HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 06/29/2001We would like to welcome you to the monthly meeting of the Building Review Board. Our first
order of business will be to approve the minutes from the previous meeting. Everybody had a
chance to review those? Do I have a motion?
--III move that we approve the minutes.
--Okay, I'll second that. Can we have a roll call?
--Hartmann
--Yes
--McCoy
--Yes
--Fielder
• --Yes
--Massey
--Yes
--Ryland
--Yes
--Okay, um, let's see the first one is our appeals. Looks like we have some appeals and hearings
scattered together so I am going to read the hearing procedures for appeals and then later on I
will read the hearing information procedures (cough). So for appeals at first the Building and
Zoning Director, Felix Lee, will present a brief introduction and the appellant may represent his
or her case including calling witnesses and presenting relevant evidence. At this time any party
in interest and in support of the appeal may also address the Board. Then the Building and
Zoning Director may ask questions of the appellant and the appellant's witnesses, if any.
Following these questions the Building and Zoning Director may then testify and call witness or
present testimony of other witnesses present any other relevant evidence. Any party in interest
who opposes the appeal may then also address the Board. The appellant or the appellant's
representative may then ask questions of City staff and City witnesses. The appellant or
appellant's representative may present any final testimony or evidence in response to the
evidence submitted including, (cough) excuse me, concluding with a final closing statement after
which appellant's case rests. Then the Building and Zoning Director will have the opportunity to
make a final closing statement as well. The Board will then determine as to whether the appeal
should be granted or denied or other relief is appropriate. Decisions of this Board may be
appealed to the City Council, however, the Council may not hear any new evidence, therefore it
• is important that you present all evidence here today. Appeals must be filed in writing with the
City Clerk within fourteen days of this Board's decision.
-Okay Felix ...
--Um, Joshua T. Watters, d/b/a, J.Watt Construction.
--Okay, this would be case number 9-19-sorry 2001. Joshua T. Watters, d/b/a J.Watt
Construction. The --a brief synopsis of this case is that the appellant is essentially requesting an
Building Review Board `
June 29, 2001
Page 2
exam waiver for a specialized -trade -framing license. The appellant currently holds the Class D-1
uh, which he was granted in October of 198 and was afforded an exam waiver based on sufficient
project documentation in accordance with the process that was in effect at that time. The
appellant, his company specializes in framing, however, even though the appellant does hold a
general contractor's license Class D-1. Apparently the appellant has not used his license for
anything other than framing. And it says that he continues to do that and he will continue to do
that. The reason he is requesting a framing license is he wants to be able to use exempt specialty
trade workers, which is permitted for a specialty license, and which is now authorized under the
current regulations. And he also wishes to maintain his Class D license to um, as is in the event
that uh, Mr. Watts and company decides to pursue the respective project. At this point we do
have the project verification forms on file that are sufficient for the framing license he intends to
apply for, however, current regulations stipulate that uh, the applicant must pass uh an exam
unless waived by the Building Review Board. And he is basing his uh, submitting his history
and track record as evidence of his competency with that I will turn it over to uh Josh Watters.
--Be sure and speak into the mic.
--State your name for the record please.
--Joshua T. Watters. My track record is my proof and that is my mainpoint that I would like to
get across. That um there is nothing in my file, I did check, showing that I have done any other
project besides framing projects with my license. Um my track record and there is nothing on
my record under my general contractor's license saying that I've done anything in a negative
form. Um I have built over 300,000 square feet in this town since I have had that license. And
uh, (cough) I understand the purpose for taking the test and for the capabilities of these people
taking the test making sure they are capable. I just feel at this point in time that I have proven
that and secondly, um I do not want to give up the better license that I hold at this point in time
and I don't really feel that I should have to pay for two licenses when I've already paid for one.
Um that part right there I could definitely be lenient on though. I guess that is about it. He did
state pretty much the rest of the information. Thank you.
--Uh, Mr. Watters if you wouldn't mind responding to uh a few questions. Sorry, uh you didn't
uh stay.
--In any case from your request is it our assumption that you are familiar with the current
building code and the framing requirements that are required in that document?
--Correct.
--Could you state for the Board the reasons why you uh you feel you uh should be afforded an
exam waiver and why you could not take that exam.
--I can take the exam, but um, I am working for a living, I am working very hard, I am working a
lot of hours and taking that amount of time in comparison to what I am doing right now is um
great. Um there is also financial aspects, I have to pay to take the test, and more than anything,
it's a moral issue. I have been framing under this license; I have been framing well under this
license. I have never been red tagged. I have never had anything on my file that is negative
whatsoever. Um like I said again I understand what the purpose of this new law is or not law but
...I just don't feel that it should reflect upon me. I feel that I have already proven myself to the
City of Fort Collins and my clients.
--Are you familiar with Chapter 23 of the Uniform Building Code?
--Not off hand.
--That would be the wood framing chapter. And that deals with the specifics on --in terms of
what is permitted and the requirements for the construction wood framing. Are you able to?
--I am not going to be able to recite anything for you out of the Uniform Building Code.
--Are you familiar with the span tables and how to use those in the Code?
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 3
• --Correct for a 2x10 you have x number of feet of load requirements, so on and so forth. As I
need to use ...when I need those items out of that book I take them out of the book, and I
understand how to use the book. As far as memorizing particular items that you may ask me at
this point time um I might not be able to answer all of your questions.
--No I wasn't trying ...my intent was not to uh, uh, obviously this would be uncomfortable for
you and ...
--I am a little nervous too so ...
--That's not my purpose at all. I am just trying to establish a basis of your familiarity with the
document not recitation from the Code per say.
--Correct. My, in the field, you know, when a particular issue comes at hand I uh do have the
capability of referencing the UBC book as you very well know. I have presented issues to you
when they have come up and we have worked through those. I am not the type of person to just
ignore it and hope the situation goes away. I deal with them as they come.
--I have nothing further at this time.
--Board members do you have questions?
--I apologize for being late um, but I don't think there is any question about your ability to
perform because you have shown that you can do that. But I think it's important for you to know
that there was uh, task force created of your peers, that met for over a year in trying to establish a
base criteria for all of us in the business to be able to operate from and it isn't an issue of
exemption. It's an issue of compliance. And it has nothing to do with your ability to perform
because we know you can do that, but when you want to expand the level of license that you
have at this point to include exempt workers --then it becomes an issue of compliance.
• Do you ...are your workers or employees of your company J.Watt Construction.
--I actually recently sold my company to Wicks Lumber and I am handling the labor and lumber
for Wicks Lumber at this point in time. Um, before the sale of my business 99% of my
employees were W-4 employees. Um never actually utilized subcontractors to the fullest extent.
The main reason for me to get this license is that if at one point in time it is profitable for me to
do so I would like the capability of doing it. As we all know it is a very competitive field and if
my competitors have an edge on me then I am not going to be as successful. And I do
understand your point on the compliance and what the reasoning, like I said, for (sigh) for these
procedures and so on and so forth. It's um, it's just frustrating from my standpoint that, that um
again I have no negative marks against me and I have fully proven myself and the license that I
have right now is higher than what a framing license would be in the first point so ...
--Please don't misunderstand. We're very grateful that you are following the proper procedures
and coming before this Board.
--Okay.
--So...
--All right thank you.
--So there isn't a job you are on right now with uh exempt employees, I mean workers, that is
causing you a problem?
--With workers that are causing me a problem?
--Well you're not on a job right that you cannot perform the work on because of your
classification of license? Is that right?
--At this point in time no.
• --Okay.
--Mr. Watters, um, I'm in a competitive field myself.
--Okay.
--And uh, we also have to take --we have to have so many years in the field. We also have to
fork out a chunk of change to take a four day long exam.
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 4
--Correct.
--And it's time consuming. And it's not, I think it's like he was saying it's not as important ...
the most important thing is for you to understand that it is not that someone is doubting your
abilities within your field, but there has to be a set standard.
--Correct.
--And whether your competent or incompetent it doesn't matter, well it does matter, but there
was to be a set standard. There has to be a set standard and an exam just like a university or
some many other different phases of any kind of education. And ...
--There was an exam when I originally took applied for my first license and I didn't take that one
either because I had the references to prove that I was capable.
--Right, but as there continues to be competition like you are saying and more and more business
openings --there's just more people so there has to be as that number increases, there has to be
some kind of regimentation.
--Yes.
--In your field just like there is within so many other fields. So I just ...it's like you can't
reiterate enough, you cant re-emphasize enough that um, if there, if you have the ability, if you
have the knowledge, if you have the experience, you have the references, there is no reason why
you should not be able to take and pass the exam. Um, all exams are an inconvenience.
--Correct.
--It's just not fun. I don't think anybody enjoys it. I know I don't.
--What about the financial aspect of it. Do you feel that I should pay for that?
--Um, yes, if that is part of the requirement.
--Do you feel that I should pay for a second license?
--Yes, if I was required to take a license every five or ten years or whatever the requirements
were to maintain my position within my field I would, and I do, I have to pay fees, annual fees
which is ...
--Financially, it will force me to give up my first license that I hold which is a better license
again. Um ...
--Why would it be better?
--The expense per year. I mean that's uh, I mean it doubles my expense per year in order to do
that, and that first license is not only something that allows me to do things in the future but also
as part of my resume and ...that's the main reason while I am here. I am not willing to give up
that part of my resume.
--Oh.
--You just said you were given an exam waiver for your D-1 license. Have you taken any kind
of um, exams, any other municipalities? Do you have any kind of other special seminars or
training that we could take into consideration? Do you take refresher courses with the County or
down in Denver? Anything like that? Front Range -community college anything like that?
--No to my knowledge there is not a framing school that I know of ...it's something that you
learn from ...
--Not specifically framing, I mean building code review, you know there is all different kinds of
things that people take --refresher courses. You should be aware and everybody should be aware
with the new rules are in place even if you were to receive an exam waiver today you would
have to take a refresher course in two years.
--Which, yeah.
--So it's not a matter of getting it waived once. I mean you'll be back again and that's the point of
the Task Force was to continually realize that people, yeah they had the experience, but they also
needed a refresher as new codes came into play and the City of Fort Collins Amendments to
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 5
• those codes. You know they are constantly changing, and ...even if your able to glean a few
little things out of the exam I think that's the real important thing for you to take with you.
--Correct, and I uh understand your moral issue and I understand your moral issue from your
side, from my side I have my own moral issues with it and ...and I believe I have expressed
those and it doesn't need to be repeated there. And I think they are real and I think that there's a
reason for the new license and the reason was definitely there for it and something needed to be
done with it. I also knew and one of the reasons why I was um riding the fence on it when it was
being passed through um cause I knew there was going to be exceptions. And these things are
not built with exceptions and I knew it wasnt built with an exception in the beginning and right
now I am standing in front of you with an exception.
--What is the current licensing fee for the D-1 and also um for the additional requirements that he
would have for a special license.
--All licenses now are two hundred dollars biannually, every two years, they are all uniform fees.
--So that would be four hundred dollars that he would have to pay then annually, I mean, every
other year?
--Correct to maintain both licenses, yes.
--So if you were to upgrade um his um D-1 um would, would it not be possible for him to have
that specialty license included in an upgraded license if he wanted to move up from a D-1?
--No, there's no, at least there's nothing set out in the ordinance that um, that has an inclusive
provision that if you have one license you dons[ have to pay for another. I think that was
intentional too. Just as any contractor could um general contractor could obtain a concrete
license or a roofing license or an HVAC license they are specialized trades and that's, that's the
• distinction.
--You bring up a very good point. What, what's this was designed to do in the first place was to
keep general contractors from hiring on people that were not confident and uh not taking
responsibility for 'em. In this case, I am a general contractor yes, but only by title. I am
technically not a general contractor I am a framer. So right now you have a framer who would
like to be responsible for people who do not have framing licenses like the rest of the framers are
allowed to do. And it's that simple. So there again, what was it designed to do and where do I fit
in --that's the question.
--Well it's your choice to keep both of them if you want both of them and you admitted that there
is a value to having the D-1 on your resume and being able to state that and with the value comes
a cost. If you are able to say that you are a general contractor and a licensed framer there is a
cost associated to each one of those. So it's really your decision, you know your decision
whether the cost is worth the benefit of being able to say that and have that on your resume. So I
think there is a cost and a benefit to each one of 'em. That's why they are separate so ... f
--Didn't used to be that way though. It wasn't that way when I first started general contracting in
this town. I could do everything under my one license. And I understand that things change, but
--We have two separate issues here don't we as I see it. One is whether he is talking about the
fee involved with holding two licenses or the fees involved for holding two licenses. And the
other is whether or not he has sufficient experience or projects verification to request an exam
waiver. Right?
--My understanding is that he has the projects, it's just that he is requesting an exam waiver.
--That's true he has his projects submitted uh, with his original D-1 application back in '98 and
• certainly would fulfill the requirements for a framing license as well. The only issue then at the
time we were administratively I was issuing uh, exam waivers based on the criteria of five
projects and five years of experience.
--I would be more than willing to give you any number decided of um more project verifications
of what I've done in this town since then. I could probably make a stack about that tall.
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 6
--Any more questions. Do we want to go to uh closing statements?
--Okay, um do you wish to make a closing statement?
--No.
--Okay, everything has been said?
--I would just summarize that uh, uh, echo some of what the members of the Board have said. I
think the process is there for a good reason, uh, there will always be exceptions. I dons see a
hardship in this case. And uh, in the event that Mr. Watters decided to opt for one license or the
other say, uh, pursue the framing license and let the D-1 go --if that expired for more than sixty
days as the ordinance states now all applicants would have to retest under the current code. So
uh, I dont believe the hardship has been demonstrated, I think, uh, uh, the examination is in
place for a reason, and uh, we shouldnt be setting a precedent. That's all I have.
--Well I'll move that uh, we deny the request for a waiver for exam for specialized trade license.
--III second that.
--John, would it be okay to add a friendly amendment to that so that it would be because there is
was no um, justification showing a hardship, uh, in other words I think we have to have a reason
for denying. I think the reason for denying it is that the appellant did now show cause do to a
hardship. Um in order to be able to have us grant a waiver. So would that be acceptable to you?
--Yeah, I think so. This looks just purely convenience. He can frame with his current license.
So I don't know ...
--I think too that all of ...in addition to what Gene is sayin' for all of the reasons that the
appellant would have for not taking it are the same reasons that he should take it. And that's
basically his competence, his abilities and his experience.
--So Delynn what do we have for a motion then, we're denying.
--To deny the request for the exam waiver based on that the Applicant did not show justification
of a hardship.
--Ready for a vote.
--Roll call.
--Hartmann
--Yes
--McCoy
--Yes
--Fielder
--Yes
--Massey
--Yes
--Ryland
--What about Little? You missed Little.
--Little.
--Yes.
--Thank you Mr. Watters.
--Okay, Felix, Bruce Hagen, Hagen Brothers Construction.
--This would be case number uh, 12-2001, um, the appellant is requesting essentially a license
upgrade and an exam waiver. This has a bit of history with this particular license. The appellant
currently holds a D-1 and was granted this license in December of 1993 and again as the
preceding case was granted the waiver was based on sufficient project documentation. However,
uh, later on, uh, several years after that uh, the license, the appellant, I am sorry, was erroneously
issued a C-2 license. There was no documentation submitted or no formal request. It was a
staff, uh, administrative error. And the appellant held that until 1999 when uh, we discovered the
error. And based on our review of the file the appellant was issued the D-1 license that was
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 7
• originally approved. The projects that the appellant has submitted, by the way, all that we have
at this point did not exceed the scope of the D-1 license when submitted back in '93. At this
point the appellant, uh, although has not submitted an application for the C-2 license is
requesting a reinstatement of that license and has submitted additional documents, uh, indicating
that the appellant meets that requirement. In fact, may meet quite a few designations, although
under the current regulations the appellant does not demonstrate any new multi -family
construction with one project having sixteen or mote units in them as is now specified in the new
ordinance. I think with that I will turn it over to the appellant. I have some questions of the
appellant regarding specifics about the experience and some other issues. So, uh, Mr. Hagen if
you would step forward.
--And please state your name for the record.
--My name is Bruce Hagen, this is my partner, my brother, Kurt Hagen. As Felix says that we
are asking for the uh, upgrade from our current D-2 to a B license. We feel that we have
substantial documentation from our past history, primarily in northern California, where we did
hold a B classification and did several, um, um, commercial projects of various sizes and asking
to be because of our, uh, past experience, exempt from needing to take an exam for that upgrade.
--Have you concluded with your introduction?
--I believe so.
--Okay does that satisfy?
--That's fine. I just wanted to make sure that you had that opportunity. Mr. Hagen just some
clarification. You were ...your verification documents indicate, uh, um, some years ago that the
company name was Hagen and Sons Construction.
• --Hagen and Sons Construction, Inc., yes sir.
And what was your role, capacity in that organization?
--Vice-president, partner.
--I see and in terms of onsite responsibilities, uh ...
--Oh, they varied greatly, vice president, project manager, estimator, um, did scheduling,
construction management, carpenter, many roles, many have.
--Are you aware that the uh, under the uh, specific uh, regulations of the uh, new ordinance, that,
let me ask first, back up a minute. Ask are you, you are requesting also that you be designated as
the uh, supervisor for the license holder, is that correct?
--That would be correct, yes.
--And I would just uh, uh, provide some information to ensure that you are aware of this fact that
the supervisor has to be actively working exclusively for the licensed contractor, expressly to
provide direct personally and ongoing onsite supervision for any project.
--I do that now yes. I am on the projects that I am running, um, anywhere from an hour to four
to five hours a day on each project. Now that's actual onsite, it's not uh, by of uh, landline phone
or cell phone.
--That's helpful.
--Physically on the job.
