Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 07/26/2001A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, July 26, 2001, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Fielder, Gene Little, John McCoy, Cameron Ryland, Thomas Hartmann, and Bradley Massey BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Al Hauck STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Delynn Coldiron, staff representative Felix Lee, Building Official • AGENDA: ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Fielder and roll taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A motion was made to approve the Minutes. There was a second to the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the Minutes from the June 28, 2001 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. CONTRACTOR HEARING — JOHN RIESS, DB/A R&R HOMES OF NORTHERN COLORADO LLC: Chairperson Fielder reviewed the procedures that would be used for this hearing. Felix Lee stated that the respondent was requesting a postponement of his appearance before the board until the August meeting. He added that the respondent had agreed to continue the conditional suspension that had been placed on his license which precluded him from starting any new projects. Lee noted that they would be allowed to work on already permitted projects. Respondent, John Riess, addressed the board and made an official request to continue his case until the August meeting and stated that he agreed to the continued conditional suspension of his • license until that time. RB July 26, 2001 Page 2 A motion was made to continue this case to the August meeting with the stipulation that the conditional license suspension remain in effect until that time. There was a second to the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, McCoy, Little, Fielder, Massey and Ryland. Nays: The motion passed unanimously. 4. CONTRACTOR APPEAL — CHRISTIAN RAY, DB/A VANTAGE PROPERTIES LLC: Fielder reviewed the procedures that would be used for appeals. Lee provided information relative to this appeal. He stated that the appellant passed the 1982 UBC exam and was given a Class D1 license in 1987. He noted that the appellant had completed numerous projects in Fort Collins under that license, including four unit, attached, single family townhouses. Lee explained that the appellant was requesting an upgrade to a Class C2 license and supervisor certificate or, as an alternative, an exemption to his current license that would enable him to construct buildings with three or more dwelling units. Lee mentioned that the appellant was also seeking an exam waiver for the Class C2 supervisor's certificate. According to Lee, under the previous regulations, multi -family units contained within a single structure were permitted under the Class DI license. However, he noted that as part of the licensing revisions done earlier in the year, the language defining the scope of the Class D1 license was changed to specifically limit construction to single and two family dwelling units contained within a single building. Lee explained that the scope of the Class C2 license was expanded as part of the licensing revisions to include the construction of any multi -family housing unit of Type V construction, up to three stories, with no limit on the number of dwelling units, as well as any of the accessory buildings related to the project, i.e., the clubhouse, an office, etc. Appellant, Chris Ray, addressed the board. He stated that he was requesting an upgrade of his current D1 license to a C2 license or, in the alternative, an exemption to his D1 license that would enable him to construct 3-plex buildings. He noted that he had already completed many 4-plexes under his current D 1 license. There was a request for clarification on the exam that the appellant had taken. Lee clarified that the appellants' last and only exam was in 1987 and covered the 1982 Uniform Building Code. There was a question on whether any of the appellants' past projects qualified as Class C2 projects. Lee answered that under the current licensing criteria, to obtain the Class C2 license one of the projects submitted would have to be at least a 16-unit project or three or more stories, not counting the basement as a story. It was noted that the appellant had not constructed any projects that met this criteria. Board members discussed the options of granting a C2 license or expanding the appellant's existing DI license. Lee mentioned that he thought an expanded D1 license might be reasonable in this case but had concerns with issuing a C2 license due to its expanded scope. There was discussion on whether the appellant's proposed project would meet the three-story project requirement for the Class C2 license. Lee answered that he was unsure whether or not it would meet the requirements without having a chance to thoroughly review the plans. • . BRB July 26, 2001 Page 3 • Board members discussed the possibility of placing conditions on the appellant's current license that would enable him to build 4-plex projects up to a designated amount of square footage. Appellant closed by stating that he was not asking for permission to build anything that he had not already done. He noted that he had built numerous 4-plexes in Fort Collins under his license which were never questioned until the new licensing requirements took effect. He requested some type of approval from the board that would enable him to continue building the types of structures he has done in the past. A motion was made to grant a one time exemption to Christian Ray, d/b/a Vantage Properties, LLC to enable him to construct his proposed project at 320 W. Laurel based on the level of successfully demonstrated experience accumulated under his existing Class D1 license and based on the fact that granting such exemption would not impose substantial detriment to the public good or impair the intent and purposes of the licensing regulations. There was a second to the motion. A board member clarified that if the appellant was interested in a permanent variance to his D1 license, he would need to take the Class C2 test. