Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 07/31/1997BUILDING REVIEW BOARD REGULAR MEETING July 31, 1997 1:00PM II Council Liaison: Ann Azari II Staff Liaison: Felix Lee II Chairperson: Mike Sutton 490-2161(w) 221-5641(h) The regular meeting of the Building Review Board for Thursday, July 31, 1997 was rescheduled, due to the City's flood emergency, to Thursday, August 7, 1997 and held in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building. The following members were present: Brown, Cotterman, Meleski, Kreul-Froseth Members absent: Sutton, Hansch, Fisher Staff members present: Felix Lee, Building & Zoning Administrator Elain Radford, Building & Zoning Admin. Support Leta Payton, Building & Zoning Admin. Support The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairperson Meleski. The minutes of the June 1997 meeting were not approved pending additions. APPEALS: I. Scott F. Finfgeld and Pamela K. Occhiuto: requests that their duplex be approved as a single residence. Their request for a CO as a single residence has been denied due to Section 504(b) dealing with fire code. Appeal was denied. Administrator Lee advised appellants that, should they want to appeal to the decision of this Board to City Council, they have 14 days within the date of the final decision to appeal in writing to the City Clerk. BRB August 7, 1997 Page 2 Appellant, Scott Finfgeld, 420 Sundance Circle North, addressed the Board and stated that he and Pamela Occhiuto are neighbors applying for the variance at 424 Sundance Circle North. Finfgeld explained that they have been trying to get their duplex units separated into individual units for over a year now since the real estate agents and building contractor had informed them that they would legally be separable, 100 percent. Neither the contractor nor the City made them aware of the fire code which prohibits the duplex from being separable. Lee referenced the background information that was prepared for the hearing and stated that the appellants apparently started the minor sub -division process unaware of the requirement that a building residence has to have a one -hour fire resistant exterior wall when closer than three feet to the property line. Lee explained that investigation was triggered when the appellants requested Certificates of Occupancy for their individual buildings and property. Lee introduced Mike Gebo, Inspection Administrator, who actually went to the site and is present at this Board meeting to answer any technical questions with respect to the construction he found there. Lee explained that the units were built as duplexes and the building code requires that a duplex have a one -hour fire separation wall between the units and a gypsum board draft stop in the attic. This is a standard requirement which has been in the building code for some time. Lee concluded with stating the appellants have come before the Board because the building code does require that each building have a one -hour fire resistant exterior wall when it is closer than three feet to the property line. He explained that a common one - hour wall between the units, below the attic space with a draft stop above, do not meet this requirement. Finfgeld stated he would like to add that they would have followed another course of action had they had the full information as to the fire code or the status of the fire wall. He added that they were not given this information when they applied for the minor sub- division change, nor given that option by anyone they spoke with in the city. BOARD QUESTIONS: Board member Kreul-Froseth requested some history regarding the contractor when asked about the situation, and do they have anything in writing? F BRB August 7, 1997 Page 3 Finfgeld replied that, unfortunately, the down side for them in this situation is they don't have anything in writing. He explained that Kathy Lewendowski was working for Remax Advance at the time and had sold the units individually to them. Hank, her husband, is the building contractor for the Greenbrier sub -division, second filing. Kathy had stated to them, previous to the purchase, that these lots are separable - when asked that question specifically. In speaking with her and Hank after the purchase, while getting sod and a sprinkler system installed, they reiterated their plan to separate these lots. Kathy assured them the sprinklers would be fine and to not have any worries concerning the separation. Kreul-Froseth asked if their appeal is based on the economic hardship of building a one -hour fire wall. Finfgeld stated that the need is for two one -hour fire walls as there currently is a one -hour fire wall. He responded that they are not basing their case on the economic hardship, though their hardship includes this and the fact that they were misinformed and misguided, mostly by the Lewendowski's and partly by the city, for not giving them options other than the one they had pursued. Finfgeld continued that they now want to compare this to, if it were a condominium or condominumized versus a separated duplex, as a condo the fire wall would be meeting the city's codes. He stated that had they known this to start with, that is the process they would have gone through as opposed to the minor sub -division change a year ago. Kreul-Froseth asked appellant what is the possibility of condominumizing at this point? Finfgeld responded they had been informed by their attorney, Dave Osborne, that the cost would be $1,000 - $1,500 per person with a time frame of around 4-6 months. Appellant Occhiuto stated that the lawyer also said, being only a four-plex, it might be a lot