--Correct.
--Okay.
--I think we understand thank you. Uh, now related to some of the specifics of your project
experience. I am looking at in particular the Carmela Ranch Company project. Uh, and it's one
• of this issue that is uncertain in terms of structural frame type, typically this would apply to a
given building and uh, four of the five boxes are checked, so I am a little unclear about
specifically what ...
--I think some photos might sum that up very clear, which I happened to bring with me.
--So is this more than one building, I, uh, from the ...
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 8
--No the 11,520 square feet is all in one building.
--I see if I can just interject what the structural frame of one building could really only be one of
those.
--It's a steel superstructure. Yes.
--So it's a steel post and beam.
--Um-huh.
--Is it fire resistant or is it? Uh, so it's a Type 5N.
--Um, the exterior however, is not. The exterior is the steel wood frame and then there is some
heavy timber that holds up, um, oh a shed roof --kind of a shoulder, kind of a roof off the gable.
Uh, again a photograph would sum it all up.
--Maybe that would help enlighten me. I haven't seen this so ...okay I see. So, uh, based on the
mix, uh, so these, the roof system and the walls are steel.
--The walls are steel. (People talking without microphones).
--Gotcha. And what is the main roof structure? Steel, so okay. Then this, uh, porch area --okay
so are the steel members fire protected, spray on fire coating, sheet rock, one hour any kind of
rate?
--Uh, no.
--So basically, okay that helps. This is a type 2N building. I wasn't able to uh ...okay all right.
I don't know if the Board members need to see that or not. So this is a 2N building with
multiple --housing multiple occupancies, uh, as you ihdicated housing, uh, utilities. .
--They did, uh, the barn the structure there itself does house, um, what we call, um, apartment
units stacked on top of each other, and two small families in each one of those.
--Okay, I understand, okay. That would certainly qualify for a class B project. Let's see the, I
guess I would have the same without taking a lot of the Board's time here, I just want to verify
the, the some of the same issues with the, uh, uh, project for, uh, the recording studio residence --
oh, uh, Billy Kahn. And so can you elaborate perhaps a bit on the, uh, is the entire building was
15, 000 square feet?
--If I could, I would like to turn these questions over to my brother Kurt. Kurt was the manager,
the project manager on that project. He knows a little bit more about it than I do. And again,
have many photos that we would love to show you, um, some of the construction that we had to
do on this particular site.
--Kurt Hagen.
--Kurt, thank you. Again, we have several structural frame types listed here. I am just trying to
establish what exactly the super structure of the roof system. Those main components --what
type of framing.
--Some--a lot of the framing, part of the project was wood framing. A tremendous amount of it
was all concrete foundation walls and roof --that was mainly for the recording area and the
terraces that were there and some of the photo labs, uh, entertainment areas. The guest quarters,
conference rooms, uh, picture size areas, that was wood frame and steel structure as well --a
combination. The roof structures on that were a combination of steel and wood framing. Uh,
what this was it was a, it was a thought of somewhat as a second home for Mr. and Mrs. Kahn,
but it mainly was a recording studio where groups would come to this area and do their recording
and their photos would be taken. There were pools, tennis; they would entertain themselves
while they were there. There were also guest quarters, caretakers quarters, maids quarters, um,
and this place was available for people to come and rent it or take time in it an do their recording
while they were there.
--So this was the 15, 000 square feet is one building?
--Is one building and then there were other out buildings in addition to that yes.
--But this building had multiple structural systems, including wood?
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 9
• --That is correct yes.
Okay, I would say in terms of the building code it is always the lowest common denominator
probably be considered in type, uh, by the building unless it had ...
--The majority of the building was concrete.
--But there were structural frame walls --wood walls?
--There were structural wood frame walls, yes.
--You would have to consider the lowest, uh, in terms of rating the --I was just trying to establish
the building type for the Board and myself for that matter.
--If you take a look at that you will realize right away that there is no way that that is strictly
residence. It is some of the most intricate or complicated, uh, building techniques you will find.
--Okay.
--Kurt was Bruce the project supervisor on the job the whole time?
--Bruce was the supervisor right ... and I was the project manager and supervisor both. It was a
two and a half -year project.
--Okay so it was a joint ...
--Yes it was.
--And just, uh, I just have one other point, um, similar questions related to the aviation building
in San Jose at the San Jose Airport. So again this was a multi -use building apparently with
lobbies, restaurants, hangar included it sounds like.
--Well strictly, not multi -use, of course, the hangar to house the jets and small planes, um,
multiple of those, um, and of course the offices lobbies, um, had a small kitchen for the pilots.
--Okay and so, but again, this addition that you built on the building it was an addition that was
• put on this, is that ...
--That's correct ...the total ...
--The addition what uses did that included?
--The 12, 200 square feet?
--Yes.
--It's uses?
--Yes.
--It's uses were strictly anything other than the hangar.
--Oh, okay.
--The only construction that we really did in the hangar was to increase the size of the overhead
door so they could get the tail of the, what was it, the Falcon 900 at that time, through the wall,
and some interior lighting, electrical.
--So again, um, I guess, so we can clarify for the record, uh, the structural framing you have
mixed here so, was conventional wood frame and then some steel framing is that ...
--No, actually again it was a steel super structure, all the interior partition walls were either of
wood or steel with a one hour wall.
--Okay, um. So the interior, uh, combustible interior wood partitions, is that ...
--With one our fire walls?
--The wood was one hour? All the wood was covered in one hour?
--Yes.
--The walls and the roof system were structural steel?
--That's right.
• Is that correct?
--That is correct.
--And well it's another type 2 building and the addition was 12, 000 square feet.
--Correct, 12, 200.
--And three stories?
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 10
--The third story consisted of a uh an observation deck, partially enclosed ...
--So it really wasn't enclosed?
--Did they have a roof?
--Yes it did.
--Um...
--Glass roof over that section. It was probably a total of maybe 500 square feet. Had a good
view of the San Jose Airport.
--Those are my questions at this time.
--Does Joseph George Distributors Warehouse does that work as another type 1 or type 2
verification?
--Let's see, let me find that one. My point for the benefit of the Board was really to establish this
multiplicity of different types of construction or is it all really tight. So that's the reason for my
question to understand the breath of the appellant's construction experience.
--And we appreciate your following it up for us.
--I guess I would ask the same thing it's sounds like, uh, the beverage distributor the 25, 000
square foot that is a new building, essentially structural steel walls and roof system.
--That's correct uh-huh. Walls also, and walls.
--The wood frame was just interior work?
--That's correct. And one -hour fire walls.
--That would be Type 2N.
--Well it did have sprinkler systems. Would that take it back down to type 1?
--No. No. No. Type 1 is reinforced concrete four wall systems. Okay that's uh, any questions I
have for the moment.
--Felix, um. (tape turns over).
--They qualify the projects for a B. They are qualified for a B, I believe. I better double check.
--Um, Mr. Hagen do you have any questions of Felix?
--I don think so no.
--Okay, then can we move to a closing statement? (Talking without use of microphone).
--Well I think the only comment that I would have there would be that um, the hardship that I
think I might be able to express there would be that we are right in the middle of two projects,
um, one project that requires that the B license ...C-2. The C-2 project would be some
townhomes that we're presently building out on the west end of Harmony Road at the Harmony
Ridge townhomes. Um, the other project that we are involved in would be the remodel of the old
bank down on the corner of College and Mountain and uh, we're involved in that project as uh,
part owners, just getting ready for their remodel.
--Can you describe what you mean by in the middle of a project?
--Uh in the middle of the project at Harmony Ridge we've completed one six unit building and
are in process of starting the second one. Um there will be a total of forty-nine units that we are
building there that would be the C-2. For the B um the building on College and Mountain we're
going through design process right now and bidding. We are hoping to break ground on that
remodel renovation in three weeks.
--Can you tell me then ... I am a little confused how he started the C-2 project at Harmony with
a D license is that were he stands right now or did he just find out that he has lost his C license?
--Apparently um, Mr. Hagen did have the C-2 license at the time before we discovered the ...
--I couldn't tell if that was just recently or back in '99 when that all happened.
--Same question but then I realized that this is the current case, so it had to be recent.
--Okay.
--Closing statement.
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page I
• --I think the only closing statement again would be that uh, because we are in the middle of two
projects uh, uh, needing to take time for of course studying for the exam and taking a test with
timing being so present for us I mean, you know, we're right on the edge. We need to keep
going forward, but that would be in my opinion a hardship.
--Felix, closing statement.
--Yes. Um, again for very much the same reasons as the previous appellant um, I don't believe
there has been any hardship demonstrated that rises to uh, the qualification as being exceptional
undue upon the person for applicant regulated and unless the uh, then it would be exceptional. In
terms that it's that a hardship is unlike any other applicant in this same position. And uh
furthermore um I guess it's up to the Board to decide whether there is sufficient other
qualifications like specialized training, education, or additional experience that may qualify the
appellant. I am not clear but I believe the appellant is applying for a C-2. Again we haven't
actually seen an application and I think that would be important to have on file. Um, at some
point, um irregardless of the Board's decision here uh, if the appellant wishes to pursue that.
--Your speaking of the B license.
--Or C-2. The appellant in terms of project experience uh does technically qualify for either
license.
--So it's a matter of just the application for a C-2 if not granted the B.
--Well in either case you have not submitted an application really for anything at this point. You
have requested the Board to do that, but we should have a document on file that uh provides that.
--So you're saying that it's just a matter of uh, uh, paperwork.
--Uh yes to some extent so that we have current information on the appellant and who the
• supervisor is and all that sort of data.
--Is it possible to grant him his request and with the exception being that he does have to take the
exam. Um but further into the completion of these two projects so that so we're not completing
waiving the exam, but we are giving him an extension?
--I am sorry Cameron are you suggesting that the exam be post-poned? Is that .. ?
--Well if he gets a reinstatement, is it possible to reinstate the C-2 um, with the understanding in
writing of course that he will take the exam um, but at a point in time when it isn't considered for
him such a hardship as far as his own scheduling with these two projects goes?
--Well that's certainly your prerogative to do that. I would just um, add that the uh the appellant
does have the ... if the appellant wanted one of those licenses we could issue it if they took, if a
supervisor took the exam, the designated supervisor took the exam for either of those licenses.
We could issue it. The appellant wouldn't be here, so ... it really boils down to I think an exam
waiver.
--The way I look at um, what could be sort of a unique hardship that we don't always see is the
fact that you thought you had a C2 until just recently and then kind of got it sprung on you that
you actually went back down to a D1.
--Yeah that was a bit of a hardship.
--Yeah that's kind of unique. You're thinking, you're scheduling projects, and you're thinking
you have a C2 and you're half way or part way through it and then all of a sudden you don't.
Now I think that's certainly a separate more unique hardship. Um you never thought you had a
B and this project coming up at the bank I would assume you knew you needed a B.
--Uh huh.
• So...
--It's moving forward a little bit quicker than we had anticipated, which is good in construction.
But from the Board's perspective I don't see how that's undue. I mean . . . that's not
something we have to ... I don't see that as unique. So I think there's, at least in my opinion,
there's a little difference between the C2 request and the B request. We have found that the
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 12
experience for the B is there but you just have to take test. The C2 I guess, I could consider that
a little different thinking you had it then losing it.
--I think I can speak for other general contractors that uh would maybe faced with the same
situation as we are right now that because the State of Colorado it does not have a state
contractor's license. Um in reality if I were to go to uh Loveland, Greeley, Longmont, Denver,
they may ask me to re -exam. Now how many times do I have to prove that I am able to build
C2, B classification and pass the exam?
--Have you ever taken any kind of exam for any license?
--In the State of California, yes, B classification.
--B meaning what for theirs. I mean everybody's is a little different.
--It's exactly the same as Colorado. That would allow us to do commercial, light industrial.
--Up to five stories.
--Um, yes.
--Do you have any other education that you would want us to consider.
--Well we are members of the Northern Colorado Home Builders Association, occasionally they
do have seminars. We attend those whenever we think we may be able to learn something or
even give back.
--Do you have a degree in construction management or engineering or anything like that?
--No I am a little older than I look, they weren't even around then.
--Okay.
--Um, Felix it is my understanding that um the Hagens could have a superintendent within the
company take the exam.
--Absolutely.
--And they could operate under that exam. Um the individual supervisor?
--Yes.
--Is that a possibility for you? Do you have someone at the supervisional level in your company
right that you think could test for this exam for you?
--Well it would either be Kurt or myself. And we're the ones that have the experience. Yes, but
again with the two projects that are you know on line right now um taking, having to stop those
two projects in my opinion it is not just my hardship. I've got lots of subcontractors that are on
schedule right now to go and uh, it would be a hardship for them too.
--If you don't mind can you tell me again what the schedule of the bank building is.
--The bank building we plan on starting the renovation in two to three weeks.
--So you have all of your approvals and uh ...
--In process.
--And the agreement with the City will be signed?
--JD might be able to answer that a little better.
--He is saying three weeks to thirty days, four weeks.
--Okay.
--Felix what's your intentions now that you —you've down graded him to a D1, but he already
has a C2 project with a permit in the works. I mean the permit has been issued to Hagen
Brothers Construction for a C2, assuming a C2 license. Have you stopped that project or what?
Were you just waiting till the Board heard it?
--Bruce, I am —I guess you will have to help update staff here to. So you actually have a permit
issued for a project?
--That's correct.
--For a C2 project?
--Uh huh, based upon the fact that we have already started project. Um with the understanding
that the C2 was in place?
•
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 13
• --I guess I am confused now. But you have not had a C2 license for almost two years, isn't that
right.
--They said they found the error ...
--I am sorry, I was just reminded about the uh, I did not in fact allow them to continue until this
hearing.
--Okay.
--Well like I said if anything is unique to me thinking you had a C2, scheduling it for that and
then all of a sudden not --to me that is more undue than you can expect. Again to me though the
B, they have never had B and has long has the project has been in the works that's something
you have to be scheduling and thinking about, and the requirements to upgrade so I guess I
would ...flexibility from my position for the C2 but no the B. That's how I feel.
--I have a question. This bank project does it qualify as a B or has it been submitted for permit,
have you submitted for a permit application on that project?
--Not yet.
--Because it doesn't sound to me like it would necessarily be a B. It might be a CI or C2 level
project. Would that, Felix, would you have any idea. It's a remodel on College. Would that
more than likely classify as C1 or ...
--I think it's a B.
--You know I really don't know the extent of the project. Is it a ...are you doing structural work
to uh, structural remodel? Rebuilding floors, roof systems, walls, bearing walls ...
--No it's not pretty extensive at all. Yeah it's mostly the exterior fagade and some interior
partition walls.
• --Sounds like a Class E project, "E" as in echo. (Talking without use of microphones).
--I guess I would like to make a motion that we uh deny the applicant's request for a Class B
license with any sort of waiver. Uh, the second part of the motion would be that we would allow
him a one-time exemption for the project already under construction under his C2. I guess the
only thing I would like to discuss maybe whether or not we would allow an exemption for the uh
bank in the event that it doesn't qualify under his existing license. I guess the motion as it stands
would be deny the Class B license and issue a one-time exception for the C2 project that is under
construction.
--And then that would give him uh plenty of time study and take the exam before the next one
that he may bring to the City.
--So it would be exempt for the duration of the project that we have currently going as a C2. Is
that my understanding?
--That's correct. Basically your D1 would give you one time exemption to do the C2 for the
existing projects that you have under construction.
--Well there's a dead spot here, I should clarify a point. The C2 license could not do work on
commercial, non-residential building, non-structural or a Cl. So there's kind of a mix here, just
for you information.
--I'll second Tom's motion. Um and I think uh a comment that uh I agree that there's a C2
project goin' that they should be able to carry that on and get that done. I don't see a reason why
one or both of you couldn't get a 100 on that B license test, in my opinion, knowing your
abilities. So um and how often do you give the test Delynn?
--Twice a month.
• --Twice monthly. And I happen to speak from experience it's really fine. I might be kidding just
a little bit on that but um, I don't see any reason why you guys couldn't get that done in time to
uh get the other project going regardless of the ...it's probably not more than a B license
requirement on the remodel of a commercial building so ...you should have that level of license
anyway.
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 14
--For the bank?
--Yeah. No I just mean the two of you with your experience and level of commitment to the
business. In my opinion, you should be a B license anyway.
--Um, then am I assuming that for the bank project that uh the C2 would be sufficient enough for
that?
--No, it would not. It would require a Cl or E, class E minimum, which --or a B would cover any
of that work —multi -family or commercial.
--So has part owner of that building I have to hire a general contractor other than myself to uh,
do the remodel work.
--No, I uh we uh my understanding is Felix has established after seeing your photos and talking
to you that you have the experience requirement for a B, but now you have to take the test.
--That's correct.
--Administered every two weeks um ...
--Oh um can we get a ... Delynn would like to restate the motion just to clarify for everyone.
--I have that your denying the request for the Class B license exam waiver, right? And your
granting a one-time exemption to current Dl license that he can continue with his C2 project
that's currently going.
--Roll call.
--Hartmann
--Yes
--McCoy
--Yes
--Little
--Yes
--Fielder
--Yes
--Massey
--Yes
--Ryland
--Yes
--Okay thank you Mr. Hagen.
--Okay we are going to switch gears here a little, I guess and go to hearing procedures for alleged
contractor license violations. Pretty much the sequence is the same, as you have been
experiencing, um the only difference is that the Board is required to um find a fact by a majority
vote um as to which of any, if any, described violations have bee committed and then make
determinations. Again, I would like to make the point that uh decision of the Board may be
appealed to City Council, however, Council cannot hear any new evidence. So be sure and
submit all evidence here today. Um an appeal must be filed in writing with the City Clerk within
in fourteen days of the Board's decision. Okay Felix would you like to present the case, Lacey
Construction.
