Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 02/28/2002r 1 L_J • Minutes to be approved by the Board at the March 28, 2002 Meeting FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting — February 28, 2002 1:00 D.M. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Felix Lee (221-6760) Chairperson: Charles Fielder Phone: 484-0117(W), 207-0505(H) A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday February 28, 2002, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins. BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Fielder Allan Hauck Bradley Massey John McCoy Jim Packard Cameron Ryland BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: Gene Little STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Director of Building & Zoning Delynn Coldiron, Contractor Licensing Administrator Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board AGENDA: 1. ROLLCALL 2. •. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Fielder, and roll call was taken. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Boardmember McCoy made a motion to approve the minutes from the January 31, 2002, meeting. Boardmember Massey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Hauck, Fielder, Massey, Ryland and Packard. Nays: None. Contractor Appeal - Scott Holmes, d/b/a James Company (#2-02) BRB 02/28/02 Page 2 Fielder explained the procedures for contractor appeals. Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. Lee noted staff was unable to approve the request because the Appellant has not supervised one project three or more stories in height nor sixteen or more units required by the licensing ordinance. The Appellant requested an experience waiver for the C2 license with no restrictions. Lee mentioned that the James Company has plans to construct three-story units in the future. Lee stated the company's qualified supervisor left the company, resulting in Mr. Holmes' application. Lee said the Appellant has supervised numerous two-story, sixteen -unit projects, and the Appellant has passed the C2 licensing exam. Scott Holmes addressed the Board. Holmes stated he has been working with the James Company since February of 1997. During Mr. Holmes' employment with the James Company, he has supervised 32 six -unit, two-story townhomes. The James Company has plans for future multi -family projects. Holmes stated that he needed to be able to continue the James Company's current multi -family project at Sage Creek. Appellant Holmes reiterated his qualifications. Appellant Holmes stated that through volume he believed he had the necessary experience for a C2 license. Holmes requested an unlimited C2 license. Lee verified that Appellant Holmes has not supervised construction on any multi -family unit more than two stories. Lee asked Appellant Holmes if he has been an active supervisor. Holmes stated he was on the job site everyday, and has taken projects from plan review through certificates of occupancy. Massey asked Appellant Holmes about the role of the licensed supervisor if Appellant Holmes was the supervisor. Holmes stated he was the contact for the subcontractors, buyers, City staff and officials. Holmes noted the licensed supervisor would come and check the project on a daily basis, although Holmes made the decisions. Hauck asked Appellant Holmes if the supervisor above him was the license -holder. Holmes stated that was correct. Hauck asked if Holmes held any current licenses. Holmes stated that he just received his B license for the City of Thornton, which allows Holmes to construct multi- family projects. Hauck asked if Holmes' Class B license with the City of Thornton would allow him to do a three-story building. Holmes stated that was correct. Hauck asked if Appellant Holmes had any additional training that he would like the Board to consider. Holmes stated that he has taken and successfully completed the ICBO exam. Hauck asked staff what the licensing ordinance required for a C2 license under the previous licensing ordinance, and what the present ordinance required. Lee stated that under the previous licensing ordinance there was not a requirement for a sixteen unit or three-story project to obtain a C2 license. Hauck asked if Appellant Holmes would have qualified for a C2 license under the previous licensing ordinance. Lee noted that although this requirement was not specified under the previous licensing ordinance, he would have used strict discretion in determining whether or not an applicant's experience was sufficient enough to approve a multi -family license. Lee stated if an Applicant came to the Board with a similar request under the previous licensing ordinance, he would have looked for more extensive projects other than a six-plex building. • • BRB 02/28/02 Page 3 • Massey asked Appellant Holmes if he needed the C2 license to continue working on the Sage Creek project. Holmes stated that was correct. Massey asked staff what happens in the meantime when a company loses their licensed supervisor. Lee stated technically the company cannot continue working