harder to sell because it's not a large condominium association. The lawyer did not recommend going with that action. Cotterman clarified that the appellants have two pieces of completed property with a duplex built on each property. He asked if a Certificate of Occupancy was issued for both of them as a duplex? Finfgeld confirmed this is correct. BRB August 7, 1997 Page 4 Cotterman continued to clarify that both properties are a duplex and both have a Certificate of Occupancy. He asked if the appellants are wantirig to split the property in two so there are two owners instead of one, which means each duplex could sell to another owner? And making each duplex saleable to someone else is their purpose. Finfgeld responded this is correct. Cotterman commented that it seems they could have thought of this before and built the duplexes three feet from the property line. Finfgeld responded that they purchased the units after they had been built, and they had been assured the properties were separable, which is the reason they chose this course of action. Cotterman asked if the property is zoned for single family or duplex. Finfgeld repled it is now zoned for single family and they will get a re -plat as a single family. Cotterman stated that ordinarily a single family is at least three feet off a property line, and asked if they expect a re -plat as a single family even though each unit is built on a property line. Cotterman asked if the appellants went through a zoning process and the zoning people confirmed that these could be separated into two distinct pieces of properties. Finfgeld replied that was the purpose of the minor sub -division change. He stated there was a sale of one of the units in March and title work was drawn up individually for the units of one duplex building. So the title company had insured it as a individual single family residence as is. Cotterman clarified that the property is four pieces of property - four separate lots - and their problem is because of the one -hour fire wall down the middle. Finfgeld confirmed this is correct. Cotterman asked what is needed instead of the one -hour fire wall? Finfgeld replied they have been informed two one -hour fire walls are required and they may be together. Lee confirmed that the two fire walls could be together. E BRB August 7, 1997 Page 5 Cotterman asked if a one -hour fire wall could be put on one side or the other which would meet the code requirement. Finfgeld stated that as far as economics, the value of the home, and the cost put into it this would be a large project which would include taking out kitchen cupboards, the upstairs walls, bathroom plumbing, etc.. Kreul-Froseth stated that her understanding is that another option is to make into a condominium. Finfgeld replied that is the option they have been made aware of though there is no guarantee of it being approved, so they have not seriously pursued this option. Lee stated that he doesn't think anything is required from the city to condominumize since it is looked at no differently than a duplex would be. Occhiuto stated a new plat would have to be drawn up as well as the process with the title and the mortgage. He explained that she talked with Stewart and Associates just briefly and was told a re -plat would have to be done because the property lines would have to be removed on a new plat. Also, the property value may decrease and she's not sure what would happen to the land already purchased. Cotterman clarified that the only thing they are asking the Board for is a variance on a one -hour fire wall. Finfgeld confirmed this is correct and, exactly what they are asking for, is to acquire individual Certificates of Occupancy for the units so individual units may be sold as a single family residence or town home. He stated they don't want to have a disclosure or a liability to a new buyer that the fire wall does not meet city code. Meleski asked Mike Gebo what the actual construction of the party wall is. Gebo stated that currently it's built as a duplex which is one single stud wall with 5/8th type x on each side up to the ceiling line of the upstairs unit. He explained that above the ceiling line it is a draft stop with one layer of 5/8th type x untaped that's nailed there to prevent air flow from one attic space to another attic space. Meleski asked Mike to describe what would be required to have a double two-hour fire wall. BRB August 7, 1997 Page 6 Gebo stated it would include removal of all the kitchen plumbing, kitchen cabinetry, bathrooms, etc. The property lines are pencil wide and that property may actually fall right in the middle of the existing one -hour wall that currently exists. Typically, what is required is two of those assemblies right next to each other where the property line is. Gebo explained that the small air gap between those two would extend clear up through the attic with a double assembly all the way up through the attic to the roof sheathing. Another part that comes into play due to the location of property lines, is the parapets scenario of how to protect that fire up above the roof. Gebo continued that there are exceptions to this when there is less than 1,000 square feet on any one floor. If any one floor of these units were to exceed 1,000 square feet, the parapets scenario has to be dealt and could have double layers of 5/8th type x rock on the very upper ceiling to protect the bottom cord of the trusses. Meleski asked what might be the reason for the different requirements for a condo verses a single family? Gebo replied that it is in the code that way and the issue is how to construct a single family