--Yes, I will happy to do that. The respondent is Keith Lacey under the business name of Lacey
Construction, license number, C-271. The more specifically the respondent um was discovered
constructing several homes in the Waterglen subdivision with no permits and um for that matter
no applications on file for those permits. On or about June 8th, the projects, the first project that
were noticed that had not uh any permit or application included, I will take that back. There was
um there were some that did have applications um those specifically being 421 Torridon, 426
Torridon, and 1051 Elgin Court had applications on those in process but no permits. Um the
buildings uh those three buildings included construction to the point specifically referring to 421
Torridon included foundation, framing, finished siding and exterior roof. 426 Torridon
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 15
• foundation, framing, finished siding and exterior roof. And Elgin Court again, the same finished
framing, siding, and exterior roof. At that time after discovering the violations I placed, I initially
placed a suspension on the license pursuant to the authority in the licensing ordinance --
temporary suspension pending a hearing before this Board. Two weeks before the Board
hearing, fifteen days prior to the hearing and uh since have rescinded that uh the suspension,
administrative suspension from staff, I initiated beginning today. So the license holder is
currently under suspension pending the outcome of your decision today. There are a number of
other homes in the area um we may uh find out more about that when we discuss uh those
particulars with the respondent. So that's my introduction at this point uh and I will reserve for
further questions.
--Can I get a quick clarification because the way I read this, the violations were found first and
then only after that did they actually apply for a permit on those three that you listed.
--That is correct. Thank you for making that clarity, yes. And I should state for the record to
that uh based on that discovery um and field staff immediately put stop work orders on those
buildings and uh from that information it was my opinion that it was knowing or deliberate
disregard of the building code or any other code adopted by the City related to a specific
construction project on the responsibility of the license holder. There was a failure to comply
with provisions of the code related to that project --those projects. And there was um -definite
failure to obtain any permit required --permit to perform that work. So with that opening I would
invite Mr. Lacey, I believe he is here, to come forward and uh present his side of the issue.
--Please state your name for the record.
--Keith Lacey, Lacey Construction. Uh I would like to just first of all say that I am very sorry
• uh, I've learned a lesson. There are several ... did apply for most of those permits some of em
we just had not picked up. There are two addresses that are on this 4015 Torridon and 4033
Torridon that are not accurate. Uh we did have a full permit on 4014 and 4032 and just for the
record I would like to mention that. Uh I guess since the, this is no excuse, but uh even in other
areas we were doing work per engineer. And in this situation I was uh just trying to get a jump
on things and uh and get these projects started uh I never intended not to get a permit. None of
these projects have gone far enough for an inspection from the City. Uh and uh with that being
my only excuse uh I should have there is no doubt --I am sorry. I have learned a great lesson. Uh
I would ask for your leniency uh I do need to uh do this work to support my family uh ...I've
always tried to do what I was thought was right. I've always tried to do the very best that I could
as a contractor in the City. I've been here since 1978. I've done various, various projects never
had any trouble. Uh my wife was going through some sickness at that time. We had a lot going,
that's no excuse. I just would ask for your leniency.
--Mr. Lacey could uh could you uh answer a couple of questions regarding uh there are some
other homes --similar stages of construction and um we weren't able to ascertain as to whether
those were yours. Those being ...
--I think you finally did except those two.
--So 1039 Elgin Court, 415 Torridon, and 433 are ...
--No just 4015 Torridon and 4033 Torridon. There is nothing there that's the wrong address.
And we do ...
--Oh I see ...
--We do have full permits. We've had full permits, had inspections on those uh on those two
• particular ones.
--Yeah, okay.
--1039 is mine and it is in violation.
--And ...so to summarize then um prior to uh our inspector discovering permits were not issued,
the homes that were in questions, you did not have permits for were 4021, 4026?
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 16
--That is correct. I dont know if they were applied for maybe not maybe. That was a stock plan
and we were just uh ...
--In any case there were probably ...to the Board ...
--Yes.
--In any case there were advanced stages of construction. Um did were you are you maintaining
Mr. Lacey that you weren't aware a permit was required before construction began?
--Actually uh I, I am uh was aware of that. I just, I don't know what the City changing their
inspection things, I guess um, and I didn't aim to get by with anything. I really always intended
on getting that permit. Uh all these permits uh, I plead stupid.
--Have you obtained permits for all of the um ...
--We have obtained permits for everything uh except 1051 Elgin, and uh ...
--Ten, which one is it?
--1039 and 1051 we have applied for those uh ...
--Were those uh were those uh ...but they were the ones also discovered with having no permits.
They are under construction, correct?
--Yes.
--Yeah okay. So those two you still have not obtained permits or is there?
--Those two are the only ones I have not obtained permits for uh just I am just waiting on the
City. They have been applied for.
--Okay, I see.
--Applied but not obtained.
--So the City has not completed the review process is that accurate? But the work indeed was
begun. At this point I don't have any other questions.
--Mr. Lacey should that uh in your comments you didnt think any of the project were far enough
for inspection do you know what times inspections are required on residential construction?
--Oh, yes I sure do.
--Okay can you tell me what those times are?
--Well it's after the first inspection is the framing and mechanical trades.
--Okay is there a foundation inspection?
--Uh that is done through the engineer.
--And do you have evidence that those inspections were done by an engineer? Do you have
letters from an engineer saying that he inspected that work?
--Yes I do.
--Okay so you --none of these projects were at the point where a framing inspection was yet
required.
--None of these projects were at the point where the framing inspection was required.
--What about underground slabs? For example plumbing underground.
--There is no slabs, it's just simply crawl spaces, so ...
--Felix, on ...do we have anything on record that would show um that um Lacey Construction
has had any previous violations?
--No we do not.
--It is the uh Board's prerogative in a first offense situation uh which is my understanding, Brad
you can maybe help me because you have been here longer than I have, um that we could issue a
letter of reprimand with a stem warning with um significant penalties to follow if a violation is
committed in the future.
--It's our prerogative to ...we can do anything from nothing, to a letter, to suspense, to complete
revocation of his license. Um when we have done it in the past, when we have done the letters I
would consider that more a violation thing. I don't, you know minor, I guess I would say,
miscommunication, mistake whatever you want to call it. Um I don't know how and I appreciate
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 17
• your request for leniency and that you just made a mistake but it's one thing to say that you are
trying to get a jump on a project --it's another thing to have a roof on it. I mean at what point is it
not a...
--Oh I think you've made a good point. I think anything past uh, I mean I shouldn't have dug the
holes. I mean ...I agree. I've really been tormented over this because uh in the past I have had
done --tried to do things very much right and I was very much wrong. And uh there is no excuse
for that.
--Can I ask, I know were going to be hearing this on some next hearings and maybe I shouldn't
ask you to talk for everybody else, but was it just assumed or understood that the whole
subdivision wasn't going to get permits or a City truck would never show up out there and it was
a ways away and hopefully ...
--No I don'tthink that was the case at all. I just believe that uh we were kind of ...we've been
working in other areas things have went more and more for the engineer inspections and uh and I
think that was the case here. I was never not intending to get permits, it's just uh, uh, we had all
the inspections by engineer and none of the houses have been up-- that doesn't excuse a thing. I
mean like you say it's --I am wrong. Uh I don't know what else to say.
--I would like to remind the Board to that um according to what Felix has said that you've
already temporarily suspended the license for two weeks and now it's on administrative
suspension.
--Correct.
--Uh, no. Let me clarify no it's only suspended today. I've rescinded that ...
• --You've rescinded that.
--Rescinded the fifteen day prior suspension before the hearing fifteen days before the hearing
because of mitigating factors I was convinced it effected a lot of other trades and people down
the line. Um, but it is under suspension just beginning, just today.
--Okay, good. The only thing I would like to make clear to the Board is we've got six owners
here effected by this, so we have to, I am not saying which way to go, I am just saying that we
have to take them into consideration.
--What's that mean?
---Um, and III ask Mr. Lacey this, I guess. Are you the owner of the homes in their current
stages or are you building for somebody else.
--Actually they are under contract with someone else.
--To a homeowner?
--Yes.
--At their current stage they are owned by you?
--That's correct.
--Can you tell me how many of those houses do you presently have under construction or under
contract?
--All the houses I listed here, there is like ten or twelve houses, are they all under contract with
owners?
--Not all.
--Some are speculative?
--Yes.
--You work with a construction loan on these projects?
• --Yes.
--What would the total value of be do you think?
--How about the permit total value --total value of the permits that you owe or built.
--Yeah, I guess I am not sure.
--Probably a million five, I, the value ...
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 18
--The value, and I am not sure how many homes were in violation. There were only three, Felix,
or were there all of these homes we're on page two.
--There were several that I think four. We clarified. Yes, four, 421 Torridon, 426 Torridon,
1051 Elgin, and 1039 Elgin. Is that correct?
--That is correct.
--Okay thanks.
--Oh and the others he did um 4003 Torridon, and 1045 Elgin Court, they were in violation, we
discovered that. They ...
--Four total.
--Six.
--Six.
--Six.
--Several of those have uh just needed to pick-up the permits.
--Felix, um is it possible for us to um hear all the cases today before uh and make a ruling at the
end of hearing process um so that we don't create a precedent unnecessarily with Mr. Lacey's
case.
--I think your by virtue of the process, the attorney is not here, today there is a conference ...I
think uh in my opinion is that it is a case by case consideration. I don't think there is any uh
empowering ... yes it said particularly I will let me refresh the Board here. The Building
Review Board is authorized upon appeal in specific cases to grant variances from the terms of
this article. For the strict application of any would resolve peculiar or exceptional practical
difficulties to or exceptional undue hardship upon the person or applicant regulated. So I would
say my opinion which is not legal, but just reading the ordinance I would say that it is a case by
case. I don't think the Board is otherwise --we could be in a position where you could make one
decision a year or similar group of all cases are ...
--If that's the case um, um, can we take um, on a case by case can we take um a case and um
review it and respond in writing um after the hearing.
--You can continue a case, but you cannot, cannot, it's an open public meeting, under those rules
you cannot make any decisions or have any discussion outside of the public meeting with those
parties of interest present. So it's fairly rigorous.
--Do you know where were going with this? We're concerned that the other three cases have
evidence that may come to light after we rule on this one. We may create precedence and uh
have pinned ourselves in a corner so to speak. Considering they are all the same subdivision and
they are all the same problems. We are very concerned about ruling on that I think.
--Well I guess that's the uh, um, that is the charge of the Board. I mean, I don't know how to
guide you through these waters particularly I think a precedent is really, and maybe, I probably
shouldn't have used that word because it is a case by case. Everything is a case by case. You
have to look at the individual ...it maybe perceived as a precedent but each case should stand on
its own merits on the issues presented. Um ...
--True, what I think we're concerned about is if we rule one way on one thing and rule another
way because we heard some different evidence all the sudden we have set it up for appeal.
--Well you know I guess that's the system. I think uh again you have to hear each case, do the
best discovery you can on every case, and if there are particular circumstances for individual
cases those should be taken into account. Um, again I am not an attorney and I don't play one on
TV, but I think it's one of those, you know it's a public process that we have.
--Okay as long as we can have it noted in the record that we are concerned about the ...
--I think your ruling should reflect ...you know you would have to consider down the road as
well for anyone else. I mean that's with any ruling you make.
--I know.
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 19
• So...
Same subdivision at the same time.
--Well I guess that forces a clear understanding of each case.
--How many builders are in the subdivision that you are aware of?
--What's that?
-- How many builders are in the subdivision that you are aware of?
--I really dons know four, five, six.
--That sounds about right.
--I guess I will be the first one to state the ground, Mr. Lacey, can you give us any reasons why
we shouldnI revoke your license based upon your action?
--Uh, I just can't, I uh, the only thing I can think of you know, I don't know how the City uh can
enforce this all the way down the line except by teaching us lessons.
--Yes, and the lesson would be maybe you should work for somebody else if you cant control
the process to get the application in a timely fashion. Because you have not only put yourself at
risk, you've put six homeowners who are under contract to you at risk. You've put yourself at
risk with them because if you cant fulfill a contract they probably have a way to claim against
you. You are in a very serious situation.
--I know that sir.
--And as Building Review Board, my charge is to protect the interests of the citizens of the City
of Fort Collins (tape turned over) would think very highly of me letting you keep your license.
--Well and I would agree with that I would, if you let me hold my license even with a stern
warning or whatever, I would be eternally grateful, but at the same point I will learn a lesson that
• I will never do this again. Uh, I haven't done it in the past uh, uh, I would not do it in the future.
Uh, it's, I just uh, I don't know, if we had the permits they're ready to pick up on most of these --
we just did not get that done. My wife was sick, we had several things going, that is no excuse,
there is no excuse. The only thing I am asking is uh, I guess I am asking you to let me live
another day. Uh, and I think everyone out there has well learned the lesson. I don't think there's
a person there that will ever do this again. I know I won't because of the fact of the turmoil I've
had in my own heart going through this process. Uh, I was wrong, and uh sometimes it's hard to
do that --hard to be wrong, but I was wrong. So I am asking for leniency and uh I've put my life
in your hands basically. Uh ...
--Mr. Lacey you said that um you it wasn't your intention to forego the permits. It wasn't --you
had intended to get the permits. I am just curious as to what point in the construction phase did
you intend to get those permits and um that was the first part of my question. The second was if
you could answer his question more specifically as to why it shouldn't be revoked?
--Well I just believe that I am a good builder and I believe that I am an honest person. Uh and
that I'll never do that again. And I can, I mean this can either you know ruin me or we will live
through it but uh I can sure learn a valuable lesson by your mercy as much as your the lesson that
you if you choose to take a real hard stance I uh just ask for leniency on this particular uh ...1
am a good builder I have been around a long time. Uh ...
--So it ...just at what point in the construction phase, I mean, with these specific homes?
--I don't know. This is my wife.
--Did you intend to (background talking inaudible on tape)
--Could the witness please come and identify herself.
• I am Jan Lacey.
--I did know.
I went into the Building Department and I called back with Sandy there ...permits were ready
March 7, and I had gone in and picked them up ...diagnosed with something the doctors didn't
know what. (Mrs. Lacey is speaking but it is inaudible on tape). For twenty-seven years it has
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 20
been my responsibility to do the running, pick-up the permits, um those three permits were
perfectly ready. I had the applications in the car for the two, for 4021 and 4026, and after all this
had happened and I began to get better uh the guys have never asked for the permits on those
houses that hadn't come to any stage where they needed them and I forgot ...and I also had to
complete the permits for the 4021 and 4026 and I do the preparation and I do the permits and
that's been our system. It's me --you should be having my license.
--That's neither here nor there. In answer to your question from now on it will be at the very ...
I would not dig or anything before I get a permit. Uh ...
--We've had some other cases that have become before this Board where there have been these
sorts of violations with the circumstances where I'll say the work was done previously. One of
the things we asked of the people who were in violation of holding the permits was uh to identify
was part of their business practice procedures is to make sure that didn't happen. I don't know if
you carry Craftform under Carpenter Form under leads on a project.
--It's just a small time operation. It's me and my wife.
--Okay. You do all the superintendents and supervision then in the field.
--Yes.
--Okay so you're the front line person responsible for ...
--Yes I am.
--Making sure the permits are in place, okay. Even with extenuating circumstances, your wife
you knew or should have known that there ...
--I did know. That's not an excuse.
--Well we haven't made closing statements. Are we to that point? Do you have any other
witnesses or? Okay. Do wish to uh ...
--One of the things you talked uh Charles, and I guess I would like to ask if there is anyone else
in the audience who is in a similar circumstance who wants to speak on Mr. Lacey's behalf.
They might state their case now if they want any of their position in the record for Mr. Lacey.
Some of the other three people that are out in a similar circumstance. If any of those people want
to come forward I will just say that will probably address what you were concerned about.
--Yeah as long as Mr. Lacey's here. It's his hearing.
--It's your hearing Mr. Lacey but what I am suggesting is that we have a number people that
have identical violations to you and if any of them want to speak on your behalf you may invite
them up to the podium to speak on your behalf. If you think that's warranted. I don't ...
--Does anybody want to?
--Okay.
--Could you identify yourself for the record please.
--Curtis Packard. I don't know Keith Lacey. Um I am new to this state. You've got me next.
Um, I would just like to state for him I guess it will stand for me too. All of us everyday are out
trying to earn a living, trying to support a family um each day you know everybody makes a
certain mistakes in their business. Maybe rides the edge a little too close. I with him have
learned my lesson. I've paid my fines. Um we'll talk about my case later but I would just also
like to see some mercy for him so ...I mean there's a lot of other people ... I don't know if he's
got private investors or banks involved but there's a lot of other people involved than him with
subs that need to be paid and all that. And uh another thing it's gonna do to the subdivision there
is three of us out there that are in violation. Right now it's a nice subdivision, it's coming
together pretty quick. Everybody has learned their lesson on this one. And I don't want to see
twenty homes that are in foreclosure waiting for some other builder to come and take them and I
think it's going to hurt everybody's sales out there to have a half way finished house done next to
`em. I think overall it's going to benefit everybody out there whether it's the guy in violation or
non -violation for everybody to keep their licenses, finish the project with a letter, stern warning
• i
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 21
• so that um if it happens again obviously we know what's going to happen —the license will be
pulled. But that's pretty much all I have to say.
--Thanks.
--Steve White, Orcas Development, I am uh in similar situation not quite the same, but uh I
would like to speak on behalf of Steve Lacey. I have know him a little over a year, um he has
come and done some work for us and I would have to say he has been very upright, honest, hard
working, and diligent. Uh not subversive in anyway and I am sure that it was um an honest
mistake and no harm was intended to the health and safety of any of the occupants or buyers of
those houses. And I would ask also that you considered leniency on a first time violation for Mr.