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, McCoy, Little, Fielder, Massey, Ryland Nays: The motion passed unanimously. • 5. CONTRACTOR HEARING — JAMES POSTLE, D/B/A JAMES COMPANY: Lee provided information relative to this hearing. He stated that the respondent, on June 19, 2001, allowed the construction of foundations at 115 Aruba Dr and 1145 Aruba Dr without first obtaining permits. He noted that these acts were in violation of Section 5-26 (Uniform Building Code Section 106), and Section 15-162(d) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. Lee noted that the respondent has had a Class C2 license since 1994 and had a previous violation in May of 1999 for construction of eight garage foundations without obtaining building permits, as well as in February of 2000, when the respondent received a stop work order for conversion of a residential. garage into a sales office without a permit. Melinda Bartlett, Entitlement Manager and Attorney for the James Company, addressed the board and clarified the date of the violation. She acknowledged that two foundations were started without permits and stated that it was not done deliberately, but was an oversight. She explained that the project manager was under the misconception that it was an acceptable practice in the City of Fort Collins to begin foundations and footings without first having a permit in place. She mentioned that starting foundation work without a permit was an acceptable practice in other Front Range jurisdictions, i.e., Parker and Greeley, and apologized for the misunderstanding. She noted that the company is committed to maintaining an excellent working relationship with the City and has no intention to allow this to happen again. Bartlett added that because of the high turnover in the industry and their company in the past few years, they plan to provide extensive training to field personnel, as well as additional supervision to ensure this does not happen again. She stated that a suspension or revocation of their license would provide an undue hardship on the • superintendents and subcontractors, whom are residents of Fort Collins, for a mistake that the company made. Additionally, she noted that they had already paid a permit penalty fee of $380 RB July 26, 2001 Page 4 on both houses that were started prematurely. Bartlett restated her apologizes for not obtaining the permits prior to starting work. Lee asked Bartlett why the company was under the presumption that it was permissible to start work without a permit when in 1999 they had to appear before the board for the same reason. Bartlett stated that this was due to the lack of continuity in their company because of staff turnover. She explained that James Postle, the license holder, does not handle the day-to-day responsibilities, but that the field project managers and superintendents do. She added that the project manager from 1999 no longer works for the company and that the current project manager for the site in question was unaware of the previous violation. Bartlett asked for clarification on similar violations of other builders and on whether the City just recently started enforcing this code. Clarification was provided. Greg Henchy, project manager for the James Company addressed the board. He accepted responsibility for not obtaining the required permits prior to the time construction had begun on the two houses in question. He stressed the importance of not having their license suspended any further based on the fact that they have five lots that are currently under contract with customers and fifty more to follow. Bartlett closed by acknowledging that her company was in error, that the violation was done unintentionally, and requested that their license not be suspended or revoked because of the hardship this would cause on subcontractors, employees, buyers, and their business. Lee closed by stating that although the impact of a license suspension or revocation would affect many, his job was to enforce the rules and codes for the City. He noted that acknowledgment on behalf of the project manager that the same violation had recurred, was evidence that there was inadequate supervision being provided by the certificate holder. He referenced the responsibilities of the supervisor set out in Section 15-161 of the licensing regulations and stated that this constituted a "knowing or deliberate disregard of the code adopted by the City related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or the license holder set forth in this article" as set out in Section 15-162 of the licensing regulations. A motion of finding of fact was made, as follows: that the respondent failed to comply with items 2 and 6 of Section 15-162. There was a second to the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Little, Nays: Hartmann, McCoy, Fielder, Massey, Ryland The motion was defeated A second motion for finding of fact was made, as follows: that the respondent failed to comply with items 1, 2, and 6 of Section 15-162. • • E • BRB July 26, 2001 Page 5 