Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 03/27/20024 i • • Minutes approved by the Board at the April 25, 2002 Meeting FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting —March 27, 2002 1:30 a.m. Irouncil Liaison: Karen Weitkunat IStaffLiaison: Felix Lee (221-6760) 1 hairperson: Charles Fielder hone: 484-0117(W). 207-0505(H) 11 A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Wednesday March 27, 2002, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: Allan Hauck Gene Little John McCoy Jim Packard Charles Fielder Bradley Massey Cameron Ryland STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Director of Building & Zoning Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board AGENDA: 1. ROLLCALL The meeting was called to order by Boardmember Hauck, and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Boardmember McCoy made a motion to approve the minutes from the February 28, 2002, meeting. Boardmember Little seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: Yeas: Little, McCoy, Hauck, and Packard. Nays: None. 3. Contractor Appeal - Gino Campana, d/b/a Bellisimo Construction (#5-02) AB 03/27/02 Page 2 Hauck explained the procedures for contractor appeals. Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. Lee stated the Appellant was requesting a one-time exemption from his current C1 license to construct a complex that exceeds the limitations (10,500 square feet) of the Appellant's current C1 license. Lee explained that the first building to be constructed was 23, 000 square feet and the second building was 17,000 square feet. Appellant Campana addressed the Board. Campana said the project was for the GK Gymplex. Campana noted several residential projects that he has built that are larger than 10,500 square feet. Lee asked Appellant Campana if he still maintained his Class B license in Denver, Colorado. Campana stated that was correct, and noted he would be able to construct this project in Denver. Campana noted he lacked the experience requirements for a B license, although he would meet the B licensing requirements if his request were granted. There was a discussion held regarding what Appellant Campana would need to qualify for a B license. Appellant Campana made his closing statements. Campana noted that he was also a civil engineer. Little showed his support for the appeal. Based on Appellant Campana's experience, Little felt it would be appropriate for the Board to grant a one-time exemption. Little made a motion to approve Appellant Campana's request for a one-time exemption to Mr. Campana's current Cl license. Packard seconded the motion. The motion passed. Hauck asked staff in order for the Appellant to qualify for the B license, would the Appellant have to take exam. Lee noted he would discuss the issue of the test with Appellant Campana. Rollcall Yeas: Little, McCoy, Packard and Hauck. Nays: None. 4. Contractor Appeal - Carl Wright, d/b/a Wright Heating and Air Conditioning (#6-02) Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. Lee stated the Appellant was requesting a waiver of the experience/project verification form requirements. Lee noted the Appellant has worked in Florida as a contractor, but the Appellant is not able to obtain the required information without making a visit to Florida. Lee told the Board the Appellant passed the HVAC exam with an 87%. Wright addressed the Board. Wright explained the routes he has taken to try to obtain the information he needed to fill -out the project verification forms. Wright stated he has been an HVAC service technician in Fort Collins for the past two and a half years. Lee asked Wright how long he was licensed in Florida. Wright stated he passed the Florida exam in May of 1991 and was in good standing until he sold his business in October of 1998. Wright relocated to Colorado and did not renew his Florida license. Appellant Wright felt it was more appropriate for staff to make a telephone call to Florida for verification purposes. 17 • • BRB 03/27/02 Page 3 Lee asked Appellant Wright how many jobs he performed as a licensed contractor in Florida. Wright stated the first year he was in Florida he obtained approximately 60 permits and the last year he was in Florida he obtained approximately 250 permits. Lee then asked if any of the homeowners or contractors that Appellant Wright had worked for would be able to verify his work. Wright stated he no longer has that information due to selling his business. Wright noted a couple of individuals who might be able to verify his work, although the individuals could not provide specific permit information. Lee asked Appellant Wright to explain his working relationship with his brother. Wright stated he worked for his brother (as an employee) for 3 or 4 years under the company name of Allied Mechanical, and eventually became a contractor. Lee asked Wright if his brother had any involvement when Wright became a contractor. Wright responded that occasionally they would share employees. Wright explained to the Board that the Florida licensing exam was extremely difficult, and the requirements to become a contractor were stringent. Wright felt his Florida licensing should aid the process of him obtaining a City of Fort Collins license. There was a discussion held regarding Mr. Wright's obtaining written verification forms from previous customers and contractors. Wright concluded that he could obtain this information. Little asked Appellant Wright if he had any jobs pending. Wright stated that he did not. Little suggested an alternative to Wright. Wright stated the Appellant could come to the Board on a job -by -job basis, and the Board could grant Appellant Wright the ability to perform