Lacey. Thank you.
--Thank you. Is there anyone else. Okay. Mr. Lacey did you wish to make a closing statement.
Okay. Felix?
--I don't think it's lost on any of us the significance of the issue before the Board here today, and
the plight of people involved in the construction process. But my job is to administer the
regulations and if they are knowingly violated what does that say to the rest of the community
and the um and the work we so strive to um maintain in terms of standards and protocol. I am
not suggesting any particular punishment, that is your decision —punishment or not. But this
certainly rises in my mind many orders of magnitude above a furnace that's missed or a water
heater as we've dealt with in the past. In my opinion, it's obviously uh the uh the own the
witness of the respondent's own testimony is that it was knowing. And I think that's uh that's a
significant standard —that's a higher level that rises to a higher level of violation, in my opinion.
Of course, no one wants to impose any hardship on anyone, take away their livelihood. On the
• other hand again, that's not our function here. I think it's our responsibility as staff and I can
only speak for staff that we have uh we have uh an image and a message out there that we have
to maintain, if we're, otherwise it would be chaos. It's already the level of activity out there is, is
uh, is extremely high. It's difficult enough just to, we're at the point we're not going to be able
to keep up with inspections. And if we have build to certain builders uh that uh that decide well
perhaps I can get away with this, I'll get the permit sometime when I ...then that's also an unfair
advantage. Wouldn't that be great if everyone didn't have to get a permit except when they
thought it would be a good time? And uh I don't know how to else to say this other than I think
it's um it's a major violation, and it's not just one house or one permit somehow fell through the
cracks, it's a number of them and well beyond just a foundation. And it's true we do have a
process, we have had for almost two years that we do allow, actually require an engineer to
inspect the foundation. But there has never been any indication or policy or any discussion
among staff that, that uh obviates the need to first obtain the permit. That's our tracking system.
We don't even know if those homes are in the right spot. They maybe violating setbacks —we
have no idea at this point. So in closing I would just say to the Board that uh, uh, with all do
respect to Mr. Lacey seems like a hard working, honest person, I don't deny that, and there are
obvious circumstances um but this goes beyond just a mistake I think. It's uh, uh, serious breach
in the protocol in the standards of conduct for a contractor. Um and I would also advise the
Board that uh just for the just to slip it in here um that hardship is really not —hardship is only to
be taken into account uh when there is an appeal. Um the way the uh, uh, section is written it's
on specific appeal that you may consider variances and then consider peculiar or exceptional
hardships. It's silent on any dealing with a violation. That's strictly your own personal
• viewpoint on that and your collective vote. So again, I don't have a good answer on what the
course of action should be but I think it should be uh, uh a reprimand to me is um is essentially
uh, I hate to use this word, but it's a essentially a slap on wrist. And I know there a lot of ... the
whole construction industry if they don't already know about this they'll hear about it so and I
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 22
am sure that is not lost on all of you. So I will get off the my closing remarks and uh let you
proceed. That's all I have.
--Thanks, Felix. Okay we have finding of fact to do. Um there are three um descriptions of
violation in front of us. First one knowing or deliberate disregard of building code or any other
code adopted by the City. Um second one failure to comply with any provision of the Code
related to a specific construction project. The sixth one is or the third but number six is uh
failure to obtain any required permits for the work performed or to be performed.
--I'll make a motion that uh after hearing the testimony that uh providing the fact that all three of
these have been taken place. I think it's pretty clear and obvious that uh it's been admitted and
we all know that that's what happened, so.
--And Brad I uh agree with you. That um all three of these are evident. Um, however, I think
Mr. Lacey maybe carrying a significant amount of the responsibility um when um he may have
known or would have known maybe after the fact that those um permits had not been picked up.
It appears that there was not any deliberate intent here to disregard the application process. Um
there wasn't necessarily the administrative follow through in picking those permits up. Uh at
least in all of the uh homes that are um, um being examined here for permitting. Um so I am not
sure on number one that there was necessarily deliberate disregard. Um because we have had
cases where there has been deliberate disregard where they just weren't flat going to pull a
permit. And I don't think we've got that here. I think we've got possibly some knowing of the
fact that they had those permits —the permitting process had not been complete or completed.
But um, uh, but I don't believe it was necessarily intentional. And so for that reason I would
have to say that uh, um that both uh item number two failure to comply with the provision of the
code, and item number six failure to obtain any required permit would be correct. But item
number one I would say that there was not necessarily deliberate disregard and therefore I would
not find uh have a finding of fact on number one.
--Was there a second on Brad's motion?
--We're in between.
--Need a second or it will die.
--I'll second the motion.
--That's okay. Um I don't know how you can ...I just can't agree that there wasn't deliberate
disregard. The building code says that you have to pick up a permit, apply for one and have it
issued prior to starting construction. He has admitted that he knew that and so that's a disregard
of the building ...it was a knowing disregard so I ...my motion stands.
--Is there any other discussion? We have a motion and a second.
--Okay, roll call.
--Hartmann
--Yes
--McCoy
--Yes
--Little
--No
--Fielder
--Yes
--Massey
--Ryland
--Yes
--Um now we're in the disposition phase. Um ...
--Um I would like to make a motion that um that um we have a um a letter of reprimand prepared
um from the Building and Zoning Department concerning the issue of um in the review process
i1 •
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 23
• concerning um items: one, two, and six. Um and that um, um that they receive a severe
reprimand as a result of um, not having complied with the um provisions. And um that um, uh,
that we would um, uh, execute upon another violation to the Building Department a six months
um termination of uh, of uh the Mr. Lacey's license revocation excuse me, a six month
revocation of Mr. Lacey's license in the event of a future violation.
--Is there such a thing as a six-month revocation? Or is that a suspension?
--I think that would be more correctly termed as suspension.
--Sorry.
--Do we have a second?
--I'll second that motion for discussion purposes.
--Discussion.
--Um, you know I am not uh I am really confused about what to do. It's a serious thing,
especially when Felix brings up the point that you know we don't even know if that house is
sitting on the right lot. If uh it's got correct setbacks, um and um it's more serious than, in my
opinion, I've developed a different attitude as I listen to uh everyone talk about it. And uh, I try
to figure out --what do you do? Like Felix we can send a letter of reprimand and that was that, I
mean, I don't think Mr. Lacey is going to do this again. Um without question, but at the same
time it's a violation and I am more in the opinion of revocation with the opportunity to maybe
finish what's there and then allow him to retest and start over. Um but I don't know. I am way
confused about this. It's serious violation and if, if we don't have a serious penalty I am
concerned that this can go on all time and like Tom said we're responsible. The City's got some
responsibility to the fact that um, maybe they do, I don't know, that homes are in the right place.
• Uh and it's uh built per plan. I don't know. Um, so I am concerned about that um ... I think
that the market is very competitive. It feels like um you know there was a time when an
inspection was required until, what Mr. Lacey said, framing inspections or mechanical is done so
um permits are expensive in this community. You can save quite a bit of money and interest if
you don't do that. Maybe that's the edge he needs to be competitive with some of the builders, I
don't know. It may have been completely accidental. And then it becomes gee whiz they didn't
catch me, so I am gonna, let's not, give it another try, let's see if we can float that for two more
months or three more months. And I don't know I am just talkin', but I don't know if a letter of
reprimand is enough.
--I seconded the motion, but I can't support it because I agree with um John. I don't think it goes
far enough in terms, I think a letter of reprimand, you would give for an inadvertent one-time
issue. This is a number of buildings. I mean it's uh to me the serious and willful part is strong,
it's compelling here. I think a letter of reprimand sends a message that this is not very important,
but that's all the further it goes. So I can't support the motion, although I seconded it for
discussion purposes.
--Well I understand the administrative importance of this to the City. But I also recognize the
fact that we have never had a previous violation with this company who has done business here
for a very long time. And my primary concern is the health and safety issues of the community.
We have not had any health and safety violations here. And so um, although I understand the
severity of the mistake that has been made here. I would have to say that we have to be cautious
about the severity of our decision. As far as how we penalize this building company because of
the effect it will have on everyone down line from this individual's position of responsibility and
• authority that he has over these homes. And so I may seem to be somewhat lenient but I want
you to know that I am extremely uh concerned about all the lives that this decision we're going
to make today are going to effect.
--With that said it makes the responsibility of the general contractor that much more. I mean
you've got to know that a wrong step has a terrible ripple effect. You've got to take that into
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 24
consideration in your —when your deciding how to proceed. And uh, like Felix said, it's not just
a missed water heater or something where ...you say there hasn't been any health safety issues.
We don't know one —the only thing that has been inspected is the footing to make sure there is
rebar in there so ...and I know there was. Got to the point inspection was required, but to me
say you want to get a jump on it, but then you've got a roof on the building, I mean that's way
beyond. And um I don't know how to, I don't think there's anyway that we can provide the
necessary force of our decision without effecting someone else down the line. I just don't see a
way. Maybe someone else knows a way to uh do that, but maybe John's suggestion of allowing
these to proceed and get finished up, but um I don't know if that's even too lenient.
--I guess I also want to make the statement or take the position of the subcontractor who is now
at risk. I think it's uncommon on them, meaning framing subcontractors, concrete
subcontractors. If they are going to work on a construction project, and they recognize that there
is no permit on the job or if they ask contractors if there is a permit on the job, and they don't get
an answer of a permit --then they should be at risk. They are adults, businessmen also, and they
are taking on the same risk as the general. They have agreed to work with the general in a
contractual position and one of their obligations if they're licensed in Fort Collins is to make sure
there is a permit in place, whether they are a framing subcontractor, concrete subcontractor. So
if they move forward in the construction they were aware in their decision making that they may
be at risk. So the fact that they are now in harms way I don't have a lot sympathy for the subs
because they should know if there's a permit in the process. The homeowner maybe I'll say are
ignorant because they are not routinely engaged in that process. It may be a one-time thing. To
me the only people that would be harmed irreparably by any decision of this Board, I think that
contractors and subcontractors are in a different position. They're in business to do this work. If
they don't know if there is a permit or don't, haven't seen the permit then they recognize they're
going to take the risk of being there so ...
--I agree with some of what Tom is saying. I do believe that the banks um and a lot of material
people are calling for building permit numbers before they deliver materials. Obviously not in
this case, but uh I believe that's a practice by number of lumberyards, and uh they would deliver
material without a permit number is somewhat risky for them, I think too. Um, but I don't have
an answer for this uh, I would like to see the homeowners get in their home. I would like to see
the homes be right. Um, I don't know.
--Okay we have a motion on the floor that we need to vote on. Um roll call.
--Hartmann
--No
--McCoy
--No
--Little
--Yes
--Fielder
--No
--Massey
--No
--Ryland
--No
--Okay.
--To try and move this along um what, what are people thinking as far as what is an appropriate
punishment?
--Is John suggestion can that be tailored into something or I don't know being an architect I don't
get out there and I don't know what a 30 day or 60 day or 90 day or 6 months suspension means
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 25
• to somebody. Um I don't know you know as —what does that mean in the phase of things? I
mean...
--Gene can speak to that.
--John and Gene would have to speak to that more than what I would know.
--Yeah I am kind of with Tom. If some of these homes are sold you've got interest rate risks and
material costs risks and labor risks, all kinds of stuff that are owner possibly well on the builder
but also on the homeowner that is trying to close that home so ...
--I guess I am thinking about the future. Because I think we can resolve the issue of finishing the
existing homes, but I guess my thinking is what happens at the end of that? You know, I think
we can give this gentlemen for example a temporary license to finish his homes. Right now it is
suspended, I don't know if it should stay suspended for a period of time or be revoked for a
period of time. Um obviously the issue of re -testing I think ought to be considered. I don't
know what the answer is but I guess what I think what needs to happen is there needs to be a
message sent to the construction community and uh with this individual perhaps with the other
ones if they don't have position. I don't know I know if we suspended or revoke a license it puts
the contractor in harms way in the future, in terms of making livelihood. He is going to have to
find another kind of employment or work for another. I don't know that that is a bad thing.
From the viewpoint that I don't know if I would want this contractor building homes in our
community on a continuing basis.
--So is it an option to um remove the suspension until a certain amount of time until the projects
are finished and then complete revocation, is that ... was that your suggestion?
• --I am not suggesting that. I am saying that may be an option. I think we can uh allow those
permits to be sort of filled out throughout close out you know until he gets a certificate of
occupancy but you know I don't see any reason to allow him to pull further permits at this point
in time. And that would be a way to control his opportunity for building.
--Further permits be on these current permits ...
--Even if he came out with a new house tomorrow?
--Right.
--He wouldn't have the opportunity to obtain a permit. I know that's a pretty severe punishment
because that's they way he makes his living so, but what he has done ...
--But it also gives him, I am sorry, what he has done is what?
--Well what he has done is put himself in the position of risk, so I don't have a lot of sympathy
for the fact that he might not be able to go forward.
--Would that be a middle ground at this point, I am just trying to clarify what the options are we
can either continue with the suspension um revoke it complete now or let him finish these current
projects and then revoke it. Okay I am just clarifying.
--Have there been fines involved, Felix?
--Yes and in each case um we assess what's uh an investigation fee for working without a permit.
And it's the uh it only effects the actual permit fee which is uh not the all impact fees, but just
the building permit fee which typically Delynn amounts to in the case of these homes probably
three hundred dollars for the fine. Yeah I would say the additional investigation fee penalty is in
the range of three hundred dollars per home.
--And do you double the permit when they try to pull it or when they pull it? Is that the permit
cost?
• No.
--When do you double the permit?
That's a misnomer that double fee is just called an investigation fee. That's what that means.
--Tom, I kind of like the way you are going. Since you guys don't like my idea, I think, in, in,
and I think what you're thinking and saying is very fair here. Um, cause it does send a message
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 26
to the building community that this is unacceptable behavior. Um, I would like to see um, Mr.
Lacey to be able to complete these homes um under uh under a suspension or um I don't know
what you would call it Felix, but um temporary license.
--Well I hate to interrupt but it could be tailored I suppose the license with these suspension and
that upon further work the license is suspended for a period of time.
--So I would like to have us discuss the possibility of uh of um allowing Mr. Lacey to finish
these units that um are under question here, um that any further applications for building permits
would um would not be allowed during a suspended period of time and um possibly. And I also
like the idea of him having to take the test again. I think just some studying and looking at the
requirements of um of the Codes um having just gone through a year of this myself. I think it
would be helpful to just to be able to have him have that knowledge than allow this to sink in a
little bit. Um and um I guess I would like us to discuss the time of the suspension. What period
of time you feel is uh a reasonable period of time for that.
--John and I were just talking about some of the other potential implications. We don't know um
Mr. Lacey's business practices but we could have commitments to lots for example.
--To what?
--To lots.
--He might have options to buy lots or he may have money invested in additional lots. So that I
mean, I think we need to discuss sort of the long-term ramification of the decision too.
--That's what I was ... (speaking without microphone)
--Yeah, I guess that I am feeling like that we need to come up with something that the builders
understand is serious. But I don't want to bear any because this isn't a knowing violation of
some safety issue and a home and ... it is but it's not as serious as some other things that I have
seen.
--Remorse, previous record that's ...I agree.
--I guess you have to get down to the fine-tuning of it then. What if you don't, will it take four
months to finish these, three months, six months. I mean if you allow a temporary continuation
of his license and then upon final CO of the last home being hold, does the suspension start from
that point and goes or revocation and not allow them to reapply for x number of days. You could
do it either way, but what's that time frame? You certainly, I mean you want the homes to be
competed efficaciously and not being drug out so that so that the suspension doesn't _start.
Figure out all those specifics.
--If I might interject just to clarify a point. Revocation is indefinite, and to re -obtain the license a
person whose license who may have been revoked needs to reappear before the Board and
demonstrate that they have uh they have been rehabilitated and are worthy of uh receiving a
license. The suspension on the other hand is some defined period of time.
--Can we ask Mr. Lacey to come up and speak again in terms of kind of a long term financial
position.
--Oh, I think you can do that.
--I think that would be really important for him to identify what ...the chairs I think can do that.
--If everybody is in agreement, I will allow it. Mr. Lacey if you could come up and address this
issue.
--What did you say now, please now our hearing.
--Let me see if I can frame this correctly in terms of asking you a question. You've had a certain
number of houses under construction now, I think the Board has a sense that we want those
completed okay and then we don't know but you may also have other financial obligations you
may have commitments to lots and those sorts of things. And we're trying to find some ground
or some path to walk through that uh sends you a very clear message that what you've done is
unacceptable and yet at the same time essentially doesn't take your business apart forever so um,
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 27
• I91 ...I guess we would like to find out how long it will take you to complete the uh, building the
houses you have under construction, what other obligations you may have financially to further
development in that um what repercussions might occur to you personally or your business if
you were to have a suspended license for a period of time? If you have any idea what might be
an equitable suspension from your perspective? We don't know those things because we aren't
in your business.
--I definitely like to finish those houses. We've got about nine other lots we could probably sell
some of those uh, uh. I think you're sending a very clear message anyway, but uh ...
--How much time, how long would it take you finish?
--I would like to have six more months.
--That would complete your inventory that you have now?
--And do you have any requirements on lot take downs, have you reserved any other lots with the
developer that ...
--We have reserved lots, we've bought nine others.
--Nine others, you own them already then?
--Have you intended to start construction on those also as you finish other projects?
--Really don't know. We we're wanting to start but uh, on some of those others especially with
sales would continue.
--So your goal would be to continue sales based on the sales of the speculative on the ones you
have know.
--Right.