There was a second to the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, McCoy, Fielder, Massey, Ryland Nays: Little The motion passed. Next, board members discussed an appropriate penalty for the violations noted. It was mentioned that the penalty should go beyond a letter of reprimand since the company had two prior violations. A motion was made, as follows: that the respondent be allowed to continue construction on currently permitted projects as well as any projects currently under signed contract with documentation of such contracts to be provided to the Building & Zoning department by noon July 27, 2001; that a 60-day suspension go into effect today for any new projects; and that the certificate holder be required to retest before the license suspension is lifted. A second to the motion was made. VOTE: Yeas: McCoy Nays: Hartmann, Little, Fielder, Massey, Ryland The motion was defeated. A second motion was made, as follows: that the respondent be allowed to continue construction on currently permitted projects as well as any projects currently under signed contract with documentation of such contracts to be provided to the Building & Zoning department by noon July 27, 2001; that a 30-day suspension go into effect today for any new projects; and that the certificate holder be required to retest before the license suspension is lifted. A second to the motion was made. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, Little, Massey, Ryland Nays: McCoy, Fielder The motion passed. 6. CONTRACTOR HEARING — EVAN METROPUOLOS, D/B/A G.C. WEST, INC.: It was noted that the respondent was not present. Felix provided information relative to this hearing. He reviewed the City's position that the respondent had knowingly or deliberately RB July 26, 2001 Page 6 disregarded the building code or other code adopted by the City related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or license holder, including the supervisor's failure to provide adequate supervision as specified in Section 15-161 and had failed to obtain a permit for work performed. Lee explained that on June 27, 2001, the respondent allowed construction/alteration to start at 902 West Drake Rd Units #1, #2, #3 prior to obtaining the required permit. Lee stated that his license and certificate were suspended as of July 23, 2001. He added that this was a second violation for working without permit; the first was in June of 2000. At that time, the respondent was warned that disciplinary action would occur if the violation was repeated. A motion was made to continue the license suspension until the respondent appeared before the board. A second to the motion was received. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, McCoy, Little, Fielder, Massey, Ryland Nays: The motion passed unanimously. CONTRACTOR HEARING — BRIAN STEPHENSON, D/B/A E. EDWARDS BUILDERS, INC.: Felix provided information relative to this appeal. He reviewed the City's position that the respondent had knowingly or deliberately disregarded the building code or other code adopted by the City related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or license holder, including failing to provide adequate supervision as specific in Section 15-161 and failing to obtain a permit for work performed. Lee explained that on July 17, 2001, the respondent allowed construction to start at 2727 Canby Way, 2721 Canby Way, 2715 Canby Way prior to obtaining the required permits. He stated that the license was placed on suspension as of July 17, 2001. Respondent, Brian Stephenson, addressed the Board. He stated that he is the owner and site supervisor for B.Edwards Builders. He explained that on July 11, 2001 he called the Building and Zoning department to verify whether or not his permits were ready. He said that he was told that the only outstanding issues remaining were the need for updated insurance certificates for two listed subcontractors. Stephenson stated that he had intended to obtain the permits the next day since construction was scheduled to start, but was detained by another project. Respondent mentioned that he has been a licensed contractor in the City for three years and a project manager for three years prior to that and that he had no intention of allowing this violation to happen again. Lee asked the respondent if he was aware that construction had started on the three sites without a permit present. Respondent stated that he was aware that this had happened. Stephenson closed by acknowledging his error and noted that he had not received any other violations. Lee closed by reiterating that the license holder is responsible for assuring that permits are obtained before construction begins. 7 • is is • • BRB July 26, 2001 Page 7 A motion of finding of fact was made, as follows: that the respondent failed to comply with items 1, 2, and 6 and of Section 15-162 of the City's licensing regulations. A second to the motion was received. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, McCoy, Little, Fielder, Massey, Ryland Nays: The motion passed unanimously. There was discussion on appropriate disciplinary action. A motion was made that a letter of reprimand be placed in respondent's file noting that if this violation recurs within six months an automatic 90 day suspension will be imposed. A second to the motion was received. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, McCoy, Little, Fielder, Massey, Ryland Nays: The motion passed unanimously. 8. OTHER BUSINESS None. Meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m. Felix Lee, Director of Building & Zoning