the work until he had a total of five jobs. Wright responded that solution was not feasible because it would inconvenience his customers, and he would like to advertise. Little asked staff if it would be possible for the Appellant to pull a permit without having to return to the Board each time. Lee stated it would be possible if the Board conditioned their approval. Lee asked if Appellant Wright's business would be limited to air conditioning. Wright stated in the past he was done air conditioning, heating, refrigeration and mechanical work, but intended to target residential air conditioning. Wright made his closing statements. Wright decided that it would be easiest for him to be able to obtain permits on a job -to -job basis. Lee made his closing statements. Lee reminded the Board that part of the licensing process was for the applicant to obtain project verification forms to prove that the applicant has experience. Lee stated he would be willing to work with Appellant Wright if he could provide at least five project verification forms from a contractor, of which two forms would need to involve heating. Lee felt five project verification forms were not an unreasonable request. There was a discussion held regarding whether or not Appellant Wright's past employment would aid the project verification form procedure. The discussion concluded and the Boardmembers and Appellant Wright decided this was not an option. RB 03/27/02 Page 4 Hauck was concerned with the hardship due to the Appellant having projects over a long period of time. Hauck felt the Appellant could verify at least five jobs. Little stated the intent of the code would not be met without the Appellant having verified experience. Little stated the Appellant would need to either submit permitted jobs for verification, have a contractor submit the verification form, or collaborate with the Building Department to build the experience documentation. McCoy made a motion to approve the appeal based on the Building Department receiving five project verification forms to be signed by contractors or homeowners. The project verification forms would need to state that project was permitted, what the project entailed, and if the project was done satisfactorily. Packard seconded the motion. Little wanted McCoy to amend the motion to allow Appellant Wright to obtain a permit from the Building Department, if need be, so the Appellant could gain the experience requirements. There was a discussion held regarding the amendment to the motion. Lee noted an applicant would have to apply for a license with some experience. Little withdrew his amendment to the motion. Little wanted the motion to include that two project verification forms would need to be for heating, and three would need to be for air conditioning. The Board agreed to add this to the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: Little, McCoy, Hauck, and Packard. Nays: None. 5. Contractor Appeal - Jack Jennings d/b/a Clawhammer Companies (#7-02) Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. Lee stated the Appellant was Jack Jennings with Clawhammer Companies. Lee noted the Appellant was requesting waivers for exams and project verification forms needed to reactivate Class D, Class E and Fuel Gas licenses. The Appellant's Fuel Gas license has been expired since November of 1999, and the Appellant's Class Dl and Class E license expired November of 2001. All of the licenses are past the 60-day grace period in which a contractor may renew their license without having to follow re- application procedures. Lee said the Appellant indicated that the BRB initially approved his licenses, however staff has not been able to find any evidence after searching the records from 1989 to 1994. A fuel gas test was taken in 1990 and Appellant Jennings received a high score, although the records do not indicate whether a Class Dl or E test was taken. Lee stated Appellant Jennings was also issued a home improvement license (now a miscellaneous and minor structures license) in 1990. The home improvement license did not require testing or project verification forms. Lee stated that currently staff does not have any project verification forms in Appellant Jennings' file. Appellant Jennings' file does contain some records indicating two small tenant finishes (neither meet the current Class E requirements). There are no records in the file supporting Appellant Jennings' Class D1 license, although permit information exists for three residential additions and reroofs. Lee noted the Appellant was issued a Class E license in November of 1993. The E license was issued shortly after the time that the licensing ordinance was changed to allow staff to approve licenses with the proper documentation. Also at this time exam waivers did exist. Lee reviewed the current licensing requirements. x, • BRB 03/27/02 Page 5 Appellant Jennings addressed the Board. Jennings stated he has lived in Fort Collins since 1971 and has been in the construction industry for 30 years. Jennings stated that his construction business consisted of maintenance, remodeling, and consulting work. Jennings was aware that his licenses had lapsed. Jennings explained the lapse was due to unforeseen circumstances. Appellant Jennings passed out packets to the Board and items within the packet were discussed. Jennings stated that his past work experience includes single -story commercial buildings, several 3 and 4 unit buildings and/or duplexes, and historic remodels. Jennings noted he has not built many single-family homes. Lee asked Appellant Jennings if his licenses had ever expired previous to this incident. Jennings responded that he did not recall a previous time that