Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 09/27/2001Minutes to be approved by the Board at the October 25, 2001 Meeting FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting — September 27, 2001 1:00 .m. Council Liaison: Kurt Kastein taffLiaison: Felix Lee 221-6760 ha' erson: Charles Fielder hone: 484-0117 W , 207-0505 H A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday September 27, 2001, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins. BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Fielder Allan Hauck Gene Little John McCoy Cameron Ryland BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: Thomas Hartmann Bradley Massey STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Director of Building & Zoning Delynn Coldiron, Staff Support to the Board AGENDA: 1. ROLLCALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Fielder, and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Boardmember McCoy made a motion to approve the minutes from the July 26, 2001, and August 30, 2001, meetings. Boardmember Hauck seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Little, Fielder, Ryland, and Hauck. Nays: None. BRB September 27, 2001 Page 2 3. CONTRACTOR APPEAL -- PAUL REINHARDT AND DUANE REINHARDT Fielder explained the procedures for appeal hearings. Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. The appellants requested a variance from the licensing regulations to construct a detached garage, which is over 1000 square feet. The proposed garage is associated with a four-plex at 1607 Edora Court. Under section 15-155 of the licensing regulations it is allowable for a property owner to construct their own home and accessory buildings, but anything beyond that scope would require a licensed contractor. The appellants are the property owners of the four-plex. The appellants have indicated some experience, but do not want to take the contractor licensing exam Duane Reinhardt addressed the Board. Duane Reinhardt stated that Paul Reinhardt owns and lives in the four-plex. The four-plex is in a cul-de-sac and the garage would sit back from the four-plex. Duane Reinhardt detailed his past construction experience. Reinhardt indicated to the Board that he would find a roofing contractor to match the roof type with the existing building. The appellant indicated that the garages would be staggered allowing for a storage area. Lee asked Mr. Reinhardt if he was planning on using the four-plex garage for other uses rather than just passenger vehicle storage. Reinhardt stated that the back comer would be used for personal lawn maintenance equipment. Lee stated that since the garage is over 1000 square feet, the setbacks are different, and firewalls may be required. Reinhardt stated it will be brick and he will follow the City guidelines. Reinhardt stated that the proposed garage would be five feet from the property line and six feet away from the existing four-plex building. Lee reiterated that a four-plex is a different occupancy than a single-family dwelling and anything closer than 8 feet would require fire -resistive construction. Lee was looking for applicable experience and knowledge. Appellant Reinhardt detailed his previous experience, which included previous construction of garages. Appellant Reinhardt did not have any closing statements. Lee wanted the Board to be cautious with this appeal, and wanted them to be aware that Appellant Reinhardt may need to meet some requirements. He was afraid that a monolithic floor system would not work and an engineered foundation would be needed. Fielder felt it was the Board's responsibility to deal with the licensing issue and not the building structure specifics or zoning issues. Lee stated that the Board needed to determine whether there would be a licensing issue with "no significant detriment to the public good." Fielder stated to Appellant Reinhardt that the multi -bay garage would have different structural ramifications than what Reinhardt is used to constructing. Reinhardt stated that he has consulted with the Building Department and a floating slab was suggested by City staff. BRB September 27, 2001 Page 3 Boardmember Ryland stated she was willing to accept the appeal with the condition that Appellant Reinhardt would consult with structural engineers. Fielder mentioned he was considering approval of the appeal due to the gray area of the property owner's ability to act as their own general contractor. Boardmember Hauck questioned staff regarding the limitations of a homeowner acting as their own general contractor. Lee read from the ordinance. Lee stated that there are certain exemptions that the ordinance will allow. A property owner can do work to their buildings, but it is limited to minor work. The homeowner cannot perform work if the dwelling is a townhome or an associated accessory building. A homeowner is not allowed to do the following: fire resistive assemblies, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical systems, or more than one square of roofing. There are also monetary limits for non-structural work performed by the homeowner ($5000 for one building and/or $10,000 for multiple buildings per year). The ordinance also allows the work of unpaid volunteers or paid workers provided that such work is under the continuous and personal supervision of the property owner. Boardmember Little made a motion to grant a one time variance from the contractor licensing regulations so that the Appellants would be able to complete the construction of a 1040 square foot, four -car garage. Ryland seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Little, Fielder, Ryland, and Hauck. Nays: None. The motion passed unanimously. 