without a licensed supervisor. Massey asked Appellant Holmes if he wanted the C2 license to continue the Sage Creek project consisting of two-story, six-plex units. Holmes stated that was correct. Massey asked if Appellant Holmes foresaw any three-story projects. Holmes replied a development plan was recently approved and the James Company would be doing three-story projects in the next year or so. Holmes made his closing statements and hoped the volume of the work he has performed would qualify him for a C2 license. Lee made his closing statements and noted to the Board the hardship on the James Company and Appellant Holmes. Lee mentioned that Mr. Holmes has performed satisfactory in the past. Fielder asked staff if they had enough project verification forms for the two-story, six-plex units. Lee stated there were only two specific buildings submitted and asked Appellant Holmes if he had any more. Holmes replied he submitted the first building at Stanton Creek and the first building at Sage Creek and he could provide more verification forms if necessary. There was a discussion held regarding what needed to be waived. The discussion concluded that • three-story or sixteen -unit project was the item that Appellant Holmes was seeking to be waived. Hauck stated he would be in favor of granting a C2 license with a two-story limitation. Massey agreed with Hauck. Massey was interested in having the Appellant come back to the Board with a specific three-story project, and at that time the Board could grant a one-time waiver for one specific building. Massey noted that if the Appellant were granted the one-time waiver for the three-story building, the Appellant could use that building for his third project verification form. Fielder thought Appellant Holmes had a specific three-story project. Holmes told the Board it would be approximately one year before the three-story buildings would be ready to construct. Hauck asked Appellant Holmes if he could use the multi -family project in Thornton for his final project verification form. Holmes replied that the units in Thornton would be two-story, six-plex units. Massey made a motion to approve the request for a C2 license based on Appellant Holmes' experience. The C2 license will be limited to two-story, six-plex units. Massey told Holmes he would have to come back to the Board with a specific three-story project for the three-story, sixteen unit licensing requirement to be waived. Fielder made an amendment to the motion to include Appellant Holmes' Thornton license as well as successful completion of the C2 licensing exam as additional items supporting the Board's motion. Massey noted the Appellant has successfully passed the City's C2 licensing exam. Hauck added an amendment to the motion to include that a third project verification form be submitted. Hauck seconded the motion. BRB 02/28/02 Page 4 McCoy agreed with the motion but had some concerns regarding the Board granting waivers to aid Applicants in gaining experience. There was a discussion held regarding the granting of waivers. The discussion concluded with the Board agreeing that an Applicant could not come to the Board three separate times for three separate waivers to gain experience for a license. Ryland noted the dilemma that the James Company and Appellant Holmes are currently facing to continue projects and noted her support of Massey's motion. The motion passed unanimously. Rollcall Yeas: McCoy, Hauck, Fielder, Massey, Ryland, and Packard. Nays: None. 4. Contractor Appeal - Edward Seier, d/b/a Seier Company (#3-02) Appellant Seier passed out further information regarding his appeal to the Board. Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. The Appellant was seeking an exemption to his current D1 license in order to build a 29 unit project comprised of 6 four-plexes and 1 five-plex (attached townhomes). The Applicant indicated he has constructed 34 single-family attached units under his current D1 license at Cobblestone Corners. Lee noted Cobblestone Corners was constructed under the previous licensing ordinance. Lee stated that Appellant Seier had other relevant experience, although no projects were submitted for project verification forms. Lee noted that Appellant Seier has supervised multi -family projects in Denver. Appellant Seier's last test was taken in the 1980s. Edward Seier addressed the Board. Seier was seeking approval to build 29 attached, single family units. Appellant Seier stated he has previously done a similar project. Seier stated that he has done a large amount of building along the Front Range. Packard asked the Appellant if he currently holds a Denver license. Appellant Seier stated he did not, and his only current license was for Fort Collins. According to Seier, he has held several licenses in the past. Fielder asked what the highest license the Appellant has held. Appellant Seier responded that in Loveland he held a license that would have allowed him to build similar projects he is building in Fort Collins. Massey asked if the proposed project was