• --All right let me see if I can do something here. Um I would like to make a motion that would
uh suspend Mr. Lacey's license which, is a C2 license for a period of um, for the period of uh a
completion of his current inventory. So, so well help me out. So he'll be completing ...what I
would like to see happen is that he is able to complete the current inventory under a suspended
license. And that um then before he can um at the end of that period of six months he can bring
his license out of suspension by successfully passing um the City licensing test —retest at the end
of that period. So he will have time to, he'll be this is just where I am thinking about. I am
putting it in a form of a motion, but I am putting a lot of thoughts in here.
--But first ask Felix, if that is possible.
--Okay.
--Felix, okay I hate to, I don't want to derail your thought there, in terms of carrying out those —
your decision. We will need some way to have to have some sort of checkpoint, um ... I don't
know what Lacey Construction owns. I don't have any way of really knowing that, I don't,
when those might be finished, so I just want to make sure that in the Board's deliberation here
that there is some way to ...
--Oh you're looking for a period of time?
--Some way to either the homes are specifically identified which ones they proceed and then at
some point uh thereafter if you're looking at a suspension period when and how long that would
be in place. Is that guidance?
--Yeah, that's super helpful.
--Um what I am trying to get to is to see if we can, I am thinking in terms of uninterrupted
business or give him the opportunity to have uninterrupted business, if he does a couple of
things. Or an item and that is to re -test. In other words, he is able to finish his inventory but at
• the same time we don't allow him to draw another permit for six months. The building season is
kind of gone through so maybe there is uh, he is able to (tape turned over) something that allows
him to continue his business but that he has got to re -test before he can get his license back or
bring it out of suspension. And maybe he is not able to do that for thirty days, maybe he is not
able to pull a permit under, because his license isn't allowing him to do that. It's not active, so
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 28
he has got a period of time where he can't, if he gets a pre -sold, he's you know maybe it's thirty
days and he's got to pass the test before he can go in and get a permit on that. Am I making any
sense?
--Let's identify the homes that have pulled permits at this point or have been started and, now
permits have been pulled. The ones that have only applications and have been tumed in and then
wasn't it said there were actually a couple that were started that don't even have applications in
Yet.
--No, they all have applications. Would you like me to read those addresses to you?
--Yes, please yes.
--Yeah, would you ...
--4002 Torridon.
--That's not even on our list.
--No that's not.
--Well that's one building we'll have to finish. It has a full permit, but we'll have to finish.
--They have houses that are not even on the list. Is the point .. ?
--Let's read the full permits that we will need to finish.
--Well 4002 Torridon Lane, 4014 Torridon Lane, 4020 Torridon Lane, 4026 Torridon Lane,
4032 Torridon Lane, and I gave you 4003 Torridon Lane.
--Uh-huh.
--And 4021 Torridon Lane. And 1045 Elgin Court, and the two that we have had (speaking
without microphone unable to decipher) ...1039 Elgin Court and 1051 Elgin Court.
--So I've got nine.
--Is that nine? Nine homes.
--Why don't we read them back. Delynn, you have ten. Would you read them back?
--I have 4002 Torridon, 4014 Torridon, 4020 Torridon, 4026 Torridon, 4032 Torridon, 4003
Torridon, 4021 Torridon, 1045 Elgin, 1039 Elgin, and 1051 Elgin.
--That's correct.
--(Mr. Lacey's wife speaking without use of microphone unable to decipher).
--Those are like reservations, Jan?
--You have nine that you own and you have another nine you have to close in a certain. So if we
used a six month date of time and gave it a date today, a completion date, whatever the date
might be, uh you would have effectively, according to John's proposal, you would have from
now until then to study and take that exam because the requirement that we would place before
you under this proposed motion would be that you would be allowed to continue your license
upon the completion of that exam —successful completion of that exam. There wouldn't be
necessary —it wouldn't be necessary for you to come back because you would be under
suspension not revocation so ...um but that would be the requirement of the Board, is that right
John?
--Yeah I am kind of agreeing with you I think the only thing for me to discuss is this time. Six
months is a long time that uh he couldn't pull a permit. He's gonna have ...
--He's got ten homes in the building phase.
--That's correct, but we could sell all of those within the next thirty days. He's got eighteen lots
out there nine he owns. He's going to take another nine down there next month. Um so yeah, I
don't know but it maybe that he's able to continue. What I am getting to is trying to give him to
be able to complete the homes that he's got goin' but that he's got to take the test again after a
certain ...he can't pull permits for this certain time. But then he's also got to pass the exam
before he can pull permits too. So there are two conditions, maybe a time condition and an exam
condition. I am open to discuss any of your ...
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 29
• --Six months from today he would be allowed to finish the ten that are started but not pull
anymore. And then even if he finishes all ten of these in four months he would have to wait two
more and then at the six month point that's when he could sit for the exam and try to get his
license back.
--Well yeah, but I think that I could. I think I would six months is pretty harsh. I think.
--Um well again, I am hoping for ...
--Here is what I kind of hear happening here. There is, excuse me, there are two different things
going on one is finish the existing homes and one is any future work, okay. The way I hear this
happening is that he should have about six months to finish the homes he has. I guess I'll frame
it as a motion; we'll allow Mr. Lacey to have six months to finish homes that he has now.
--The ten listed?
--Yeah the ten that are now under construction. For a period of time and I will just suggest three
months. He cannot pull a new permit, so he has a three months suspension in terms of any new
work under his license. He has a conditional license that um he can finish the homes that are
now under construction. In the next three months he has to retake the test. If he is successful in
passing the test within that three month period. At the end of that three-month period he could
go forward in business again. I mean I am making this up so.
--I'll second that.
--Felix, do you have any problem with that?
--I am just trying to decipher it. I just want to make sure that I am clear. And it was stated. I
think I got it, I just want to make sure um Tom are you suggesting, are you moving that uh, uh
the respondent would be ...I'll restate it, tell me if I am correct. The respondent would be
• allowed to continue the ten homes that are listed, you would have six months to complete those.
There is a drop dead point.
--I don't know if that's important or not but that's what Mr. Lacey suggested I mean to get to the
CO, if it takes them seven months I don't know that I would want to disallow that but obviously
his goal is to get people in them and sell them. So he has a reason to be ...six months is a
reasonable time I think for him to complete his inventory.
--And then after that period, let's say 90 days for a round number um ...
--Actually ninety days starting from today he could not pull any further permits so that ...
--I guess, I think where Felix is stumbling is why are we putting a time period on finishing up
those houses?
--We're putting a time period on the suspension for new work and then retaking the license, I
think. But I don't see the point in putting a six-month thing on the existing ...
--The start was the fact that I thought we were going towards letting him finish within a certain
period then start a suspension.
--That's where I was going, I wasn't clear on that.
--Well I think the issue of a suspension after completion is a different financial implication that
he has to carry nine to eighteen lots for a period of up to six to nine months.
--That's nine months, now.
--That's a very long period of time for him.
--You basically shot him for two building seasons.
--Yeah, so I guess what I think would happen with Mr. Lacey's, if we do that, the nine lots he
has now in his inventory he will have to sell probably, and he won't be able to purchase next. So
• it will be a really significant I think financial burden to him in terms of ...his long term
opportunities, I think will ...
--Would you have pulled any pemuts in the next three months for those other lots?
--Uh, huh, we pulled two more. They are applied for but we need to pull those two.
--But that's in the ten though.
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 30
--Yes, correct.
--But outside the ten ...that's what you were hoping for.
--So are we okay with what John was talking about? Felix?
--I am not clear on the motion still, so this is first of all there is a motion, I think, is there not,
Tom?
--Yes. Can I clarify what I think the motion is since I seconded it? That um that Tom has made
a motion that um Mr. Lacey would be able to complete have up to six months to complete the
homes he has currently pulled permits for um or, or ten homes, whichever the case might be
here. And that the uh he would not be able to pull any additional permits other than these ten for
ninety days starting from today. So no new permits could be pulled. He would be able to
complete the homes that are currently permitted and before he could pull any permits after ninety
days he would have to retake and successful pass the exam and that would be the C2.
--I need to pull two permits that have been started. The application is there but the permits have
not been pulled out of that ten.
--Those are included in that ten though. So I am saying in other ...
--We can't pull any more permits.
--He needs to pull two out of the ten.
--Yeah, except in the ten.
--So the six month is off just finish it whenever.
--Doesn't matter.
--It's really a ninety -day suspension to include new work and retest.
--Do you want to amend yours and take away the six month issue and just deal with a ninety day
suspension.
--I'll amend my motion to uh take away the six month limitation on construction but the other
thing I also want to add to the as a friendly amendment to my motion. Which only the second is
that I think that Mr. Lacey also needs to have a letter of reprimand in his file indicating the
seriousness of the violation. That should be sent.
--I'll second that.
--Okay so we have a motion and a second. Any discussion?
--Yeah, if I understand the motion —sorry to go back there. But uh that there will be uh the
Laceys will not be able to pull a permit for ...in other words um get a contractor and start a new
house other than these ten for ninety days and in my opinion that is pretty significant. That is if
we started it today or tomorrow we would be into July, August, September, so it would be the
end of September, first of October before he could go in and build another home. Um, he has
these ten homes going, but he also has nine in his inventory and nine to close yet. So that he
doesn't lose his opportunity um and I am thinking that might be pretty significant time. And I
was thinking maybe more in lines of thirty to sixty days, I don't know.
--Any other discussion?
--I guess I find John's argument a little bit compelling because I guess I don't see a reason to put
this contractor in the position of destroying his business and um I don't want to do that. So uh I
guess I would like to change my timeframe for the um suspension ...
--I think as a matter of order we have to vote and then do it again, right?
--Well you haven't voted you can amend the motion.
--You can even though it's been seconded?
--If it's friendly, I think.
--The thing I would look at though is he is still finishing homes through that time period and
through the winter into December basically that October, November, December for the six
months so um it might be severe, but I don't know if it's inappropriate? If you have to sit on
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 31
• some, if you would have to sell some, that's part of the repercussion. I guess I don't, I think
three months is severe, but not inappropriate.
--I have um, I have some mixed feeling about this. With you I am talkin', but I am just going to
say this. There is a real human side of me of course that doesn't, like you said, you don't want to
bury the guy and you don't want to put him out of business. But on the other hand the practical
side and the reason why we're here and the reason why we have rules, and tests, and penalties,
etc. Um is to stop this kind of thing. My confusion or my, I am just a little bit tom because um
what is a revocation for? I mean it's, when you have this kind of violation and there is this many
um if there were four more cases that were identical to this at what point do we say okay there is
not a middle ground, I mean you for this violation, you get this penalty. And it's not that there is
not room for exception, but it just seems a real gray area.
--Can I give you a little history.
--You can give me some history, I would love that.
--Felix, is correct, we have never had anything of this magnitude or this severity. Um although
this Board has heard um violations before and the Board in the past tended to give some benefit
of doubt to the person if they showed um you know remorse. And um I think uh I am
remembering the roofing incident and I think we heard three or four instances before we finally
revoked the licenses is that correct?
--Three of four yes that is correct, three of four individual jobs.
--And that was the same person.
--Yes.
--Yeah.
• --So that's kind of the history. I don't know if this Board has ever on the first hearing actually
revoked the license. I can't speak to that.
--No, but I haven't, I guess I haven't encountered uh this blatant ...
--I qualified my statement by saying that. I am just throwing it out; it will be a new territory if
we consider that.
--Just a little information to the whole mix. John and I were just figuring out that the nine lots
he's got in inventory that he won't be able to build on in the period of time —we think is costing
about $2000.00 a month in interest cost to carry the nine. If he has eighteen he has about
$4000.00 a month that he's got to carry so. Each month that we add to his suspension of new
permits he's got to carry that among the cost through his business without an opportunity for
revenue so um ...
--He was going to carry some of that as part of his standard business practice, I think it's the
amount that would be above and beyond the normal for a penalty.
--That's right, yeah. The penalty is uh, he is driving the taxi and we stop him and the meter
keeps running. In terms of his own business he is not being able to charge for fares because he is
not moving so ...you know that's the cost that we're trying to identify at the length of time that
makes sense from a business view point. We obviously don't know his business to understand
exactly what that is but it's somewhere in that range of his costs, but for the amount of time that
we say he is no longer eligible to do business in the City --he's got at least that kind of cost. He
may have other kinds of cost in terms of lost trade, inability to get subs back I mean there's other
secondary things that may effect his livelihood and uh ...
--I guess I would like to see us a vote on the motion that's on the floor and then go from there.
• --That's the ninety days.
--So that motion that uh the
--No new permits for ...
--The suspension would be lifted, maybe I'll throw in some ...The suspension that is in effect
today will be lifted and um for a period to complete the ten homes proposed. And further that
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 32
um or there's a condition placed on the license and that ninety days from this date no additional
uh, building permits could be issued to the respondent. And then after that period to reinstate,
remove the condition from the license the respondent would have to take and pass the
examination and the uh license could be reinstated unconditionally after that ninety day period, is
that correct? (Talking over each other).
--I guess the way I would frame that is that he could take the test anytime within that ninety day
period, but he couldn't receive his license back until the ninety day point in time.
--Are you okay with that?
--And the letter of uh reprimand in his file.
--Okay and the letter of reprimand.
--I guess I would like to add one more discussion item. Is uh I am not going to support my own
motion because I think that period of time is a little bit high. I think I will recast the motion after
we vote on this one to a sixty day. Time to withdraw? Then I would like withdraw my motion.
--Would you like to put a new motion in?
--Okay I guess I will recast the same motion with the change to sixty days rather than a ninety
day suspension license at which time Mr. Lacey can retest, letter of reprimand, no new permits
issued for a sixty day suspension period, and his license is conditional uh to him re -passing the
test.
--Didn't I hear he could retest during that sixty-day period?
--Yes, he can retest during that sixty days, but he can't pull permits. His license would be
renewed at the sixty-day point. Gene are you?
--I'll second it.
--Discussion? Roll call, please.
--Hartmann
--Yes
--McCoy
--Yes
--Little
--Yes
--Fielder
--Yes
--Massey
--No
--Ryland
--Yes
--Thank you Mr. Lacey.
--Um can we take a two -minute break?
--Sure that would be the chairs, yes you bet. Quick break, few minutes.
--Felix are you ready, we have Mr. Packard back.
--I think the respondent is in the audience.
--Yip.
--Felix uh, Curtis Packard, d/b/a Ace Quality Construction.
--Without to try to expedite this the uh case is similar uh the builder was discovered having
several properties under construction without a permit. Those are listed in the introduction of
your packet there. Uh for the same, very same, three same uh violations are alleged that it was
willful, deliberate disregard of the building code or other code adopted by the City related to the
project. There is a definite failure to comply with any provision of the Code related to the
construction project and finally a failure to obtain uh permits for the worked performed. I would
add that the appellant has not had any other projects in the City prior to this and uh also in this
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 33
• case I think it's important note that um, beginning uh, a year or so ago we began including a
letter, a congratulatory letter to the newly licensed individuals indicating what their limits were
and the responsibilities. And on the second page there is a required permits paragraph that
specifically, unequivocally um states the requirements for obtaining a permit for before any work
is done and that it has to be obtained before that. Stop work orders were issued and at this point,
I think, uh, permit application has been submitted for 933 and basically um based on the variety
of the homes there you can see that several had foundations only. Two or three framing has been
started. I don't know what stage they are, but framing has definitely started. And uh at this point
I believe permits have all been issued, is that correct? Oh, it looks like 933 Elgin, permit
application has been applied for but not uh at this point we're not aware that a permit has been
issued. So with that introduction I will allow uh invite Mr. Packard to come forward and present
his case.
--Curtis Packard, um I would just like to point out first of all that all the permits have been pulled
now, 933 also. And I've got a copy of a check and I think I have the receipt in here. Does
anybody want to see that? Okay. Another thing I would like to point out also the day that we
got wrote up I think that was the seventh of June, that was the first day that framing had started.
All's that was on those three were floor joists. That's it. Um I moved here from Utah about
three months ago got my contractor's license here um obviously by the letter they put I am at
fault because I didn't read that. But it was my understanding that I could pour the foundation, go
to the foundation point and then pull a permit. All of my permits were turned in other than the
one which, I didn't realize and got it turned in and they were all pulled. I work with an investor,
private investor, out of Utah. All the checks which I've got copies of were written on the
• seventh of June, and they were to be next day to be there Friday. That was a Thursday. So I
could go in Friday morning and pay for the permits before they started framing, because that was
my understanding. Is that they were to be pulled —obviously it's a misunderstanding. Anyways,
those checks did not arrive till Saturday all the permits were pulled first thing Monday other than
933 which has been pulled now. Um, we're not going to get into excuses there is none? I didn't
read it and obviously I had no intent. I've got copies of all the purchased all the water, sewer, all
that way before I pulled the permits. There was no ...I am going to plead guilty to six, but one I
am not gonna plead guilty to the willful and deliberate because it's not anywhere near that. I
mean I had everything into the City and every intention of pulling, checks on the way so. I don't
know if you want to see copies of the checks or not. They come from Ogden. We were wrote up
on a Thursday and they were pulled on a Monday so, that's uh, I guess that's kind of my ...We
poured, another thing I wanted to show, we uh turned the permits in on 5/25 um permits were
ready on 6/6 um, the first day we poured, so I guess the first day that we were in violation was on
June lat, then they wrote us up on June 7t°. So there is ten. I had crews from Utah come down,
my footing crew is pouring three footings a day and my foundation crew is right behind them
with two, that's why there is such much done. It's that we've been doing ten homes for the last
two months or any of that, I mean, they were all poured in that one week. When they came out
and wrote us up, is there a nine on here, correct? Eight. The day that they came out we, there
was one that we had not poured yet and that we didn't pour it we pulled the permit on before we
poured. There should be nine on here instead of eight, so I don't know where the error is there
but I paid penalties on nine. So that was three thousand dollars, it wasn't deliberate --something
that will never happen again. Just with the dates I hope you can see that there was no intention
• of not pulling permits so
--Just to begin with a point of clarification on number one it is incorrectly uh stated willful and
deliberate that's from the old ordinance. The current ordinance says knowledge, um knowing,
I'm sorry, it should be knowing, not willful. That was changed. Um I guess I would like to ask
Mr. Packard uh you said it was your understanding that you could obtain permit —begin
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 34
construction without the permits what was the source of that understanding, how did that, how
did you acquire that information?