4. CONTRACTOR HEARING -- JOHN B. DUESING, d/b/a YETI MECHANICAL Fielder explained the procedures for contractor hearings. Lee provided an introduction to the hearing. Lee stated that the Respondent, John B. Duesing, of Yeti Mechanical was responsible for a violation that occurred at 625 Armstrong Avenue. A furnace was installed without a permit approximately a year ago. Based on a City inspection there were some concerns regarding the installation. A letter from Mike Gebo was sent to Mr. Duesing on June 4, 2001, relating to the specifics of the installation. The homeowner alerted the Building Department. Lee stated that Respondent Duesing violated the following sections of the contractor licensing ordinance: (1) Willful and deliberate disregard of the building code or any other code adopted by the City related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or license holder set forth in this Article; y BRB September 27, 2001 Page 4 (2) Failure to comply with any provision of the Code related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or license holder as set forth in this Article; (3) Failure to comply with any lawful order of the Building Official; (6) Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed; and (7) Commitment of any act of negligence, incompetence or misconduct in the performance of the contractor's specific trade which results in posing a substantial threat to public health and safety. Danielle Johnson, attorney for Respondent Duesing, addressed the Board. Ms. Johnson referred the Board to her letter of September 19, 2001. Ms. Johnson noted that Mr. Duesing has made amends with the property owner, and the two parties have reached a settlement agreement (she passed out said information). The homeowner has agreed to obtain the permit. She assured the Board that Mr. Duesing does not deny that several mistakes were made, and was certain that a circumstance like this will not happen again. Mr. Gebo's letter of June 4, 2001, never reached Mr. Duesing. Ms. Johnson stated that Mr. Duesing has already been punished as his license has been suspended for 30 days. She stated that additionally this issue will be maintained on permanent record, he will have to revisit this issue with future customers. Duesing stated that he has had his mechanical license since 1986. It was originally under the name of Quality Air Mechanical. According to Duesing, his business has basically closed down because he has gone to work for another employer, although he still maintains his mechanical license and insurance. Respondent Duesing stated that apprentices did 90% of the work done by his business. He was responsible to make sure the work was done correctly and negotiated the final contract. Lee asked when the installation at 625 Armstrong Avenue began. Duesing stated it would have been the first week in August of last year. Lee was surprised that the installation issues did not come to Mr. Duesing's attention until the following spring and that there was no contact from the homeowner. Lee asked if it was Mr. Duesing's practice not to obtain building permits. Duesing stated if he enters into a small negotiation, such as a furnace, that it is in the contract for the homeowner to obtain the permit. It was his responsibility for the job at 625 Armstrong Avenue to obtain the permit. Lee asked if Respondent Duesing knew there was not a permit for the job at 625 Armstrong Avenue. Duesing stated that normally he would not proceed without a permit. Duesing was preoccupied with going to work for someone else, and obtaining the permit was overlooked. Boardmember Hauck asked what the nature of the complaint was when the homeowner contacted Duesing in April of 2001. Duesing responded that the homeowner called for an estimate for an 0 BRB September 27, 2001 Page 5 air conditioner. When Duesing went to the property for the air conditioner estimate, the homeowner stated her concerns with the furnace. Respondent Duesing stated that he agreed with Mr. Gebo's findings and admitted there were code violations. Duesing stated he agreed to repair the work. Duesing made his closing statements and stated that this was an embarrassment to him. He has taken the offense very seriously. Boardmember Ryland asked if the employees who performed the faulty labor were still employed by Mr. Duesing. Duesing stated that the employees were laid off after the job at 625 Armstrong Avenue. Lee made his closing statements. Lee noted that he felt Mr. Duesing was aware of the significance of the offense. Lee was concerned with the following: no building permit was obtained, the job was not supervised properly, and Mr. Duesing was not maintaining his responsibility as a licensed contractor. Hauck asked if there were any previous violations. Lee stated there were not. McCoy made a motion for a finding of fact that Mr. Duesing as a license holder has violated numbers 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 of section 15-162(d) of the licensing ordinance. Hauck seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Little, Fielder, Ryland, and Hauck. Nays: None. The motion passed unanimously. Little stated that he appreciated Mr. Duesing's sincerity. Little stated that the most critical issue in the building code was health and safety. Little felt the severity of the circumstance deserved harsher punishment than a 30 day suspension. Little felt a 90 day suspension and a letter of reprimand in his file would be adequate punishment. Fielder asked if any action against his license would affect his current employment. Duesing stated that it would not affect his current employment other than his own embarrassment. Hauck stated that this was Mr. Duesing's first violation, that the health and safety of the occupants was jeopardized, and emphasized the importance of obtaining a building permit. Hauck felt he was inclined to take additional action. McCoy agreed with Hauck. McCoy made a motion that Mr. Duesing's license be suspended for 90 days, with the condition that he retake and successfully pass the City's exam prior to the suspension being lifted. Hauck seconded the motion. Lee asked for clarification on whether the suspension was concurrent with BRB September 27, 2001 Page 6 the current (or existing) suspension. McCoy answered that the suspension was intended to run concurrent with the existing suspension. Hauck amended the motion to also state that a copy of the minutes be placed in Mr. Duesing's file. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Little, Fielder, Ryland, and Hauck. Nays: None. The motion passed unanimously. CONTRACTOR HEARING -- KENDAL KESSLER, d/b/a KESSLER ROOFING Lee provided an introduction to the hearing. Respondent Kessler has been issued three stop work orders for the following properties: 2312 West Stuart Street (July 23, 2001), 2431 Newport Court (September 8, 2001), and 813 Wagonwheel Drive (June of 1999). Lee stated that Kessler has violated the following items of the contractor's licensing ordinance: (1) Willful and deliberate disregard of the building code or any other code adopted by the City related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or license holder set forth in this Article; (2) Failure to comply with any provision of the Code related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or license holder as set forth in this Article; and (6) Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed. Respondent Kessler addressed the Board. He stated it was his responsibility to obtain the permits. He explained that he runs a small company and has to perform multitasks. He failed to get the permits for above projects before tearing off the root although the permits were obtained shortly after receiving the stop work order. He pleaded with the Board to not suspend his license because he is dependent on it. Lee noted that according to City records Mr. Kessler has been responsible for 19 jobs in 1999, 32 jobs in 2000, and 22 jobs this year, but 26 roofing permits obtained by Kessler Roofing remain without any inspection or need to meet code requirements. Kessler responded that he did not realize that the jobs were not all inspected, and he has never been notified. Lee stated that the City will not notify him, and that a permit is only good for six months. He explained that the City issues expired permit letters that are sent to the homeowners. 11 BRB September 27, 2001 Page 7 Kessler stated that he does not confirm with the Building Department whether a job has passed or failed inspection. Lee questioned the Applicant on whether he knew about midpoint roofing inspections. Kessler stated that he was aware of the midpoint roofing inspections. Little asked Staff if the permit card was redlined to say if a job passed or failed. Lee confirmed this and stated yes and that if a permit card were not on a job site, an inspection should not take place. Hauck questioned the Respondent regarding his normal business practices. Kessler stated that he normally does send a tear off crew before the building permit is obtained. Respondent Kessler made his closing statements and reiterated to the Board how important his roofing license is to him Lee made his closing statements and stated that Mr. Kessler has had his license for 7 years, and after the first violation one should take appropriate action to prevent future violations. Lee stated there seemed to be a pattern and he has not heard any preventative measures. Hauck made a motion for a finding of fact that Mr. Kessler has violated numbers 1, 2, and 6 of section 15-162(d) of the licensing ordinance. McCoy seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Little, Fielder, Ryland, and Hauck. Nays: None. The motion passed unanimously. Fielder asked Respondent Kessler how he planned to improve his business practices. Kessler thought a solution would be to fax in the applications and buy the permits one month ahead of time. He admitted that he fails with multitasking. Respondent Kessler was questioned regarding the outstanding permits with no inspections. Hauck said it would be beneficial to tell his tear -off crews that if the permit was not onsite to not begin tearing off the roof. Little did not want to suspend Kessler's license. Little wanted a letter of reprimand and upon another violation possible revocation. Hauck was concerned with the previous three violations. McCoy thought the Board could allow the respondent to make business practice improvements without suspending Respondent Kessler's license. Lee stated that he was not receptive to McCoy's idea at all because the City should not function as if it were a probation office. Fielder stated that there have been other contractors addressing the Board regarding the same issue, and sometimes it was their second offense. There was a discussion held regarding time limits for revocation. BRB September 27, 2001 Page 8 Hauck made a motion that a letter of reprimand be placed in Respondent Kessler's file noting the third occurrence, and if a violation occurs again an immediate 90 day suspension will be imposed. McCoy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Little, Fielder, Ryland, and Hauck. Nays: None. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: TERM EXPIRATIONS Boardmembers McCoy and Hartmann were up for renewal of their commission. Staff noted that applications were due to the City Clerk's office the following day. It was noted that if the Clerk's office did not receive enough applications, the application deadline would be extended. Staff stated that the Board needed to vote in the new hearing procedures for adding the Municipal Court violations (used as a separate legal proceeding). Staff stated that a contractor who requests repeated inspections could also be brought to the Board for applied negligence. This is an additional license violation. Hauck made a motion to approve the new hearing procedures. McCoy seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Little, Fielder, Ryland, and Hauck. Nays: None. The motion passed unanimously. It was noted that at the next meeting there will be a presentation regarding the Energy Code. Meeting adjourned at 2:53 p.m. Felix Lee, Building & Zoning Director Charles Fielder, Chairperson