residential wall when its right up against the property line. Lee responded that, in his experience, it has been the philosophy of the codes that the property lines establish the type of construction, depending on how close a building is to that property line. He explained the philosophy behind this is to protect one property owner from another and one property from the other. Brown asked if the basic philosophy difference is that a duplex is intended for a rental and not protecting one property from another? Lee responded that it's based on property and the code makes a distinction on property ownership. Life safety has different requirements for protection of adjacent properties. Brown asked how is a town home in this situation normally done so it is acceptable. Lee stated that in terms of a town home, there is a definition in the code for a town home that is two separate properties attached to each other or very closely adjacent to each other. He said the code requirement is what Mike explained for two wall assemblies. In a condominium, though the units are owned individually, the building code is no different because the property is commonly owned. Lee clarified that the space and half of the building has some ownership, or a portion of the building has distinct ownership, but the property on which it is located is common ownership. BRB August 7, 1997 Page 7 Brown commented that it seems there is a problem of definition here. Cotterman clarified that the space above the partition in the attic space is covered with 5/8th sheet rock which is a draft stop only. There is a one -hour wall going up to eight feet and nothing above it. With two different owners who are not protected against one another which is a lot of liability. He asked if they have to have the parapet to put in more fire protection since this is over 1,000 square feet. Finfgeld stated there are two separate levels for a total of 1,278 square feet. Gebo clarified that it would not need a parapet, but need two one -hour walls clear up to the roof deck. Meleski asked if a second layer was added to the truss, would it then become a one -hour wall. Gebo stated there are some gypsum association manuals which reference two layers 5/8ths type x as having an hourly rating on a wall assembly. Lee commented that trusses are different because a vertical truss would require spacing comparable to framing member of 16-inch on center with gypsum board on both sides. Cotterman asked who would own the truss with the sheetrock on it. Kreul-Froseth stated that it seems part of the problem is the cost of adding the one -hour fire wall on one side and asked if the contractor or Realtor could provide some relief. Finfgeld replied that both he and Pam are in the process of trying to sell their homes and his home has been empty for the past two months since he is now in Denver. He stated they did have a contract with the Realtor and contractor for a shared equity when they initially went into the purchase which included a note that if one side where to sell their interest, the other owners would have first opportunity to purchase it. The other owners have been approached and have denied any interest in purchasing either of the units. Finfgeld explained the reason for doing the separation of units is to have a separate mortgage and be able to sell them with relative normality of any other real estate property in town. He stated they are trying to find a way that's reasonable to get this taken care of where everyone will be relieved and able to move forward. BRB August 7, 1997 Page 8 Lee suggested an option, in the local amendment to the code, of a residential sprinkler alternative which specifically allows residential sprinkler systems to provide equivalent fire protection. He clarified that he is only advising the Board and the appellants there is something else. Cotterman asked if either of the appellants know about this sprinkler system alternate. Appellants responded that neither of them were. Cotterman stated that Fort Collins code very clearly tells the Board that a good reason for granting variances must be given. He quoted one paragraph, "when the board determines that an alternate design, alternate materials, and/or alternate methods of construction purposed by the appellant, or equivalent to those prescribed by the code considering quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, safety, and all other pertinent factors." Cotteman commented that he does not see any alternate purposed construction here in order to make a determination. He explained that what the appellants are proposing is to do nothing other than what already exists which does not meet the requirement for alternate proposed construction. Finfgeld responded that he had not been informed of the possibility of a sprinkler system as a fire deterrent or in place of the fire wall. He reiterated that it is not economically feasible to build a new fire wall from the ground up through the attic. He stated that part of their argument is that the City of Fort Collins did not make them aware of this fire code until four or more months into the process and hundreds of dollars out of their pocket. He explained that had they been informed of this from the onset, we would have taken advantage of that information and perhaps not even gone through with the re -plat. Brown stated that what the appellants are asking of the Board is do change a major code which the Board is not apt to do. If the buildings were a condominiums, the safety is the same for both. But, the property ownership makes a single family something that he is not willing to approve. Brown