--Um between and obviously it's a misunderstanding but talking to Sandy and Mary Jane I
understood that the City didn't like you to pour your foundation before you had a permit and I
said what's my risk if I do. And my understanding was that if I get in the wrong place, with the
wrong setback then I'm out a foundation, which I realized that, and I had my setbacks right so I
wasn't worried about it and every other builder out there was pouring without a permit. And I
am not using that as an excuse and I don't want to use the new guy as an excuse either cause I
got the letter before I did it and I didn't read the letter. It says have a permit before you do any
work, so I am guilty. I am not saying that I am not guilty. I am just saying that there was no
willful and deliberate and that all the permits were in order and were pulled. So ...and where I
come from, which isn't Colorado but I mean we can go all the way to a four-way inspection
before we have to pull a permit because the same thing the foundation there's no inspection
required. They do that there as a favor to the builder so he doesn't have to cough up all the
money, pay all that interest on fire house, police house, you know street expansion. They did
that cause there was no point for them to get involved until then, you know. So as far as setbacks
go I don't know how they are here, but I've never seen a City pull out a tape on the setback,
unless somebody calls and complains, but they look at your plot plan and determine your
setbacks off of that. But as far as once it's in the ground I've never seen anybody come out and
measure or pull a string for the property lines and measure as far as them being worried about
setbacks, I don't know when that gets checked or ...Anyways that's what I am used to. I came
here we paid for water first, sewer first, all that stuff was at the end you paid because you didn't
use the sewer, you didn't use the water, so it's kind of a shock to me. You're dumping almost
$25,000 a day one that you're paying interest on you're not really getting any benefit for other
than they say okay you can clean your hammer. You know what I mean. That's the rules I
understand them now. There won't be another problem. I guess do what you guys got to do, I
don't know what that is.
--Mr. Packard how long have you been in the uh, uh a contractor including your previous
history?
--Um, I've been a contractor in Utah for two years in I want to say February or March and I've
been a contractor here for I don't know two or three months, not very long.
--Did you have license in Utah?
--Yes, I did-- a contractor's license.
--Did Utah have specific requirements in terms of your license regulations and so forth.
--Yip, they had a state licensing. We licensed with the state. We could build anywhere in the
state with that license. There was testing um that's actual ...when I first came to Colorado I
looked from here to Denver and the main reason I choose Fort Collins, is because they're strict.
Everybody told me, oh you don't want to be in Fort Collins. They are the worst place to build.
Everybody is an asshole. And uh that's the reason I built here is just because they are strict. It's
keeps the people you don't want to be your competitor out that don't want to take the test, that
don't want to deal with it. That's why I chose here.
--So you're interested in being more strict and did in Utah, I assume you had to know the
regulations for licensing and is that correct?
--Yeah.
--And you just testified earlier that you ignored the letter and the when you received your license
about the required permits. I didn't read it and ignore it maybe that's not what you're saying.
--I just even didn't read it so. .
--So you weren't that interested in the local regulations here?
--Yeah I was, I just ...
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 35
• --Um I have no further questions at this time.
--Um, Mr. Packard do you have any questions of ...
--I don't think so.
--Um is there um, let's see I think we skipped the party in interest for support. I think I would
like to ask if there's anybody here in support of Mr. Packard that would like to speak at this time.
Okay. Felix you have the same option.
--No I don't have any other witnesses at this point. Um, I will reserve comments for a closing
statement.
--Okay. Mr. Packard do you have a closing statement for ...
--Um just that I've got a lot on the line right now. I'm in the same position as Lacey. I've
actually closed on eighteen lots right now, I've got four more to close on. And we've put an
offer in on ten more. Um I am working with a private investor's money and uh I just hope you
can see that this isn't uh coming in here trying to uh take an unfair advantage by not paying for
anything. I was told a misunderstanding, which I am guilty of and that's it.
--Um, Felix closing statements?
--Yes, I just would add that uh in speaking with staff um I spoke to one of the people that Mr.
Packard alluded to in our office and that person told me in no uncertain terms they instructed Mr.
Packard not to do anything without a permit. Um that uh, uh she was quite clear about that point
and um I think that's important. I guess, uh I would add that I believe it certainly was
knowledgeable. It was knowing and deliberate disregard uh I suppose the respondent might
argue something differently um I can't imagine that uh, the basic fundamental of issuing permit
before work begins is a mystery. Maybe other places do it different, but it would seem to me
• that anybody that comes to a new place would surely understand the rules before proceeding for
fear of any sort of risk. I guess I will close with that comment that uh I believe all three of those
provisions were violated.
--Felix, uh is it does the City prohibit the uh pouring of a foundation without a permit?
--Absolutely.
--Okay.
--I have one, am I allowed to ask a question of the uh whatever he is, Mr. Packard, I will call him
since that's his name. How did you know the other builders didn't have permits out there?
--Um, I asked I called into the City on those addresses. And the lumber salesman knows
everybody out there and I asked him too and he said no, nothing happens it's no big deal.
--Are we finished? I would like to make a motion for finding of fact.
--Yeah that's where we are.
--Thank you. For number one, two and six. I mean ...for all of the three cited reasons.
--Is it something we second?
--Second.
--Discussion.
--Can we have a roll call.
--Hartmann
--Yes
--McCoy
--Yes
--Little
• --Yes
--Fielder
--Yes
--Massey
--Yes
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 36
--Ryland
--Yes
--Okay. Recommendations for disposition. I would like to make an identical (tape turns over).
--Sounds like he had a similar stock of lots than the previous appellant. I guess I would like to
know what are the prices ranges out they're for lots? You say you've got eight or nine under
contract to go.
--All of my lots were $45,000 a piece right in that range.
--Um, like I said I voted no last time cause I thought ninety days was more appropriate so I'll
restate that position.
--Um, Mr. Packard had you applied for permits on all of these lots?
--All except one.
--All except one.
--Yeah.
--And that was how many days before you actually pulled them?
--Um I applied for them on 5/25, which I would like to add that is I was told that I could have
them in three to four days. I turned in a stock plan permit so the plans had already been
approved. And I was told three to four days on getting those back. They were ready by 6/6.
There was one problem they had with my setbacks, not being to scale. The setbacks were right
but they said the scale was off a little bit. They called me on a Thursday with that information. I
picked `ern up and had them back to them on Friday. So I don't think that's a hold up for them
there, but it was eleven days before they were ready for me to pick up. Had they been any
sooner than that they would have been picked up.
--Okay.
--Can I say anything else or just answer questions?
--Just questions at this point.
--Okay.
--Delynn is that correct in that, with this case? Applications had been turned in for all of these
prior to the stop work order, is that correct?
--Yes, I think that's true.
--Um, correct me if I am wrong, but in Lacey's case as well as there were a couple that were
applications in but the applications ...
--Can you uh, can we get discussion on the record?
--Yeah, song, um I think in Lacey's case as well there were a couple that were applied for, but
never picked up, is that right?
--There were. And there were some that had no applications.
--Right.
--So in furthering my discussion I don't see the level of intent of deliberate disregard here. I
know we're in a transition Felix with the um foundation issues, pouring of the foundation issues,
um once they are engineered they are kind of out of the hands of the City. Um, because they
have an engineer stamp on them. But um I don't see um, the parallel between the two cases, um
I see similar results um but we're talking about a few days here and um this is a, there's a
leaming curve here for all of our contractors. Uh ...
--The learning curve, that new ordinance has not changed the fact that you have to have a permit
to start any work. I mean that's been in place for a long time.
--Since forty years, yes.
--Yeah, but I can testify, I can testify to the fact that we have gotten permission to pour
foundations at our risk without a permit. And um I know that happens and that's at our risk to do
that because if they are poured in the wrong place I have to tear them out and start over again.
So uh in uh that's why I was saying I am not even sure that even though that rule may have been
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 37
• there for forty years, I am not sure we've enforced it. I know for a fact it hasn't been enforced in
several of the, the permits that we have pulled where we've already had foundations in prior to
the pulling of the permit on several projects that I have done here so. Um there maybe a little
confusion here but at the same time I don't see the intent to deliberately um disregard the rules or
the codes here its. Um there was a violation and there's no question about it, but I just don't see
the parallel of the two cases here, um and that's my argument. So ...
--I think they are very parallel. Just the fact that one's been building here longer and pulled a lot
of permits and but the other one just recently tested and just recently got a letter that was you
know ...I don't know how you could get more clear when you put it in all caps and underline it
about first pulling a permit before you do anything. So I mean there's the fact that he's new but
he is also just recently tested and the thing should be very clear in his mind up front, and he's got
a very clear letter where as the other gentlemen didn't get the letter or hasn't tested recently. But
he's been doing it in the City for a long time ...I would say that ninety days is more appropriate
the fact is that I want to be fair and consistent with everybody to. I will support a sixty day this
time even though I voted no the last time. Just to stay consistent. I wouldn't want to go any less.
--Yes it's seconded that's why we're in discussion. So.. Is there any more discussion?
--Yeah Felix is there something other than the test uh you mentioned that uh Mr. Packard has
taken his exam a few months ago is there, are there refresher courses or um anything else besides
or in addition to a test?
--I don't know where they would be, not locally.
--Can we have a roll call on that motion.
--Hartmann
• --Yes
--McCoy
--Yes
--Little
--No
--Fielder
--Yes
--Massey
--Yes
--Ryland
--Yes
--Um, I would like to excuse myself to meet another appointment, engagement that I have so I
am on my way.
--Thanks John.
--Uh the next case is Steven Wyatt under the business name of Orcas Development. Currently
holding a class D license. Again the issues are similar if not completely identical. The work was
constructed on two properties that were ...construction was underway including a foundation
only at this point on 3703 Glenloch Court and 1139 Elgin Court. The license holder is under
current suspension effective today and the alleged violations are also the same three and again
that should read knowing and deliberate, not willful. But otherwise the same alleged violations
have occurred. With that I would ask or invite any representative from the company to come
forward and present their case.
• Thank you, I am Steve Wyatt with Orcas Development. Um I would like to give you just a
little bit of history of our particular case. On Friday June 81h we received a red tag, a stop work
order on 1139 Elgin Court and that stop order indicated our records do not show a permit for the
above listed address, work must stop until this problem is resolved. On that day Friday
afternoon, June 8`h, when I received that stop work order I called Mr. Felix Lee at the City office
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 38
and told him that we in fact had another house there that we did not have a permit on site. I
wanted him to be aware of that, that we were not being subversive not intending to have the
permits on the property. So then on Tuesday, um, June 12t1i, we received a red tag on the one
that I notified him about Friday, 3703 Glenloch Court. On Monday, June 12`s, actually Tuesday
June 12s', we did pick up the building permit for 1139 Elgin Court, uh we had the permit was
applied for, it was a stock plan, everything had been approved numerous times. In the package
that you received there is a list of sixteen completed houses that we've done in that subdivision.
Uh-similar homes, we currently have twenty-one active building permits in Waterglen. So we
received the red tag on Friday and on Tuesday we were able to pick up the permit for that and on
3703 Glenloch Court we received a red tag on Tuesday, the next day Wednesday we were able to
purchase the permit for that. So we were in violation for a period of a day or two and I don't
deny the fact that we were in violation did not have the permits at the time the work was done.
Um just would like you to know that um by virtue of the fact that I had called and told him that I
was aware we had another one and was not trying to hide anything or be underhanded in anyway.
And I know from the testimony you've heard that the way done, excuse me, the way we've
operated in the past is no excuse for what we do in Fort Collins. In the City of Loveland where I
was licensed for approximately ten years did um close to hundred homes there and the normal
procedure there was that we could do the uh excavation, footing, and foundation, up to the stage
of water, sewer, and backfill before we had to have the permit on site. We hired our own
engineers to do the inspections uh, staked our own lots, and um assumed the risk if we were out
of our setbacks and um I know that's not the way it is done here and I apologize for that um, it
was ...we were fully intending to comply. Our scheduling got out of sink, we got jumped ahead
a little bit, we were a couple of days out. That's really all I can say. I am sorry that this has
happened and I would really like to work with you on a go forward basis. We're providing
affordable housing. Our homes start in the 140s and really feel that we're feeling a need in the
community for that um as I mentioned we got twenty-one existing active permits and we've got
forty-six more lots that we're committed too —that we need to continue on with so I appreciate
your consideration.
--Felix, I don't think I have anything else to add or questions at this time.
--Do you have any questions of the Board or Felix? Okay.
--Board have any questions?
--You said that a lot of the homes that are listed on your previous completion are out there so I
am assuming you did all those foundations before you pulled a permit too?
--No, that occasionally that may have happened, but that was not the norm, and we didn't intend
it to happen on this. Our schedule got ahead of our contractors got ahead of our schedule on it so
it was, it was not intentional and we did not do that on all the others.
--So but I guess by saying that you knew that the permit was supposed to be pulled first before
foundation started.
--Well I should have known that. You now truthfully um, with the way we had operated in
Loveland not having to have that um I guess I don't know how to truthfully answer that. I
should have known that we should have had the permit, but I guess I didn't know that it had to
be on site when we were doing that work.
--Is this recent work in Loveland that you're talking about?
--Yes.
--Does Fort Collins offer and F and F.
--Yes, that's a good question we certainly do. We have flat fee a foundation and frame permit
for a new house. Uh $150, none of the impact fees have to be paid at that time the contractor is
free to construction the foundation up until a framing inspection, rough inspections.
--Framing too.
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 39
• --So it's not just noncombustible ...
No. So there is a mechanism in place to allow expedient ...
--Well that was my understanding too with Loveland was that they had a footing and foundation
process that allowed up to noncombustible materials. So I guess, I mean, you put two and two
together if there is such a thing as a footing and foundation that means that there has to be a
permit that goes along with it. What would the point of an F and F if you didn't get your
foundation in. If you didn't need a permit to put your foundation in then you wouldn't ever pull
an F and F. You wouldn't need an F and F.
--Uh we need to ask for closing statements. Do you have a closing statement Mr. Wyatt?
--No sir.
--Felix?
--Without, I guess, beating a dead horse here I think the issues are still the same. Incumbent on
the builder to understand the rules and the jurisdiction in which they are licensed --granted the
privilege of the license. And um I would maintain that uh all three of those alleged violations
did occur, including knowing disregard of the building code.
--Thank you.
--Mr. Wyatt had you applied for these permits for these lots yet?
--Yes, in fact, um they were uh the permits were paid for within two days on one and within one
day on the other.
--Okay.
--That's correct.
--So administratively the process had begun.
• --Yes.
Okay.
--In fact, it was uh we had a flood permit issue with one of the lots and one of the ladies who
deals with that um Marcia
--Hilmes-Robinson
--Marcia Hilmes-Robinson.
--Yes, was out of town, I believe it was on Thursday and possibly Friday. She was one who
needed to help us get the figures for the amount of the building permit so we could pick that up.
Otherwise we could have had that before we were red tagged. Um so yes the administrative
process had been in process.
--Um finding of fact.
--That's where we're at.
--Well, I don't see for number one a willful, which would be a knowing and deliberate disregard
for the Code um because the permit was ready to pick up. Should have been ready to pick up by
the time that foundation was dug. So and um and we were also looking at a situation where only
the foundation was dug and um no other construction had been completed other than the um
pouring of the foundation. So I don't find a finding of fact on number one. I do however, find
fact on two and six.
--Motion?
--You're more than welcome to make a motion.
--Therefore, I would like to make a motion that we have a finding of fact on um two and six but
not on one.
• --I'll second
--Discussion?
--Can we get a roll call, Delynn?
--Hartmann
--Yes
Building Review Board
June 29,2001
Page 40
--McCoy
--McCoy is not here.
--Oh, I am sorry.
--Little
--Yes
--Fielder
--Yes
--Massey
--Yes
--Ryland
--Yes
--Okay, disposition?
-- I would like to make a motion that a letter of reprimand go in the file with um consequences of
a suspension of license if the violation occurs again within the next six months.
--And that would be to included uh suspension of license for ninety days.
--Do you want to include huh re -testing?
--I11 second the motion.
--Okay do we have any discussion.
--Yeah, um, do you Gene at least clarify for the record um why you think this one is different
from the other two?
--Yeah, I what, what happens in the field often times is the subcontractors will just being to
move through the lots um meaning sometimes they will dig and pour two foundations. Um, um
and um...
--In what kind of time frame?
--Well, I mean, if those foundations are dug um they could conceivably would form and pour
two or three foundations in a day.
--In one day?
--In one day. Um so particularly in a subdivision like this where they are moving through those
lots so quickly um by the time I get to a site um many times 111, 111 um build um at least begun
the ...I am at the sites pretty quickly within a half day. And generally theyll have been in the
pouring process from seven in the morning on one foundation, and I won't even know that
they've starting pouring on the other yet. They just move. Those cement trucks come in and
they just start going down the line. So I can see in a situation like this where this can happen and
you just ...you know you run as fast as you can to get at least the F and F pulled so that your
covered when that happens. But in this case a full application had been applied for already and
they were ready to pick up in just a matter of a couple days so that's why I feel this way.
--Can you restate, Delynn, can you restate the motion.
--I have a motion for a letter of reprimand to be put in his file stating that if this occurs again
within in six months it would be automatic suspension of license for ninety days.
