Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 04/26/2001A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, April 26, 2001, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Fielder, Gene Little, John McCoy, and Cameron Ryland BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Thomas Hartmann, Al Hauck, and Bradley Massey STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Delynn Coldiron, staff representative Felix Lee, Building Official • AGENDA: ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Fielder and roll taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Board member Little made a motion to approve the Minutes. Board member Ryland seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the Minutes from the March 29, 2001 meeting were approved as submitted. CONTRACTOR APPEAL — STEVE JOSEPHS, DB/A CRAFTSMEN BUILDERS: Chairperson Fielder reviewed the procedures that would be used for the hearings. Felix Lee provided information relative to this appeal. He stated that the appellant was requesting a license upgrade to a Class D1. He noted that the appellant currently holds a Class D2 license which is limited to the construction of residential additions and garages up to 1,000 square feet, together with structural modifications for the same types of structures. Lee mentioned that the experience documentation submitted by the appellant included two single family homes and one large addition. He clarified that the Class D1 license requires no less than • three completed projects requiring a minimum of a Class DI license (single family home, duplex, or equivalent). Lee added that the appellant was asking for relief from that requirement. .Rs April 26, 2001 Page 2 Fielder asked if there was any difference between the exam required for a Cass DI license or a Class D2 license. Lee answered that there was no difference. Appellant, Steve Josephs, addressed the board. He stated that he had been licensed with the City of Fort Collins for two years and that his projects were primarily residential additions and remodels in the Old Town area. He noted that he was requesting an upgrade to a Class DI license so that he would be able to construct additions in excess of 1,000 square feet. He added that in the past year he had had several customers approach him who wanted additions in excess of 1,000 square feet. According to the appellant, as soon as he told those customers that he would have to go the board to obtain approval for their job they were no longer interested in using him for the work. Appellant provided board members with pictures of projects he had completed over the past two years. He mentioned that some of the jobs he had performed, although they were smaller remodel jobs, were just as complex and, perhaps, more difficult than building a new home. He hoped the board would have some leniency on the Class D1 project requirements based on his level of experience. Lee asked the appellant if he was the actual general contractor on the addition project that was submitted, in charge of all work done from foundation through completion. Josephs confirmed that he was the general contractor. He added that his father owns the construction company in Wisconsin that he was working for and that he could have provided numerous jobs, but chose the two projects where his father left him in charge of the entire project. Lee asked if the addition project included electrical, plumbing and mechanical trades. Appellant confirmed that all trades were involved. Lee asked if the appellant had any other projects beyond what had been submitted. Appellant answered that he constructed a home in Glacier View Meadows approximately two years ago, but was having some trouble getting the owner to sign the project verification form. Lee asked the appellant to describe that project. Appellant answered that the project entailed constructing a 2,600 square foot mountain home that was a full story with a walkout basement. Lee asked if he was the general contractor for the project. Appellant answered that the homeowner obtained the permit, but that he supervised the entire job. Lee asked if he managed all of the subtrades. Appellant confirmed this. He added that he also personally performed the framing and trim work. Fielder asked if there was a precedent in place where the board granted one-time exemptions for contractors who are attempting to gain the necessary experience to upgrade their license. Lee confirmed this. McCoy asked if multiple Class D2 projects could be considered an equivalent to a Class DI project. Lee answered that board members could use their discretion in determining whether the appellant's Class D2 projects were equivalent to a third Class D1 project. Ryland asked for further clarification. Lee provided this. Little asked the appellant if he currently had a Class Dl project that he was trying to obtain a permit for. Appellant answered that he did not have any Class D1 projects pending. He stated that his Class D2 license is up for renewal and he thought he would try to upgrade his license to a Class D 1 prior to renewing so that he would only have to pay for one license. McCoy asked if the Glacier View project that was mentioned was a third Class DI project that had not yet been submitted. Appellant confirmed this. McCoy asked if this would have been sufficient for approval of the Class D 1 license. Lee confirmed this. • BRB April 26, 2001 Page 3 • Ryland asked whether the board could grant a conditional D 1 license pending submittal of the third D 1 project. Lee confirmed that the board could do this. He mentioned that another option might be to keep the Class D2 license in place and add an exemption that would enable the appellant to construct one Class DI project which would allow him to then obtain the Class DI license. McCoy asked for clarification on the process if the appellant were to renew his current license but then wanted to convert it to the Class D1 license once he had obtained the third verification form. Lee answered that technically when the appellant was ready to obtain a Class DI license he would be required