his licenses had expired. Lee asked Jennings if he has recently done any work other than what was identified by the permits. Jennings replied he completed a Key Bank tenant finish. There was a discussion held regarding the scope of Mr. Jennings work for Key Bank. Jennings installed a partition wall, remodeled the vault, built a new mainframe computer room, and completed various decorative items. Jennings acted as the general contractor on the Key Bank jobsite. Lee advised the Board that in the 1970s the licensing process was different. Lee indicated the Board reviewed and approved contractors licenses. Lee questioned Appellant Jennings regarding the scope of projects submitted in 1978 for a D license. Jennings replied the projects were mostly remodels. Lee asked Appellant Jennings if he had any other projects he would like to be considered for the D license. Jennings responded that he built a two -unit project on Endicott (in either 1986 or 1987), and he acted as the general contractor. Jennings reiterated that he derives the majority of his income from consulting and performing remodels. Jennings explained to the Board that it was imperative that he had the ability to keep his D license. Lee noted to the Board that Appellant Jennings' records indicated that he has held a D license. Lee stated that Appellant Jennings was issued a D license (classified as a D2 licensed presently) and a Class E license in November of 1993, the Fuel Gas license was issued in 1990. Little was concerned with Appellant Jennings experience and knowledge of the Uniform Building Code, and felt the Appellant should be required to take the licensing exams. Little asked Appellant Jennings to clarify his request. Appellant Jennings responded that he is acquainted with the Uniform Building Code. Jennings stated he is a Uniform Building Code certified inspector with the City of Wellington, and has been for the past two years. Jennings also worked for HUD and owned Front Range Building Inspectors. Appellant Jennings noted he has not built three homes from start to finish in Fort Collins. Hauck asked Jennings if he built three homes somewhere else that could be submitted for project verification forms. Jennings replied yes. Hauck asked Jennings if he had any projects that would qualify for the current Class E requirements. Jennings responded he did not due to the $20,000.00 limitation. Hauck asked Jennings whether he had any projects that would qualify for the Fuel Gas license. Jennings stated yes. Packard asked Appellant Jennings if he has ever taken an exam pertaining to the Uniform Building Code. Jennings replied he took an exam in 1978 as well as the Fuel Gas exam. Hauck asked Appellant Jennings what other licenses he currently maintains. Jennings stated he has a AB 03/27/02 Page 6 Class I in Loveland, Class A in Weld County, and a Class B in Boulder and Adams County. Jennings clarified that the Boulder County license is an inspector's license. Appellant Jennings made his closing statements. Jennings gave a summary of various entities' expiration procedures and penalties. Jennings felt he should be able to retain his licenses. Lee made his closing statements. Hauck asked staff if the 60-day limit for renewing a license was a department procedure of it was part of the licensing regulations. Lee stated the procedure is part of the licensing regulations. McCoy asked staff if there were any provisions once a license had expired. Lee read from the licensing regulations. The regulations state, " ...the holder of an expired license may be reissued a license by submitting a new application and paying all fees ..." McCoy made a motion to reissue Appellant Jennings'D1 license and gas license upon successful completion of each exam. Little seconded the motion. Little asked staff what the requirements would be for the Appellant's submission of the project verification forms. McCoy stated that if the Appellant passes the D1 exam and the Fuel Gas exam that his experience would be waived. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: Little, McCoy, Hauck, and Packard. Nays: None. Little stated the Board needed to make a decision regarding the Class E license. Little made a motion to reissue the Appellant's Class E license based upon successfully completion of the exam. Little stated the project verification forms would be waived due to the Appellant's previous work experience. McCoy seconded the motion. The Board held a discussion regarding Little's motion. McCoy stated he was uncomfortable with the experience for the E license because the experience did not meet the current Class E criteria. The motion failed. Vote: Yeas: Little. Nays: Hauck, McCoy, and Packard. McCoy made a motion to deny the Appellant's request to reinstate the Class E license due to lack of related experience. Little seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: Little, McCoy, Hauck, and Packard. Nays: None. The Board held a discussion regarding the motion. McCoy felt Appellant Jennings could gain the experience elsewhere, and resubmit his application for a Class E license. Hauck gave Appellant Jennings a summary of the Board's decision. Hauck stated that the Appellant's D1 license would be renewed based on successfully completion of the D1 exam. • • BRB 03/27/02 Page 7 Hauck noted the project verification forms for the D1 license had been waived. The Fuel Gas license was renewed on the same criteria for the D1 license. Hauck stated the renewal for the Class E license was denied on the basis of not having the relevant experience under the current Class E requirements. Meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m. Felix Lee, u' ng & Zoning Director Charles Fielder, Chai person