--I am struggling with this for a little bit becomes it seems to me that it's uneven in the sense that
if it were to happen again. This gentlemen should probably become before the Board.
--He gets a change to appeal then.
--Well, he won't come before the Board though. The suspension is automatically based upon the
license that you ...
--He would have to come before the Board.
--Ninety days is different disposition than the others ones. The last two were sixty-day
suspensions ...
--It's a case by case.
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 41
• --Yes, I am just making the argument that I want it to be even and fair as possible. I realize that
it's a different case in a different disposition, you know. I guess ...
--We're not making him retest.
--So re -testing is equal to one month? I am just asking the question, right now. It's a little
different circumstance and uh ...that's a difference in your mind this was more accidental in
terms of the issue of timing, okay.
--Are you still sticking with your second?
--Can we have a roll call.
--Hartmann
--Yes
--Little
--Yes
--Fielder
--Yes
--Massey
--Yes
--Ryland
--Yes
--Thank you Mr. Wyatt.
--Thank you very much.
--Felix, Gregory Martin, d/b/a Martin Quality Carpentry.
--Oh, yes, um this again is similar. Gregory Martin business name Martin Quality Carpentry, um
• holding a Class D license. Similar violation as the others previously discussed. The allegations
are knowing and deliberate disregard of the building code and any other code, failure to comply
with the provision of the code, and failure to obtain the required permit. Uh on or about uh June
12th, I believe the contractor was cited for stop work at 844 Thornhill Place. And the respondent
has since obtained the permit for that address. The foundation was installed with uh the water
proofing and sewer and uh system was installed no backfill had occurred. I would invite Mr.
Martin to the podium if he is here to present his case.
--My name is Greg Martin, with Martin Quality Carpentry. I guess the only thing that I could
say on my behalf is uh, we had applied for a permit. We had a permit on the I Ith, we were red
tagged on the 12th. I picked up my citation on that following Friday and I had begun work early.
There is no way I could have had that much work done. I think I missed it by about a day. The
reason we missed it was uh, Gary in Zoning had found uh mistake in our setback from the front.
I had to go back to Terracon, um, it was a fourteen -foot setback and we generally go eighteen to
twenty feet. By the time I had gone to Terracon brought the letter back to Gary he had approved
it, we had the permit, and the work had already started so that's about all I can say on my behalf
there.
--Um, Felix questions?
--Mr. Martin, is it your normal practice to um start work and then obtain the permit?
--No sir. Generally what I'l1 do is go in and submit the plans, wait five or six days, and then I'l1
call down to the City and they'll either tell you Dick's reviewing the plans right now and it's been
through zoning, and at that point in time I will go buy raw water permits and go back down to
the City to get a permit. Which we've done the rest of the times --the seven or eight times before
• this particular time.
--So you knew that a permit was required.
--Yes. sir.
--I have no other questions.
--Mr. Martin do you have any questions of the Board or Felix?
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 42
--No, sir.
--Okay thanks. Um do you have a closing statement that you wish to make?
--The only thing that I can say is that I value my contractor's license and um I count on it to make
a living as to three or four other gentlemen that work for me and we've tried to be compliant with
the City in the past. I think up until this incident we have been at least 97% maybe a few dirty
streets and some lots that needed mowed, but we do everything we can to comply with the City.
--Okay thank you.
--Um, Felix.
--Well I guess every case has it nuisances and this is no different it is individual, although the uh
it was one home involved it was respondent testified that in fact he knew a permit was required
and because of circumstances began and poured the foundation anyway. So I would simply
close by saying I believe knowing and deliberate disregard occurred as did the other two alleged
violations. That's all I have.
--Thank you.
--Finding of fact. We need to keep striking these willful and put in knowing, right?
--Yes that was changed in the ...
--All the last three had that.
--Yeah.
--Um, Mr. Martin you had already obviously applied for the permit for this.
--Yes, I had, yeah.
--And had you already gotten um, um, notification that the um, the, um, there were no problems
with the application.
--Correct.
--Other than the setback.
--Correct.
--Which it was Terracon.
--Right, that's what I thought.
--Was this a scheduling situation where you had based the picking up of your permit ...
--Pardon me ...
--Based the picking up of your permit around the timing of the scheduling of the pouring of the
foundation?
--That's correct.
--So um the time frame between your scheduling of the pouring of the foundation ...
--We're about a day or maybe two days off from the time that we actually had the permit in hand
and the time that the footings and foundation were put in.
--Can restate for me again what caused that two-day delay?
--The uh, Gary in zoning. We had a fourteen -foot setback and the minimum was fifteen foot,
and we generally go eighteen to twenty foot. I discussed that with Bill Templeton before, but
apparently it was overlooked again so I had to go to uh call Terracon have them do another plot
plan um take it back over to Gary and have him re -review it.
--Okay, so Gary had to look at it again before he could sign off on the permit.
--Correct.
--Okay thanks.
--Again, I don't find any knowing or deliberate disregard of the system. Um, those of who deal
with engineering and signoffs know that if there is a hiccup and the process is already in line it's
hard to stop the process because sometimes you can't. So um I think they are extenuating
circumstances here that are beyond the control of the appellant. So I don't find uh one finding of
fact. I do find however two and six um, um that he did fail to comply with the provision and he
did fail to obtain the required permit before the work started.
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 43
• --Discussion or a motion.
Well I guess that I would say that it might be minor but it was still knowing that he needed a
permit and he was hoping to get by a day or two. Well there's a difference there. You say the
process can't be stopped well it can be stopped. You just don't have to because it will cost you
three weeks or whatever. That's more truly the way it is. So it might be more minor than having
ten of them started and almost framed, but it's just a day or two here, but I would still say that it
was knowing disregard of it. It might just be a different disposition based on the other
circumstances so ...
--We have a motion here?
--No.
--We have a motion, no second.
--Did you make a motion?
--You just said that you thought that.
--I made a motion for finding of fact on two and six.
--There wasn't a motion was there?
--I thought it was discussion.
--Oh, okay. Are you making a motion?
--I am making a motion of finding a fact on two and six, but not on one.
--Is there a second?
--Is there another motion?
--III make a motion of finding of fact on items one, two, and six.
--III second that.
• --Any other discussion? Any more discussion? Okay, roll call Delynn.
Hartmann
--Yes
--Little
--No
--Fielder
--Yes
--Massey
--Yes
--Ryland
--Yes
--Okay now uh, determination.
--Well this is where I think there is uh, I would agree with Gene that there is a difference. This is
where the extenuating circumstances come in. I mean yes he knew he was supposed to have a
permit. He was really bypassing the system, not trying to, I mean he knew he was stretching it a
day or two and I can understand how in a very competitive and cut throat industry that two or
three weeks that that would cost makes a difference. So but I still think uh similar motion to the
previous one with a letter of reprimand is and uh the automatic suspension of, I would say, sixty
days based on the previous ones.
--Well it was ninety the last one.
--Well one was ninety, two were sixty.
--Right?
• --We've got a split there that's my opinion
--Are you making a motion?
--I'll make a motion that we place a letter of reprimand in Mr. Martin's file and let him be aware
that if there is another violation within six months that your license will be automatically
suspended for, I guess I will say, ninety says since were to be consistent with the previous one.
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 44
--I'll second that.
--Do we have any discussion. I don't labor this, but the sixty day why did you do that? What did
you see different in this case than the last case?
--Well this is one is a second chance, it's just a letter of reprimand. I don't have a hiccup here
and you walk away fairly clean. Um the first two where they lost something. To me it was more
major.
--That's why we got to the sixty days. This one carries the odious if you do it again you lose the
business, you see the point.
--But it's a second life compared, to uh I guess, the ...
--The ninety days is just consistent with the last hearing.
--Yes.
--Okay.
--Any more discussion?
--Hartmann
--Yes
--Little
--Yes
--Fielder
--Yes
--Massey
--Yes
--Ryland
--Yes
--Okay thank you Mr. Martin.
--Thank you folks.
--Okay we're going to switch gears again and go back to appeal. This is Felix, John Mason,
Brentwood Renovation.
--Yes, um this is a different case than the previous view. This is in fact an appeal. The appellant
currently has a D2 license under Brentwood Renovation, owned by John Mason. And the D2
license for explanation here allows certain things to occur under that license, and that is to
construct additions up to um 1,000 square feet, garages up to 1,000 square feet, any structural
alterations on any building that is basically one and two family residence. And um or a garage,
private residential garage. And under the new regulations the, the uh parameters scope of the
work under the class D has been expanded a bit to include that which is allowed under a
miscellaneous and minor structure license, storage sheds, um greenhouses, and unenclosed
structures, patios, car ports covers, and decks. And also work including another occupancy
which is storage occupancy a Group S division I and H. The appellant is requesting that he be
allowed to do so some structural repair on a Church, which is obviously not one of those
occupancies under the current regulations. It would require a Cl license and the appellant is
seeking a one-time exemption that would allow that work to occur. With that I would invite Mr.
Brentwood, I am sorry, Mr. Mason to elaborate on his request.
--Hello, John Mason. I wouldn't even be here unless this happened to be a very good customer
of mine and I didn't even realize it was a commercial building until he had asked me to go look
at it. He had had an engineer look at it, the roof has fallen down. I went and looked at it and
said it's in bad shape --it needs some work. I got an engineer, Howard Percoe(sp), who
specializes in foundations to work up some plans for the foundation. I talked to Fort Collins
Truss and a few other ones about and had them come over and look at it and design a truss. Give
me a rough idea of what it was going to cost me to have them design a truss for this particular
building. I've got some pictures of it. It's got a real bad sway in the roof. I was up in the attic
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 45
• and the building is 80 feet long, 60 feet of the rough needs to be replaced. Trusses --they are old
trusses, I would say that the building was probably built in the 20s maybe. And they have been
patched, and patched over the years, uh, it's just needs some work, and Mike Jensen who
happens to own the building is one of my best customers. He likes me to do most of his heavy
work. The reason I don't want to take the licensing and all that uh, I am getting old. If it wasn't
for Mike owning this place I wouldn't even be bothering with it. I sent Delynn a list of back east
when I was working I done stuff like this before, buildings this size, uh it's just not something I
want to do as a steady diet. If somebody called me up and wanted me to build a three-story
office building, I would say go find some young guy you know. And that's about it. I have some
pictures of it if you would like to see them. Like I said, it is a wood structure building. It isn't
like it is steel and everything else and your going to get carried away. It's basically a big old one
story although the backside is a story and a half. It's about fourteen feet from floor to ceiling.
The front part is all open and it is old, and that's the other reason I like to work on it because I
like to work on old buildings. And that's about it. I would like to do it. Like I said Mike's a
good customer of mine and I've had the plans engineered. The foundation work is not a major
undertaking --it's an interior foundation. This thing has had like three sets of foundations under it
and uh I have those plans here, if you care to take a look at them.
--Oh, yeah we all have em in our packet.
--Oh okay.
--Thanks.
--In all the stuff I have done over the years, I've been doing it for a long time, and I would like to
help Mike out. Again, you know, let's see uh if it was a modern church or office building I
• wouldn't even be here.
--Felix, Mr. Mason, um just some questions on the, the additional experience you cite here, can
you kind of give us a time frame when those four projects occurred.
--Ah, lets see. Most of those projects were in the last ten to twelve years. From about '90 on
now the work I did with Jeff Myers goes back to uh probably '82 or '83.
--Were those projects, did they have a permit and were there inspections?
--Yes, yes. Everything was permitted. Yip, just trying to think. Back east we had a whole
different at least the little town I was from --it's a small area upstate uh we didn't have contractor
license you could uh the difference was a carpenter went in and actually built the building what
we call the general contractor, hired other people to building the building, you know. Out here I
do all my own work, and I am small, and that's it. That's about all I can say. (tape turned over).
--As a carpenter back in probably high school. And you know did odds and ends out of, after
high school and then got into carpentry and I've just been doing it ever since. So it's uh, you
know, I am fifty years old so ...
--Is your, what is your experience with temporary shoring of structure. I mean it's one thing to
remodel, it's another thing to uh ...
--Yip, exactly, mostly I do a lot of egress windows in town as Delynn can tell you. You know
you have to cut out the foundations to do those. So you're always shoring up the floor joists so
that you don't have a problem there. As a matter of fact, I went on one that uh somebody didn't
pull a permit on and the floor had sagged like six or seven inches. Jacked everything back up
and got it all straightened around for her. But uh, you know, it's typical. You know there is one
in there in Mama Marisse's Restaurant if you see that had a flat roof on it. It had, it was probably
• about seventy or eighty feet long with a bearing block wall. Well I built a wall on both sides to
hold the roof, again it was engineering. Uh, knocked down the block wall put in a, I forget the
length of it, sixty -seventy foot steel beam that was about that high and he never shut down his
business while I did it. He kept open all the time.
--The final plans are engineering, your shoring is not correct?
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 46
--Shoring, he uh pretty much left up to me how to do it, you know I am gonna take care of that
once I get in there and get my excavation done and level off the floor that's there, then I can see
where I can put what.
--Then is the intent to --are they intending to occupy some of this phases?
--No. No, actually ...
--The building will be completely emptied during the entire renovation ...
--Actually July first, if I am correct, the lease expires on it.
--There wont be a huge congregation in there on Sunday morning.
--No, and I told him that, you know, uh even if the lease hadnt expired because we had started
talking about this last December uh I said I need a month, six weeks tops with nobody in there --
nothing while I do this. Well, I got to rip off the roof right down to the top plate so there is you
know.
--Yeah, I just wanted to make ...
--Unless they had an open-air service, I guess, but you know I told them no I wanted them out of
there.
--Okay, I didn't want them coming in on a Sunday morning
--No,
--I think I've got it shored good enough.
--No, no I agree with you completely. I've never had one of 'em fallen down and I've jacked up a
quite a few of them and stuff over the years, I've never had anything fall down yet. Knock on
wood, but uh ...
--Well, I guess in my opinion the it is a ...his license is for D2. I guess I would call it a big
house.
--Yeah, yeah.
--That's really what it is. There's no ...
--That's basically why I talked to Delynn and everything and said you know it looks like a big
house. It could be. As a matter of fact, if the church doesn't buy it from 'em it may be a house
one of these days, who knows.
--I guess I would have some flexibility in grating uh ...I guess I appreciate the fact that people,
although it's not the case necessarily here, but some people want get a grant --one time variance
to try to work their way up and we've, we've kind of asked for that ...you know we would do
that. It's definitely a unique circumstance where we're able to look at the building and
understand it before we make our decision so. I guess III listen to Tom though since you're a
structural engineer.
--Are we at a point where we can make a motion? Are we through with the proceedings?
--We need to do closing statements I think.
--Okay.
--Ready?
--I think so.
--Do you have any closing statements?
--Uh, just that I would appreciate it if you allowed me to do this. Uh like I said I am getting up
in age and I am not lookin' to uh, to uh make a habit of it. That's about it. Thank you.
--Thank you.
--Felix?
--I really have nothing else to add to the previous discussion.
--All right Tom you're up.
--I move that we allow Mr. Mason a one-time exemption to do this particular project.
--III second.
--Discussion.
0 •
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 47
• --I agree with Brad it looks like a big house. It seems like it would be well within the skills of
the person who has a level of experience that Mr. Mason has indicated on his resume.
--Yeah and that's our finding of fact basically that we think he has the experience.
--Yes, the reason we would allow an exemption is cause he has experience of similar scope and
magnitude. In fact the scope of what he has on his resume is probably a little bit higher than
what this involves.
--Um, Delynn roll call.
--Hartmann
--Yes
--Little
--Yes
--Fielder
--Yes
--Massey
--Yes
--Ryland
--Yes
---Thank you gentlemen.
--Moving right a long here our final case of the day. Uh Steve Whittal, Steve Whitall by Design.
Another appeals case, Mr. Whittal has had a class D1 license issued in April of 1998 and was
afforded an exam waiver based on the criteria then. Um the license uh went through a year and
then uh has uh never renewed. So it has since expired. The ordinance requires new application
• examination to reinstate a license. I will let Mr. Whittal elaborate. Uh he is seeking an exam
waiver and also alleges a learning disability in terms of test taking.
--How you all doin' I bet you're all glad to see me. I am kind of glad; it's been a long stretch
here.
--Can you state your name for the record please.