the same project that was built at Cobblestone Corners. Appellant Seier responded that it is not the same project. The proposed project will be comprised of two-story units due to lot configurations. Massey asked if Appellant Seier was the contractor on record for the project at Cobblestone Corners. Seier stated that was correct. Hauck noted that Appellant Seier would qualify to upgrade his license to a C2, and asked the Appellant if he has considered upgrading his license. Appellant Seier replied that he has considered upgrading his license, although he will not be able to upgrade his license for the proposed project due to time constraints. Appellant Seier does plan on upgrading his license in the future. Hauck asked if the Appellant recalled the last time he took a contractor's licensing exam. Appellant Seier stated it was 1980. Hauck asked if the Appellant had taken any recent • • BRB 02/28/02 Page 5 • exams on the Uniform Building Code. Seier replied the other exams he has taken were also in the 1980s. Lee found a stop work order in Mr. Seier's contractor file and asked if Seier could elaborate on the issue. Appellant Seier responded that he hired a framing crew that told him they were licensed, and a stop work order was issued because the framing crew was not licensed. Seier stated he failed to get their license. There was a discussion held regarding Appellant Seier's past construction experience. Lee clarified that Appellant Seier was seeking a one-time waiver. Massey asked staff if the Appellant had submitted any project verifications forms for a C2 license. Staff responded that he has not submitted any project verification forms for a C2 license. Coldiron noted that Appellant Seier's D1 license is already in place and Seier submitted the required information for his D1 license. Appellant Seier had no closing statements. Lee made his closing statements and noted Appellant's Seier's extensive history of construction experience. Lee told the Board the focus should be on the Appellant's experience. Lee told the Board that Appellant Seier was not seeking a conditional or non -conditional C2 license, but a one-time waiver for a specific project. Lee stated that he had no issues with Appellant Seier's request. • Hauck made a motion to approve Appellant Seier's request based on 20 years of experience. The approval will allow Seier a one-time waiver to construct the proposed 29 unit project with the assumption that if a similar project were to arise, Mr. Seier would upgrade his license to a C2. Ryland seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Hauck, Fielder, Massey, Ryland and Packard. Nays: None. 5. Contractor Appeal - Wayne Leistikow (#4-02) Hauck recused himself from the Board. Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. Lee noted that Appellant Leistikow had an unlimited license with the City of Fort Collins 22 years ago and has been inactive. Lee stated the Appellant wished to reinstate his unlimited license (currently known as a Class A License). Lee informed the Board that Appellant Leistikow successfully passed the Class A licensing exam. The project verification forms submitted by the Appellant are insufficient for a Class A license. Lee stated the current licensing ordinance requires two projects meeting the Class criteria. The Class A criteria is two complete structures greater than 5 stories and 1 complete building that would qualify as a Class B. Lee noted that Appellant Leistikow has other experience and a construction management degree. Appellant Leistikow addressed the Board. Leistikow has been trying to obtain project • verification forms. Leistikow has been out of the industry for some time due to family BRB 02/28/02 Page 6 responsibilities. Appellant Leistikow stated he previously had an unlimited license, and would like the license to be reinstated. Leistikow noted he had an upcoming project that required a minimum of a C1 license. The Appellant gave a summary of his construction background and experience and noted his association with Soderberg Masonry, a masonry subcontractor. Appellant Leistikow noted that Soderberg Masonry would be involved with his upcoming project. According to Leistikow, he has been involved in projects at Colorado State University, the Civic Center and a Municipal Building in Cheyenne, Wyoming, as well as numerous jails and masonry projects. Lee informed the Board that the Appellant has submitted project verification forms. The first project verification form was submitted for a warehouse project that was completed in 1984. The project was a total of 3600 square feet and included a 40 x 16 masonry building with office storage and a shop. Lee asked the Appellant if he acted as the superintendent on this project. Leistikow stated that was correct. Lee noted that staff has received county records for this project and the project has been verified. The second project verification form that was submitted was for Taco Bell in Broomfield, Colorado. The project was completed in 1983. Staff was unable to verify this project, and