commented that, since they were not told beforehand that it should be condominumized instead of single family, to ask that the city consider some fees waiver and let the appellants resubmit, if they are willing to do that. Meleski read "Item Four" under "Functions of the Board:" "To find appeals in specific cases to grant variances from the terms Chapter 15, Article 5, where the strict application of any provision of said article would result in peculiar or exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional or undue hardships upon the person regulated, provided that such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and without substantially impairing the intent purposes of this article." BRB August 7, 1997 Page 9 Meleski commented that he cannot see how a person living in a condo needs less protection than a person living in a single family house or a town home and, to him, the matter of safety is exactly equal for consideration. He stated that there are a lot of code requirements that are extremely strict, probably never needed. Meleski asked Board members to equate the safety of individuals living in a condo, a town home, or a single family. He stated that, under the circumstances here, he would willing to look at allowing them to have this designated as single family. Meleski asked appellants is designating this as single family would satisfy the bank. Finfgeld replied that providing the title company will insure the land itself and it meets the city codes or variances thereof, there would not be a problem lending against the property. Cotterman asked Administrator Lee about the city's liability, if a few years from now a fire caused a problem for the adjacent unit, those people were damaged and came back to the city and asking why would you approve something that is way off the code. Wouldn't the city have some liability involved in that? Lee responded that it is possible. He stated he felt that if the board grants a variance, there would be the question regarding the equivalent fire protection provided required by the code. Lee commented that it certainly could be questioned, but he could not speculate on were the liability would lie. Brown asked if the Board had not already established that there is no life, health, safety effect different from a condominium. That the issue here if the code problem, not fire for safety. It is a definition of ownership. Lee stated that the code protects property, too. That it is a fundamental precept in the building code. It does protect life, health, safety, and property. Brown stated that he does not see the city's liability problems because if it's a duplex or condominium, it's approved. Just because it's a single family, it's not. So fire wise, he stated he does not see a distinction between them. Lee commented that other than two property owners who have different protection than there would be in other buildings. Meleski stated this is what the appeal process is all about; that sooner or later someone is allowed to do something somewhat different than others. BRB August 7, 1997 Page 10 Cotteman stated that, under the situation he has heard, he cannot vote approval the way it stands. He commented that if there were a different kind of element in the attic, maybe he could be swayed. He stated the attic is very susceptible and has a lot of cross over problems. Finfgeld asked how would one ownership versus two ownerships of a duplex change what a fire will or won't do with the present construction? Cotterman responded that one owner is responsible for both of it, as it is now. With two owners they may have different ideas of what caused a fire or other problem. He stated the code is written to protect the property and the property owner, and he does not see that the protection is there. Finfgeld asked if it would be an option for them to get authorization from the current owners of the other half of this four-plex stating they accept liability, and waive the city of responsibility. Cotterman responded that maybe if it were based in perpetuity, but the other owners might sell their half next week and the new owner may not want to give authorization. Kreul-Froseth stated that she concurs with Cotterman and questions keep coming up from a legal standpoint. What if five years from now the person on one side decides to tear down their part. She stated she could not support approval of this at this point. Finfgeld asked Administrator Lee if there is a way to make a stipulation that any future owners would have to abide by these regulations; make an exception by the city for these properties in question? Lee deferred to the Board. He commented that there is not a process in place for this and, personally, he would be reluctant. Kreul-Froseth asked if it is a hardship to look into the sprinkler system discussed earlier and have it installed? Finfgeld responded that it is an option, but not economically feasible at this point for them. He stated he feels there is a serious hardship for reasons including the difficulty he's had for over a year in selling his home for a reasonable market price. He stated their goal is to make the property livable and acceptable in the city's and future seller's eyes. Lee asked what is driving the effort to obtain two Certificate of Occupancies for each building. BRB August 7, 1997 Page 11 Finfgeld replied that the Lewendowskis will not purchase their portions of the building and don't have a serious interest in selling the building as a duplex. If they did, the profitability would be diminished by an estimated 12-15 percent. Occhiuto commented that she thought, now the property