--Steve Whittal. While you guys are reviewing that I think III take an opportunity to utilize my
time here. Um, I guess being that I've had the opportunity to sit through these hearings today,
but I really wanted to come and talk to you guys about today is my competency as a general
contractor, is to basically have you guys come and take a look my portfolio. Really basically um
make a case for my competency as a general contractor, the fact that I have a pretty broad range
of experience from um historic preservation, review boards, demolition delay, all kinds of
different general contracting facets. Um, but as I sat here and watched today I think the real
reason that I am here, um is simply from the standpoint that I understand that you have to have
testing. You know that's uh, I tell my daughter all the time, you know you just got to go in there
and do that because that's basically how you create a level playing field. Um and I really, I really
didnt want to revisit that the reason why I dont want to take the contractor's examination but I
feel like I don't really have a whole lot of choice in that matter. So I am going to try to be
succinct as possible with it. I was diagnosed with being dyslexic when I was nineteen, when I
was a CSU student actually. Um basically what it is, is that it's basically something that makes it
very difficult for me to do certain things, and one of those certain things is unfortunately kind of
the format for which the City of Fort Collins is to test their competency of their general
contractors which basically is an open book examination based on a number of questions. I am
• sure you guys have all seen it. Um, that um that not withstanding is pretty the single one thing
that is really, really difficult for me to do, which is basically get an idea in my head and thumb
through 380 pages to try and figure out where it is. I thought that I could, um, contrary to skirt
around it because I've done a pretty good job of going through life for twenty years and basically
not having it really impact my life or really my success or necessarily my career. Then I came to
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 48
this, after I purchased some lots over in Ridgen Farms. I went into renew to my um contractor's
license and they're basically saying we changed the rules, you know. Even though my
contractor's license, the City of Fort Collins, saw me fit to be a general contractor in 1999 even
though there has really been no change in the Uniform Commercial Code um since 1997 in Fort
Collins. I was competent two years ago even though I had two more additional years of
experience than I had prior to being given the D1 contractor's license. Today I have to test, and
basically what I am saying is that, that type of examination is one that is surely set up for my
failure, so I am asking based on that information and based on the quality or work that I have
done in Fort Collins. I've worked on in fill on lots in the city limits of Fort Collins, um I've
worked on like I said historic preservation um demolition delay. I've had an opportunity to I
think demonstrate my competency as far as working in a system. Uh, I think that I have a real
working knowledge um of single family home construction. Like I said I am never afraid to ask
questions and in the City of Fort Collins quite honestly we're required to use, utilize licensed
contractors for a wide majority of the work that we do. So ultimately my role as a general
contractor um is ultimately to make certain that everybody follows a certain protocol. And really
today in all honesty, unless you're a corporate builder such as a Kaufman and Broad, or US
Homes, or Writer, um for the most part my job as a general contractor is overseeing that work is
being done properly. And I feel like I am very qualified to do that. I feel like the projects speak
for themselves. Um and I really think that's where I could put focus. It is not please give me an
exam waiver because I have this learning disability. I am asking for that, but I am basically
asking based on the fact that I think I've demonstrated through a number of projects in this town
contributing to, what I would like to think, is sort of the creative flair that doesnt exist a whole
lot here. Um, that I'm the kind of general contractor that we need more of which is somebody
that is interested, somebody that is willing to go into a neighborhood, such as I am going to be
doing in Ridgen Farms and saying let's try to make it a little bit different. They dont all have to
be beige. Um you know trying to make sure that when people close on my houses that they are
satisfied customers. You know those are things that are important to me. Um and I understand
that what I am asking is for you basically to make an exception. And it's an exception that I
think that I am not asking for without having put in the work for prior.
--Felix.
--Mr. Whittal, um are you currently able to read the code?
--Well, yeah, I mean I am certainly not illiterate. What, I can read the code so I am fairly clear
with what it is. My, my dilemma is um more a seek and conquer type kind of thing, is really
difficult for me. For example, um, without getting into an incredible lot of detail basically where
I have a dilemma is basically if I am asked something to go seek it through to look at a written
word, is really difficult for me to decipher through. Um, so you can see that when you have a
combination of basically a condensed time frame um and you have an open book examination.
From pretty much everybody that I have talked to that's taken the examination that has broad
experience says gosh I went in there and there were fifty questions and I thought I would at least
be able to answer twenty of 'em because I've been out in the field. I've been working actively
doing it. Their response to me has been basically you've got to dig through the book the entire
test --that's how you'll find this. Which is something that I do anyway when I'm out on the job.
My dilemma is it just takes a lot more. It takes a considerably larger amount of time, and how I
compensate for that and kind of build the quality of homes that I do is that um I've learned that I
tend to surround myself with people that know much more than I do. And I tend to ask questions
from those people. And for the most part those are a lot of the folks that, that you know you
would imagine your licensed framing contractors, all your HVACs, all your electrical folks, they
are all licensed trades. If I have questions in regards to uh is this appropriate application, I
usually go directly to them. I think my experience would dictate Felix um in the year that I held
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 49
• the general contractor's license in Fort Collins and built a number of homes, I never had any
problem with following code and protocol, and ending up with what I would like to see is a real
quality construction project. And then I have another ...there's also another driving issue like I
said I just purchased ten lots in Ridgen Farms not assuming that there have been any change in
policy, which was an oversight on my part. So if I would be put into a position to have to uh um
study for an examination it would not be a matter of a small task for me. It would be something
that I would have to focus absolutely every bit of my time for an extended period of time. And
so I am dealing with a couple of different issues as I close on Friday. Um, but I am willing to do
whatever the Board recommends. But I am certainly looking for an exception. It's not one that I
think should be entitled. It's just one that I think coupled with the dyslexia and my track record.
I think that combination should dictate some hardship and you should be able to clearly see that.
--Felix, I have a question for you.
--Um, without intending to disrupt what the new regulations or yeah regulations state in terms of
examination and experience. Um what are the possibilities of not an oral exam, but an oral
interview? I know that uh, in at least my profession, architecture a lot of the states will give an
oral interview. Um in terms of to try to get a fix of knowledge of code and things like that. Is
that an option in this case or no?
--Well, I guess it could be an option, um, my I have some trepidation about that in terms of that's
fairly subjective and then how do I administer that with everyone else that, that uh says they have
some sort of learning disability. Um, so I ...
--You know the thing is to, is that um and I thought here because I had plenty time to think when
I was sitting here, and I thought to myself um what I really should have done and unfortunately
• didn't do I guess and really document the mental illness and play that. Or the, the, learning
disability issue and really document, but that's not my wiring you know. From the time that I
found out that I had this my, my um, motivation has been to utilize maybe more verbal skills, um
may being able to do things. I, I, skin a cat in a lot of different ways. Um, and I realize as I sat
gosh you now I really didn't address that part fully um because what I would really like you to
see, I'd really like you as individuals citizens basically they think put independently on this
Board, is to take a look at the body of work, and recognize that if I was competent in Fort Collins
in 1999 to be a general contractor, with two more additional years of experience. I should be just
as competent. Um, and, and when I got my contractors license in '99 I was real aware that that
was a way of me being able to do this without having to do an examination because there used to
be in Fort Collins, I guess the philosophy that basically said, if your competent, if you go out
there and you pay your dues, like I try to tell framers on my crew and guys, young guys that
come to work for me. It used to be like if you know what you're doing, if you're good at what
you're doing, you get rewarded for that --we want you to be here. You know I guess I come here
before you today and say in 1999 I was competent um the City of Fort Collins was I think pretty
glad I was here and I certainly pulled a number of building permits. And because there is this
change in policy, ultimately instead of making the playing field level, it's made the playing field
really unlevel for me. Because it's put me in a position to not be able to earn a living as a
licensed general contractor under the same conditions today as what I did two years ago, even
though there has been no change in the Uniform Commercial Code. There's been very limited
difference in how a home is built. The only difference is that it's incredible much more
expensive today that it was two years ago.
• I can just tell you that in the other professions, in the engineering and architectural professions,
that the I can't speak for all the states but I know that very few states any more allow just
experience to uh, to uh get you a license. And uh it's getting more, and more restrictive because
I believe of the complexity and the uh desire to enforce the health and safety of the public. So I
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 50
can appreciate what you're saying but at the same time it was kind of a break off point and
unfortunately you kind of fell within that.
--And you bet if that I was in a situation, that if I didn't kind of this monkey back that I would. I
would have much preferred to sit three hours and taken an examination that test what I believe
can implement in the field versus sitting four hours and telling, you know, and basically stirring
it up. I mean to me for me when I was thinking about this it brought up an awful lot of stuff.
Because like I said I've been very successful for twenty years. I mean sometimes, you know, my
daughter is twelve doing story problems is like terror, you know. But I've been able to kind of
wind my way through that.
--Right.
--As Brad has mentioned before is there any other um education or anything that we could
consider?
--Well basically ...
--For instance, how, how, was the exam waived last time?
--Um huh, correct.
--Based only on your experience?
--Or, or other things?
--The policy, we have a different approach in Fort Collins now. Without giving into my opinion
whether I think it's a good one or a bad one. In 1999 basically how I understood it and how it
worked was that you documented x amount of projects that basically showed that you were
competent to do the work and based on their review of the information. You were then given
your contractor's license. You were waived from the examination at that point. So what I am
asking for you today is I am asking you to not base the examination on my experience. I am
asking you today to waive the examination based on the fact that one it's not a level playing field,
because I dont have the same opportunity as somebody who can read through stuff. I am saying
that when the policy changed I kind of got weeded out of the opportunity to be a general
contractor with a Dl license. And like I said what I want to build are quality single family
homes in Fort Collins. Pretty much the same stuff I am doin'. That's what I am asking the Board
to do today, is waive the examination based on hardship, but really take into consideration that I
know my way through a number of processes that a lot of contractors have not yet had the joy
experiencing. So that's what I wish for you to consider today.
--Mr. Whittal could you provide evidence from a doctor of your disability?
--Well, see that's another thing that I was talking with a friend about last night. Yeah, I suppose
that I could uh, but, when I was diagnosed like I said was in 1981 uh, some almost twenty years
ago, and I could dig back in there and see if I can find the doctor I went to.
--Could you go to another doctor and get ...
--It's not that easy of a diagnosis. A lot of what it is now because when I was dealing with it
nobody really knew exactly what it was and so we just really didnt deal with it much. Today um
cause unfortunately I was able to give that to my twelve year old daughter as well, and they have
a whole battery of ...
--Can you provide evidence that she has dyslexia. I mean do you have something in writing
from the school?
--Yeah, yeah I could provide that, but I guess what I'd rather do though, I'd rather, I would rather
base it on me, you know. If the Board would feel more comfortable for me to go to a physician
and for me to be diagnosed with that I will do that. Um ...
--If you for example could get a letter from a doctor that says you now take the evidence of your
daughter's dyslexia and the doctor says this is a genetic inherited thing and there is a strong
likelihood that you might have that.
0
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 51
• --This rubs me in a strange direction. I would be willing to do that but again I want to reiterate
that I think the reason ... I could have showed up today and said that I've sided a few houses or
basically I've built a few houses, but I have a learning disability and here's my paperwork and
ultimately been given a waiver, but not necessarily been competent to do the work.
--We aren't necessarily ...
--I guess what I am saying is that I would the exam waiver to be based on the learning disability
but also the fact that ...the bottom line is that I've demonstrated my ability to do the job.
--Yeah I am not sure there's any question of that in terms of experience.
--Yes, the thing that we have Ill say every person of similar stature to yourself comes before the
Board and says I have twenty years of experience and I know how to do this job and I am certain
I can do it. I accidentally let my license laps and our position is now we are uniformly enforcing
the rules unless there's hardship evidence. So the only position I think you have is to in some
way document to the Building Department that you have hardship that would make it very
difficult for you to pass a written test.
--You're definitely not the first person who has come in and said I am not good at taking tests.
--Oh yeah if it were a function of kind being bad at 'em. I would study and be good at 'em--that's
my style.
--My concern is that know with the, I know it's changed, but that's just progress. We've got
experience and we've got testing and those are the two separate categories that we have. We've
clearly got the experience and now we need the testing. And um in at least my opinion I don't
only allow so much experience to just finally lap over and take over the testing.
• --The other issue, and I'm not casting any doubt on your disability or your learning, cognitive
stuff, but well get a hundred people in the next year who claim to be dyslexic and those hundred
people I would ask the same thing, if you could provide some sort of evidence.
--This is where as a City you want to check with your attorney. And I dons mean to be
wrangling up a real bag of worms for you guys, but part of the American Disability Act is from
the standpoint that what you're asking me to do I am willing do. But what you're asking me to do
according this uh disability act is not something within your scope to be able to do.
--I don't think that's true.
--You don think it is.
--No, no I don't. Um I can't say that for certain. I think if someone alleges a disability the um,
this first of all is not your employment. Um, so it's a different test.
--But what kind of documentation would satisfy a letter from a doctor.
--Just a letter of evaluation.
--Even to I think the extent of if you have documentation from your daughter because I know the
schools are very, very conscious of that, if you would take that documentation to your family
physician and say here's my situation I've gone before the Building Review Board. I don't know
what's involved here, but I've been diagnosed with dyslexia. It's evident in my daughter. Can
you send a letter that says basically this uh often genetic and it may indicate that somewhere in
the family.
--What about a time extension? Allowing him more time so he doesn't feel so rushed, but
still ... I still think you glean certain things from the test. You get out in the field and you might
just be lapping right over it going I've done this fifty times. Well you might have done it fifty
times, but you might have done it fifty times wrong. And I've done that in architecture. You
• know someone finally calls and says jeez I always thought it was this. My gosh it caught me that
I didn't know you had to have that and I've done it too many times and finally something clicks
that makes it become apparent. And I think out of these fifty questions you might glean four or
five that the next time it comes up you go oh yeah I remember that test I had.. I can't do that
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 52
that's a little different and um your ability to read has to carry over to the ability to read plans,
and specifications.
--Yeah but the difference is --is that being somebody, Brad that doesn't deal with this. Is that I've
set my life up in such way that it works. And so I always have a right hand person to be there
that has worked for me forever. She kind of does a lot of the work that that we work as team you
know. Um so I approach things just a little bit different I am not asking anybody else to I do it
because that's been a way I've learned how to work. And I think the trade off in that is, is that for
what I lack in the written word, I certainly benefit in the visual one, you know. Because I see
things visually that a lot of people really miss. So I think for every burden you're given some
gifts along there too. As far as my ability to function out as a general contractor it's of no
consequence. I've proven that I can do it successfully.
--The other thing is, is that your going to ...let's say we grant you a waiver, you're going to right
back here two years from now because the new codes says that you have to take a refresher every
two years, right?
--Right.
--Every time within the period of the license holder is license that the code changes so the next
time it's up for renewal for that change there will be some sort of refresher.
--So it might not be two years, it might be next year too. It might be six months.
--Yeah we're planning to offer some sort of uh ...
--That's a whole different ball game for me.
--He's not under pressure to look up answers.
--And I am not under the written word.
--Okay let me throw out one more thing Felix, we talked at one point in time about people with
um, uh a language barrier thing perhaps coming in with a translator or something. And I am just
throwing this out, uh, what if he was able to uh, bring the person that helps him with those things
to help him with the exam.
--Yeah, well let me answer that. Since we've offered that I've had second thoughts about it
because it I think it uh, um, it, it, people see that people that take the test as someone bringing in
a wringer and we have no way knowing. And that's really difficult to monitor so I think were
probably going to discontinue that. There's no requirement speaking of the ADA, I do know this,
well this wouldn't apply to the ADA. In terms, of uh, uh, equal rights and equal treatment we
don't have to offer the test. It's not a requirement to offer it in any other language than standard
which is the language of the book. It is a thought. Um, let me pose this another way um Mr.
Whittal would you be first of all consider a online course that ICBO offers that one can take at
their own pace.
--Oh yes that would be great. I would be more than willing ...(talking without microphone).
--We've actually used that uh um in terms of allowing a test taker to take a third test because
under the new provisions they can take it twice with no time between, limit between. But if they
fail it on the second time they have to provide proof of some other training or uh to take it.
--Well this would qualify as an equivalent exam wouldnI it?
--Yeah I think so.
--And is that a basically online ...(talking without microphone).
--It's self -paced.
--It's eighteen sessions at your pace.
--(Talking without microphone).
--I guess it seems to me that that would be reasonable for your particular circumstance. I mean, I
think the Board tries to find some options for people. We're reluctant for someone to come in
and say I don't like to take test and getting a waiver is pretty rare, I would say. If you have a
particular learning disability and we can't judge if that's true or not. We can only ask you to
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 53
• provide evidence that it's true. In terms of you doing online education uh getting up to code, if it
works better in terms of personal knowledge and style I think that uh the Board would probably
consider that being a provision ...
--I don't have a problem with that considering he has already been licensed in the City of Fort
Collins, done the project, he obviously has uh experience. I don't have a problem with that. Do
you have a problem with that, Felix?
--No I think there ought to be some time period, it shouldn't be indefinite, but ...
--I agree.
--I would like to do it as soon as possible because I have a busy coming October that subdivision
is going to be in full swing and I ... (talking without microphone). As soon as I can get the
information from you begin. The earlier the better for me time frame wise.
--Mr. Whittal did you say you graduated from CSU or ...
--I went for three years.
--Okay.
--In construction management.
--Okay.
--And then I realized ...(talking without microphone).
--I would say that we allow him to start pull two permits. I don't think there is any point in
saying he's got to have the ...I would say that he has to have the exam completed and pass
within three months --two months.
--Why don't we say until October that's when he said he was interested (talking without
• microphone).
--Ninety days.
--I don'tthink we should say if you haven't passed you can't pull any permits, but obviously you
would have to complete the other few homes that have started no matter what.
--That ninety days he should submit evidence of successful completion of the course or passing
whatever it is at which point his license would be instated and ...
--But if he didn't do that in October he could come before the Board again.
--But he would be allowed to continue on the two homes that he started, even if he doesn't ...I
don't know say he doesn't do it.
--Yeah as a conditional license for two homes and let me move forward
--Through completion.
--Motion?
--III make a motion to um allow Mr. Whittal to have a temporary license for two homes in the
Rigden Farms subdivision. Uh he can pull the permits and complete them with the provision that
he uh, start taking this ICBO online course and have it completed in within ninety days and
provide written proof or it comes online or what to the building department that that is
successfully being completed.
--Just to be clear he completes those homes but no new permits can be pulled at any time until
unless that exam requirement has been met.
--That's right.
--Okay.
--(talking without microphone)
--Do you have all that info?
• --You'll have to give me the two specific addresses
--Oh, okay and then how do I do that ICBO?
--III give you that information.
--It's almost six here.
--I'll second.
Building Review Board
June 29, 2001
Page 54
--Discussion.
--Roll call.
--Hartmann
--Yes
--little
--Yes
--Fielder
--Yes
--Massey
--Yes
--Ryland
--Yes
--Thanks.
--Any other business Felix?
--Uh I have nothing else.
--Okay were dismissed.
Charles Fielder, Chairperson Felix Lee, Building and Zoning Director