it is unknown if any records exist. Leistikow noted a parking area, drive -up window, interior remodeling and site work was the extent of the work completed for the project. Appellant Leistikow noted that the Taco Bell in question was no longer in existence. Lee asked the Appellant what the valuation of the Taco Bell project was minus the site work. The total estimate for the project was noted as $180,000.00. Leistikow stated that approximately $30,000.00 to $40,000.00 was the valuation for the addition. There was a discussion held regarding the square footage of the project. The drive -up window was approximately 60 square feet and the parking lot was 20,000 square feet. The third project was for Century Air Craft Refinishing (4500 square foot steel structure) which was completed in 1981. Appellant Leistikow stated the County Building Department is currently researching this property to find a building permit for verification purposes. Lee stated he saw potential projects that would qualify for a C1 license, but the Taco Bell project would be considered a minor addition and would not qualify for a C1 license. Massey asked staff what an Applicant would need to qualify for a C1 license in terms of project verification forms. Lee replied that an Applicant would need three completed buildings. McCoy asked Appellant Leistikow what the scope was for his upcoming project. Appellant Leistikow replied that the project was converting part of the Rocky Mountain Bank building into a restaurant (217 Canyon Avenue). Leistikow detailed the type of work to be done, and noted the project would not exceed the C1 restriction of 10,500 square feet. Leistikow made his closing statements and reiterated his qualifications for a C1 license. Lee made his closing statements. Lee told the Board that if they were inclined to grant the license, he • C J 6. • • • BRB 02/28/02 Page 7 believed the following conditions should be placed: (1) verification of project verification forms and (2) that the C1 license be project specific. Massey clarified with staff that one project verification form has been verified, and would qualify for a C1 license. Lee replied that was correct. Massey asked if the Century Air Craft Refinishing project needed to be verified and if it would qualify for a Cl license. Lee stated the Century Air Craft Refinishing project would need to be verified, and it would qualify for a C1 license. Massey questioned the upcoming project at 217 Canyon Avenue and if a C1 license would qualify the Appellant to perform the work. Lee replied that according to the Appellant's description, a C1 license would be sufficient. Appellant Leistikow explained further the extent of the project as well as the proposed plans. Leistikow stated it was unknown at this time if structural modifications would be made to the building. McCoy asked staff if the proposed project at 217 Canyon Avenue would give the Appellant a third project verification form for experience for a C1 license or if a Cl license would be required to perform the work at 217 Canyon Avenue. Lee replied that according to Code the Appellant must have constructed or acted principally in the role of supervisor for the construction of three entire buildings, for which a minimum Class A, B, or C1 license is required. At least one of the buildings has to be Type I, II or III construction. Lee stated that from the Appellant's verbal description it is difficult to see if the proposed project is equivalent. McCoy made a motion, with the condition that the project at Century Air Craft Refinishing be verified, the Board grant a one-time C1 license for the project at 217 Canyon Avenue. There was a discussion held regarding McCoy's motion, and project verification forms were discussed. McCoy amended his motion to also include the condition that the project at 217 Canyon Avenue qualify for a CI license. Fielder seconded the motion. Appellant Leistikow reiterated that he previously held an unlimited license and he was applying for a renewal of some type of license that would allow him to perform the project at 217 Canyon Avenue. Fielder replied that due to the fifteen -year lapse, it was not subject to renewal. McCoy reminded the Board that he passed the A exam, has relevant experience to perform the project at 217 Canyon Avenue, and has a Construction Management degree. Massey agreed with McCoy and showed his support of McCoy's motion. Rollcall: Yeas: McCoy, Fielder, Massey, Ryland and Packard. Nays: None. Other Business Election of Officers BRB 02/28/02 Page 8 Hauck nominated Fielder for chairmen. Massey seconded the motion. Rollcall: Yeas: McCoy, Fielder, Massey, Ryland and Packard. Nays: None. McCoy nominated Massey for vice-chairmen. Hauck seconded the motion. Rollcall: Yeas: McCoy, Fielder, Massey, Ryland and Packard. Nays: None. Boardmember Training Lee reminded the Board of the boardmember training being offered and encouraged members to attend. Meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m. Felix Lee, Buildio a Zoning Director Charles Fielder, Chairperson