudre Fire Authority 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 September 24, 1998 meeting. Board Member Hansch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the Minutes from the September 24, 1998 meeting were approved as submitted. BRB Dec. 17, 1998 Page 2 3. LICENSE HEARING — CARL GLASER, DB/A ADVOCATE, INC., LICENSE #C1-88: Chairperson Brown explained the procedures that would be used for the hearing. Carl Glaser addressed the Board. He mentioned that he is the President of Advocate, Inc. and sole owner of Glaser Associates Architects. He has been an architect for 25 years, and a contractor for 2 %2 years. He mentioned that he still has much to learn in his occupation as a contractor. Glaser said his company's mission is to do quality work. He mentioned that he has been successful in this mission on some endeavors, especially related to the Appaloosa Condominium unit project located in the Lory Anne Estates subdivision. Glaser designed these units to meet the recommendations of the City Plan before this was adopted by the City. Many extras were incorporated in these units including bay windows with copper cladding, foundation insulation on the outside of the building, stone columns, rounded corners, and fireplaces. Glaser mentioned that he has been cooperative with building officials and followed all of the City's submittal requirements to the best of his ability. He agreed that he has stumbled on a few issues with respect to his mission. His biggest problem was finding quality people in a very busy market to help him get things done. Not obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for Unit A of 1006 Cuerto is another area where it appears he has stumbled. Glaser mentioned that he was running behind at the time the closing was scheduled for this unit. To complicate this, the buyer opted for a wood floor which added to the difficulty of completing the unit on time. It was difficult for Glaser to find quality finish carpenters and, when he did, he found they worked rather slowly. As it turned out, the unit was inspected the day before the closing was scheduled. The inspector provided Glaser's wife with a card that included on it "Unit A ok for T.C.O." Glaser provided a copy of this to Board Members. Glaser was under the impression that this was all that was needed. He understands the approval process for COs, etc., and knew that there would be a hold from Stormwater pending site verification. All of the other departments had completed and signed off on their inspections. Glaser mentioned that it was his understanding that a temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO) could be obtained and that, when the more time intensive projects, i.e., site verification, were completed, a final CO could be obtained. He did not realize that he had committed any building code violation by not obtaining an actual form. Glaser took the card from the inspector to the closing and it was accepted by the lender without incident. BRB Dec. 17, 1998 Page 3 Prior to the closing, Glaser had a walk-through with the buyer, her realtor, and her attorney. A punch list was developed, a $1,500.00 escrow was held at closing to cover these items, and a completion deadline established. Glaser said he was diligent in completing those items. Most items were completed right away, with the exception of some items that had to be finished by subcontractors. Glaser was at a loss to explain the items that were included in the letter from the buyer since they were rectified in a very short period of time. Felix Lee, Director of Building & Zoning, provided information on the City's behalf. He mentioned that it was important that Board Members understand the procedures that Building & Zoning personnel use when they issue a CO. He provided Board Members with a copy of a print-out from the Development Tracking System showing the CO release data for 1006 Cuerto, Unit A. Lee mentioned that the unit was inspected by Building Inspection staff on the 28'h, and released for a TCO. Several department releases are required before a CO can be issued. In this case, all releases were not completed until November 23, 1998, when the CO was finally issued. Lee also mentioned that one of the complainants, Susan Hooper, who provided a letter that was included in Board packets, responded in writing that all items that were mentioned in her letter had been completed and she no longer had any outstanding issues with Glaser. The issue in this case is that occupancy of 1006 Cuerto, Unit A, was authorized by the Building & Zoning department provided only at such time that all requirements from the other departments were satisfied and releases for a CO or TCO were obtained. An actual TCO document was never obtained. The final CO was issued many months after the buyer occupied the premises. Brown asked if the signature on the inspector's card could be verified. Lee agreed that this signature was from City inspection staff. Hansch asked if it was fairly common for this to occur in condominium units since one or two units might be done prior to the entire building. Lee answered that individual units can be released with a TCO, but an actual document must be obtained from the Building & Zoning department. Obtaining a TCO also requires authorization from the other departments that are involved. Hansch asked if TCO documents were actually obtained in other situations. Lee affirmed this and mentioned that these, or a final CO, are required prior to occupancy. Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on the approval process for the other departments. Lee provided clarification. She asked if there was some kind of documentation that alerted the contractor to the fact that an actual document was needed. Lee mentioned that in most cases BRB Dec. 17, 1998 Page 4 contractors ask about this, and personally work with the other departments in order to obtain the necessary authorizations, releases, etc. Massey asked for clarification on the inspection card. Lee provided clarification. Massey asked Glaser if the unit in question was the first unit that was completed in this development. Glaser answered that this unit was the first to be completed in that building. He mentioned that there was.a previous building that had been completed for which he had a CO. Massey asked Glaser if he was familiar, then, with the process for obtaining a CO. Glaser. answered that he was familiar with this process. Glaser believed that he may have called Stormwater to get clearance for the TCO, but could not remember for sure. Massey asked for clarification on the eight allegations that were included in Board packets and on which of these applied to this case. Lee provided clarification. Brown mentioned to Glaser that he found it difficult to believe that he would not be familiar with the process of getting a TCO after having been a contractor for 2 1/2 years. He asked Glaser to comment on this. Glaser mentioned that he did obtain a TCO on the first building that was completed but had no other situations where he needed to obtain any others. Glaser said that he is not totally ignorant of the process and understands that departments can have holds, etc. Brown asked Glaser about why, if he was familiar with the process, he believed that the card from the inspector was all that was needed for a temporary certificate. Glaser said that he went the main desk of the building department and thought he had made some calls to other departments in an effort to obtain the necessary releases, etc. Glaser said he had dialog with Felix Lee and Mike Gebo of the building department regarding this issue. He thought he had done everything that was required of him, but there are no records indicating that this had been done. Glaser asked building department personnel if there was a form for a TCO and was told that there was none. Glaser has since been corrected on this issue and said that this was simply an honest mistake. Hauck asked Glaser about the temporary certificate that was obtained on the first building. He asked Glaser if he received an actual TCO form. Glaser mentioned that he never did. Hauck asked Lee if a contractor would normally be given an actual form. Lee answered that there is an actual form for this. Lee added that it is possible that a staff person might not have understood the situation since there were some relatively new customer service staff at that time. Hauck asked Glaser when he first became aware of the alleged violation. Glaser answered it was at the time he received the Complaint. Kreul-Froseth asked Glaser if he had anything under current construction. Glaser mentioned that he is about to begin a project. 0 t BRB Dec. 17, 1998 Page 5 Hansch asked Lee if he had encountered similar situations in the past. Lee affirmed that these types of situations have occurred before. When they occur, Building & Zoning staff notify the occupant and the builder that they are in violation of building codes, and inform them that a CO must be obtained as soon as possible. Hansch asked about the time frame allowed to obtain the certificate. Lee answered that the time frame would depend on the actual situation, but that a typical residence that had no health or safety issues would probably be given a 30 day period in order to obtain the certificate. Lee mentioned that in this case he received a complaint from the owner/occupant and she wanted to pursue action. Under the terms of the City's licensing ordinance this must be done if there is substantial evidence that supports the complaint. Lee mentioned that there was evidence that supported the owner's complaint in this case. Paul Eckman provided some guidance to Board Members on which allegations were relevant to this particular case, and clarified the options the Board could pursue. Lee provided information on previous actions taken by the Board including written letters of reprimand, suspensions, and probationary period assignments. Hauck asked for clarification on whether the code violation was occupying the premises without a CO or closing without the certificate. Lee mentioned that occupying the premises without a CO constitutes the violation. Kreul-Froseth asked about contractor records and whether or not history information is available. Lee answered that Building & Zoning keeps formal records on contractors and any time a contractor is required to come before the Board those records are reviewed and pertinent information given to the Board. This assures that the Board has information on previous violations, etc. There was a question addressed to Glaser on why several department approvals had been done in July and then several months passed before the remaining department approvals were obtained. Glaser mentioned that during that time the site verification work was performed. Getting the surveyor out to the job site was a challenge. Once the site information was obtained from the surveyor, it was submitted to Stormwater for approval. Glaser mentioned that he received a compliment from Stormwater personnel that the drainage system that was installed is the best of any in the area. Brown asked Glaser about the closing dates for the last two units in the subject building. Glaser answered that the remaining units closed in August. Hauck asked if the submitted complaint was only for Unit A since it appears that all units were in violation of the code. Lee answered that the complaint was only for Unit A, but no CO was issued for the building until November, 1998. Hauck asked Glaser when the occupants moved into the remaining two units. Glaser mentioned that they moved in after the closings in August. Hauck stated that it appears that all three units were in violation of the code. f BRB Dec. 17, 1998 Page 6 Hauck asked Glaser if he received inspector cards for the other two units. Glaser mentioned that he did not. Glaser was asked if he had obtained temporary certificates for the other two units. Glaser answered that he thought he had met the requirements for obtaining a temporary certificate for all three. Glaser reiterated that at the time he called for final inspections to get a TCO, he was told that there was no form for this. In closing, Lee mentioned that there was a note in the system, sometime prior to August 15`", from Zoning personnel okaying Units A and B for a TCO. Again, this was a comment from only one department, and no other departments had released the units for a TCO prior to this. Glaser, in closing, pointed out that he did not act with an attempt to defraud or cause any harm. He believes he acted in good faith. He mentioned that he needs to be more aware of the