lines of the re -plat have been done, that it cannot be sold as a duplex. That it can only be sold as a separate unit. She asked if another plat would need to be done changing lot 5A and 5B back lot 5 - taking the property lines away. She stated that financially, the expense would run another $1300 which was the initial cost of the plats. She also asked where would the sprinklers be installed - in the attic or on each level. Lee responded that the local Code allows condominumizing of buildings and the two lots would not be an issue if they are part of the same parcel. Lee read the Code, "Lines or walls which are established solely to delineate ownership of individual portions of a building or plan unit development need not be considered as property lines provided that such building is entirely located on property which is under common ownership." Lee commented that this may not help but, in terms of the building Code, it does not require that they revert back to eliminating a property line. Occhiuto stated that they had to do a re -plat to get the two parcel numbers, and everything is split out as far as the County is concerned, and other than the fire wall, they have met all requirements. Through the County they are four separate lots. Meleski stated that the problem in the attic is only the draft stop, not a one -hour firewall. Would the building dept. consider a fire sprinkler system which would be simple to install in each of the attics where the truss is above the party wall. A fire sprinkler system for both units would get expensive, but, the concern is that there is no fire protection in the attic. Lee responded that it still does not comply with Code which requires the buildings to be fully sprinkled and they would not meet the equivalency test. Finfgeld asked if the Board would allow a waiver to this fire code if the sprinkler systems are installed in the attic only as Mr. Meleski suggests. Could this be a condition of approval. Cotterman interjected that if the appellants had the proper sprinkler system, they would not come back to the Board. He asked what is the fire rating now of this attic space. Administrator Gebo responded that his best guess is an untaped , seamed 5/81" type x - maybe with a rating of 20 minutes. BRB August 7, 1997 Page 12 Cotterman asked for clarification that there is a truss with sheet rock on one side of the truss. Lee stated that this is no fire rating with sheet rock only on one side of the truss. Cotterman asked if sheet rock was on the other side of the truss, would that give a one -hour fire wall. Gebo responded that with trusses vertical supports need to be in place in order to have the proper attachment that the assembly would need. There are some gypsum association guidelines on how to create a one -hour fire wall assembly, i.e., some insulation can be installed in between which adds to the fire resistivity of the assembly, all the joints taped and seamed, etc. It is possible to do it on that one truss. Cotteman asked if the truss runs parallel to the party wall or perpendicular? Gebo responded they run parallel. Meleski stated that it is possible to have a laddered truss over the party wall because it's not a structural truss. Gebo stated he does not have that information at this time. Meleski stated that it would be quite difficult to get sheet rock up to the attic in order to make a one -hour fire wall, whatever the truss may be. He responded directly to the appellant's question by asking would the Board allow a waiver to this fire code if the sprinkler systems are installed in the attic only, and if fire sprinklers are install in each of the attics adjacent to the truss so they would act as a fire suppressant should a fire occur in the attic. He would be very satisfied with this. He commented he would also be in favor of having it classified as a duplex. Cotterman stated the appellant would have to return to the Board for a variance, and all Board members may not feel the same regarding a variance. The appellant mentioned that if they were to have sprinklers installed adjacent to the truss on either side of each unit, they run across the problem of the other owners, the Lewendowskis, not agreeing to this, which forces the appellants to incur the full expense. He expressed appreciation to Meleski for the suggestion, however, he feels they don't have enough information from the Board to know if it is worthwhile to install the sprinklers. He stated that he and Pam Occhiuto feel they have done everything the City has requested and yet the City popped up, months after they had initiated this process, to inform them of the fire code requirement. He expressed his BRB August 7, 1997 Page 13 concern that even if they install the fire sprinklers, it may be that not all Board members would agree this is acceptable. He requested the Board provide some sort of assurance or guidance of what course of action would be accepted, short of having to tear down the entire center wall between the units and rebuilding it. Occhiuto pointed out that all owners of this four-plex are required to meet the fire code also. She expressed her concern that the other owners. The Lewendowskis, have already stated they are not willing to put anymore money into the building so there's no guarantee they would go along with what she and Scott Finfgeld want to do. Cotterman asked if Occhiuto and Finfgeld are the owners of 420 and 424 in this four-plex, and the Lewendowskis own 418 and 426. Finfgeld responded that he owns 420, Occhiuto owns 424, and the Lewendowskis own both 418 and 426. He explained that he and Occhiuto own a shared mortgage with