City's requirements and the types of documents that are necessary. Having gone through this experience, he believes he now has the necessary information to assure that this does not happen again. Glaser commented on the other derogatory letters that were submitted in this case and offered information on his behalf. Glaser takes responsibility for not having the project completed when promised, but it was difficult for him to hire quality people to finish the job as quickly as his customers would have liked. With regard to dirt on the neighboring property, Glaser said he had receipts from July for rock that he had purchased to match what was already existing which he put down after he had cleaned up the dirt. Glaser asked the Board not to put anything in his record. He feels he is a very responsible person and recognizes that he was naive on some items. The violation that occurred was not done intentionally. Glaser intends to become more familiar with City processes to assure that this does not happen again. He hoped that a reprimand or suspension would not be issued by the Board. Kreul-Froseth mentioned item 42, failure to comply with any provision of the code..., applies to this situation. The Board has issued letters of reprimand and suspensions in the past. She suggested that minimally a letter of reprimand should be done. Massey agreed with the above. He mentioned that Glaser should have had knowledge of the City's processes since he had already completed one building. He indicated that at least a letter of reprimand should be done. Brown mentioned that even though the violation was not deliberate, it is a fairly severe violation from a health and safety perspective. Maybe not so much in this case since final building inspections had been done. It was his suggestion that the Board consider some kind of probationary period. BRB Dec. 17, 1998 Page 7 Hansch was supportive of a letter of reprimand. It was his feeling that this issue happens probably more than everyone is aware of. Because the lenders usually police this, requiring some sort of occupancy document before a closing can take place, he was surprised that the closings had actually occurred. Hauck agreed that the violation was not a willful and deliberate disregard of City code. He concurred that a letter of reprimand with reference that this was really a violation for all three units, and a warning that any further violations will result in.severe consequences, would be sufficient in this case. There was brief discussion on past actions of the Board, and on other options available, including suspension and probation. Hansch made a motion that a letter of reprimand be issued that refers to item #2, failure to comply with a provision of the code that requires a CO. Hauck seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Hansch, Brown, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey Nays: None Abstain: Hartmann The motion carried. A letter of reprimand will be prepared by Building and Zoning staff in accordance to the Board's instructions and placed in Glaser's permanent record. 3. ADOPTION OF THE 1997 UNIFORM FIRE CODE: Lee mentioned that one of the duties of the Building Review Board is to act as the Fire Appeals Board. In that capacity, the Board deals with interpretations of the Fire Code which may be appealed through Poudre Fire Authority. He mentioned that Kevin Wilson, Fire Marshall for the Poudre Fire Authority, was in attendance and would be providing Board Members with an overview of 1997 Uniform Fire Code. Lee mentioned that this code works in conjunction with the City's building codes. Wilson addressed the Board and provided some background information on the Poudre Fire Authority. He then focused on specifics related to the 1997 Uniform Fire Code. The staff review process for the 1997 Uniform Fire Code started in January, 1998. A Community Code Review Committee was established in June. The purpose of this Committee was to get input from the Community, at different levels, to determine how the code changes might,impact individuals, businesses and industries. This Committee met each Tuesday for nine weeks and in October, endorsed the code and related amendments. 0 BRB Dec. 17, 1998 Page 8 The Committee recommended that this information be taken to the Fire Authority Board. At the October meeting, the Board instructed Wilson to take the information to the District Board. In December, the code and related amendments were approved by the District Board. Wilson has spent time with City staff, CSU, the school district, and others, to collect feedback and make necessary changes. Many of the prior code edition amendments have been added to the actual code and the number of amendments reduced. Wilson believes that the process used to develop the 1997 code has been a good one. Up to this point there have been no substantive issues with the code. Feedback has been positive both regarding actual code changes, and formatting changes. Brown asked for an overview of the changes. Wilson provided Board Members with written documentation on the changes that were made and gave a brief description of those changes. He also mentioned that some things are different between the District and the City, i.e., the issues of open burning. Open burning is not allowed in the City, but is allowed in certain restricted areas within the County. Wilson will also be making necessary changes/ amendments to the District information. Lee asked Wilson if he was expecting a recommendation from the Board. Wilson affirmed this. Hauck made a motion to recommend that the Fort Collins City Council adopt the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code, together with related changes and/or amendments. Massey seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Brown, Hartmann, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey Nays: None The motion carried. (Note: Board Member Hansch had to leave early and did not participate in the vote.) 5. OTHER BUSINESS: A. 1999 Work Plan. Lee noted that a 1999 Work Plan was included in packets. In the upcoming year, the Board will be reviewing the Uniform Mechanical Code and contractor licensing issues. Hearing contractor appeals will also continue. Meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m. Felix Lee, Building & Zoning Director