the Lewendowskis , tenant -in -common, even though they now have separate lots and units. He explained that the Lewendowskis own one-half of each of the units owned by he and Occhiuto. Meleski asked if the Lewendowskis are looking for a change of title as single family. Finfgeld stated that the Lewendowskis are not. Cotterman stated that he understands the appellant's hardship, however, the safety concerns prevent him from voting to approve their request, unless they suggest something that would change the circumstances. VOTE: Kreul-Froseth motioned to deny the application as presented to the Board. Brown seconded the motion. Yeas: Brown, Cotterman, Kreul-Froseth Nays: Meleski BRB August 7, 1997 Page 14 APPEAL: II. Wagner Kelly: applied for a Class D license and is requesting an exam waiver. Appeal denied. Meleski asked Lee to state to the Board what this appellant is requesting. Lee responded that Mr. Kelly was on the previous month's agenda requesting an exam waiver, but, due to extenuating circumstances, was unable to attend. Mr. Kelly has fairly extensive experience but not the five year requirement for an exam waiver. Meleski asked appellant to address the Board , give some background information, and state why he feels an exam waiver should be granted. Appellant Kelly addressed the Board and stated that he has worked in the construction industry from the time he was 16 years old until the fall of 1989 when he enrolled in Construction Management at CSU. He continued that he graduated from CSU in 1994 in Construction Management. In January 1994 he moved to Vail, Colorado where he worked for a year and a half as a superintendent. Most of his application references are from Eagle County, Colorado. He moved back to Fort Collins about a year and a half ago where he has worked for AMSHEL Corporation beginning as a superintendent and currently serves as a project manager. Kelly stated he feels he meets the experience requirements and is requesting the Board waive the minimum five year experience requirement so he can receive his Class Dl license. Meleski requested that Lee explain about the contractor exam. Lee explained that there is a provision for an exam waiver provided the applicant have at least both: five projects, in this case of single family homes, and five years of experience. BOARD QUESTIONS: Kreul-Froseth asked Lee what has been the situation in the past with licensed professionals, such as engineers and architects, who hold a state license. Has the exam requirement been waived for them. Lee responded that the exam has been waived for licensed professionals on their technical qualifications being considered equivalent, however, those have been on a case -by -case basis. Kreul-Froseth stated she has served as an academic advisor for the appellant and is very familiar with the education he has received. She commented that there have been others come before the BRB August 7, 1997 Page 15 Board with this same request. She continued that the Board has always considered education as a very important part of the process including work experience. She stated she could see more of these requests come before the Board in the future. She commented that she is aware it is a point of discussion in construction education that there would be a licensing exam as a part of the curriculum. She added that when that happens, she would have no reservations about considering that exam as well as a professional exam. To date, she's not familiar with an exam that would be equivalent. Cotterman clarified that the appellant has applied for the Class D license and has submitted the required documents for this license. But in order to get the license, Kelly still has to take the exam. Appellant responded that he is not sure of having to take the exam. Lee interjected that it is correct that the exam is required in order for the appellant to receive the license. Cotterman commented that with the educational background and experience the appellant has, taking the exam should be easy. He asked the appellant if there is something about the Class D exam that is intimidating. Appellant responded no that he has never taken the professional license exam. Meleski pointed out that the appellant would save $75 if the exam is waived. He stated that the two concerns he has are: a) the appellant does not have the five years of experience and two of the project verification documents show appellant as "acting" superintendent which, he feels, does not qualify. Meleski stated that the ordinance requires the applicant be the primary supervisor of a project Brown asked if CSU construction management classes include classes on codes. Kreul-Froseth responded that the CSU classes include code information throughout the curriculum but there is no specific class on codes. Students are required to purchase the current code books and become familiar with them. Brown commented that he feels if the appellant can get his construction management degree from CSU, he should be able to pass the Class D exam. BRB August 7, 1997 Page 16 Cotterman commented that the appellant has documentation for a Class D supervisor certificate which allows for the building of single and two family dwellings . He stated the appellant's documents are built around single family houses of significant size - over $400,000 each - and signed by project managers and engineers. The appellant stated that he was in charge of building twelve single family homes in Vail and he happened to choose those four for his documentation. Gebo addressed the Board to about the appellant. Gebo commented that in working with Kelly at the Building & Zoning department he has found the appellant to be professional and knowledgeable Kelly requested that the Board consider that since he has been with his current employer he has participated in the management and execution of thirty-one permits in the City of Fort Collins. Most of these permits have been single family attached town home dwellings. He added that he has been acting as the sole supervisor of the majority of those permits for the past year and a half. Brown responded that he accepts the appellant's experience, however, he doesn't understand why the appellant does not want to take the exam. Kelly stated that he's not unwilling to take the exam. He assumed going before the Board would be a quicker process to achieve the license rather than to take a few days out of his schedule for the exam. VOTE: Brown motioned the appeal be denied. Kreul-Froseth seconded the motion. Yeas: Brown, Meleski, Cotterman, Kreul-Froseth Nays: none BRB August 7, 1997 Page 17 OTHER BUSINESS: Regarding the June 1997 Minutes, Meleski stated that he wanted to hold approval of the minutes pending inclusion of the item he pulled from the Council Agenda and the question and answer between himself and Felix Lee. Proposed Amendments and Deletions to the 1997 UBC Draft, July 31, 1997 Meleski asked Administrator Lee to address this. Lee informed the Board that Vice Chairperson Meleski also sits on the Code Review Committee which has had its first meeting. Lee stated that the Code Review Committee discussed at length the Proposed change to the 1997 Code and he wanted to bring this before the Board. Lee explained that he rewrote this draft, from the earlier draft, making it more explicit in the limitations area. He continued explaining that the shaded language is new language, the strike through is deleted language from the current text, and basically redundant language that he eliminated from the general section under 105.1 about what the Building Review Board does. At this point Lee feels neutral about keeping this. Initially he did not feel it was a significant issue. Also, Lee thought the limitations in the model code were important to include, so this has been added under 105.4. He quoted this section, "that shall have no authority as to the interpretation of the administrative provisions." He explained that these relate to fees, how the code is set up, and administration, etc. He continued with the quote, "nor is it empowered to administer, nor empowered to waive requirements of this code." Lee stated this is more explicit than the Board has had in the past and he felt it important guidance in Board decisions. Brown asked if the first appeal today was the appellants trying to get the Board to waive the requirements of the Code. Lee responded that essentially it was and it would be a case similar to this that this code would prohibit. Cotterman asked for clarification on the item regarding "...a quorum of four members shall be necessary" which states that it takes an affirmative vote of four members to either approve or deny an appeal. BRB August 7, 1997 Page 18 Lee responded that when there is a minimum quorum, it is an automatic denial if an appeal is not approved and for an approval it takes a unanimous vote to approve. Lee confirmed that approval of the first appeal today is not something the Board could have done without a unanimous vote. Lee explained that the appeal came before the Board today because the appeal was based on a code issue. It would have been preferable to have the appellants advised initially. Meleski stated that what he objected to specifically was, aside from changing the actual number of the code from 204 to 105, the section stating "...empowered to determine the suitability of alternate materials or alternate methods of construction and to provide for reasonable interpretations of the provisions of this code." He explained that he and other Committee members addressed this and he clarified what the City Attorney had said that the Board is a quasi-judicial body and therefore, city staff does not have to bring things before the Board before taking to council. But, the Board still has the authority to find alternate materials that meet the code. Meleski commented that he intends to address the roofing section of the code regarding other jurisdictions who do not go along with the Class A roofing ordinance, specifically Larimer County and Loveland. These jurisdictions do find the Class C wood shingle to be the equivalent of a Class C asphalt shingle. Meleski would like to try to get the city to reconsider the Class A roofing ordinance which he feels is wrong. If the city does not want to reconsider this, he will bring it before the BRB and hope that a Class C treated wood shingle, the equivalent of asphalt, can be found to be an alternate. And thereby, the Board would have the city publish the fact that the Board finds it to be an alternate that can be used. Meleski stated that secondly, when the Committee discusses the Model Energy Code he wants to review again the requirement for the amount of window space that can be used based upon wall area and insulation required in basements. Meleski asked Lee if this draft would be brought back to the Code Review Committee as corrected for a second look. Lee confirmed that he would do this and that he felt it was important that the Board be involved in the discussion of this. Meleski responded that he would like to compliment him on doing this and would like to see Lee present to the Board items the Committee discusses from each meeting. BRB August 7, 1997 Page 19 Vice Chairperson, John Meleski B&Z Director, Felix Lee