to submit a new application together with all related fees. Lee mentioned that the board could authorize a conversion to a Class D 1 license with a waiver of the related fees once the appellant had obtained all necessary documentation. Josephs closed by stating that he was agreeable to what had been discussed. He mentioned that he simply needed something that would enable him to accept residential projects outside of the scope of his current license without having to inform the potential customer that he would have to get approval from the board, etc. Lee mentioned that the third project required for the appellant to obtain a Class D 1 license must be for the construction of a single family home or duplex. He noted that if the board were to grant an exemption to appellant's current license, and he were to build a 1,200 square foot addition, although a Class Dl license would be required to do this work, the project would not be considered sufficient for the Cass D1 project needed to convert appellant's license. is Ryland asked if it was possible for the board to consider the fact that the appellant had taken and passed the exam together with the complexity of the other projects he had completed as a replacement for the third project that is needed. Lee stated that the board had that latitude and could consider a hardship as well. Fielder stated that the board had never approved waivers on experience, only on exams. He added that this was primarily due to the fact that doing this increases the potential of the process becoming arbitrary. Little stated that he was in favor of granting the appellant an exemption that would enable him to construct a third DI project and then to convert his current license to a DI license without requiring additional fees to do so. There was some discussion regarding allowing the appellant to construct residential additions in excess of the square footage allowed by his current license. Appellant stated that he had no desire to build a complete new house and was really more interested in getting approval to construct additions in excess of 1,000 square feet. Little stated that the board was somewhat limited with what could be approved without rewriting the code. He mentioned that although the board was interested in assisting the appellant with what had been requested, this should be done in accordance with the structure that is currently in place. Ryland stated that she was in favor of granting the appellant a D 1 license due to the fact that the projects that the appellant is interested in pursuing fall outside the scope of his current license, creating an ongoing dilemma for the appellant, as well as for the board. • Fielder asked if the board could grant a D 1 license limited to additions and remodels of a designated square footage amount. Lee stated that the board could do this. He suggested that the 1RB April 26, 2001 Page 4 board leave the D2 license in place and make changes accordingly based on this particular appellant's experience, etc. McCoy made a motion as follows: that the appellant renew his license at its current D2 level; that upon submittal of a third D1 project, the appellant's license be converted to a Class D1 license with no additional fees being required; and that the appellant be authorized to construct residential additions in excess of 1,000 square feet with his current D2 license. Fielder seconded the motion. Prior to voting, the board entered into additional discussion. McCoy stated that he wanted some way to encourage the appellant to promptly submit the third DI project so that the exemption being proposed did not continue indefinitely. Lee suggested that the board include a time limit. There was additional discussion on this issue. Lee also mentioned that it might be important to develop some specific findings of fact, one of which might be that the appellant had demonstrated specialized training, education or additional experience which the board had determined qualifies the appellant to perform, in a competent manner, any construction authorized under the license or certificate sought. The motion and second were tabled so that findings of fact could be developed. Fielder asked if board members were in agreement that the appellant had additional experience that would merit an exemption to his current license. There was general agreement on this issue. Ryland made a motion of finding of fact, as follows: that the appellant in this case had demonstrated experience in excess of what is required for a Class D2 license. VOTE: Yeas: McCoy, Fielder, Little, Ryland Nays: The motion passed unanimously. The board next took action on the original motion made by McCoy. Lee reiterated the board's motion, as follows: that a variance be approved that would allow the appellant to build, under his current D2 license, projects exceeding the 1,000 square foot limitation of that license; that upon providing a third Class DI project the appellant's current license be converted to a Class D1 license with a waiver of all related fees; and that the approved variance remain in effect only through the current renewal period (two years). VOTE: Yeas: McCoy, Fielder, Little, Ryland Nays: • • BRB April 26, 2001 Page 5 • The motion passed unanimously. CONTRACTOR APPEAL — JOSHUA T. WATTERS, DB/A JWATT CONSTRUCTION: Appellant did not appear. This item was tabled until the next meeting. CONTRACTOR APPEAL — WILLIAM KENNEDY, DB/A BASEMENTS & BEYOND: Lee provided information relative to this appeal. He stated that the appellant was requesting the approval of a Class D2 license restricted to residential basement finish projects. He noted that the appellant had applied for a D2 license; however, that the projects submitted were insufficient in scope for the license requested. Based on the appellant's information, Lee mentioned that the appellant's company had completed over 400 basement finish projects ranging in scope from a 150 square foot project valued at $5,000, to a 3,000 square foot project valued at $150,000. Lee clarified that to obtain a Class D2 license, an applicant must submit three projects that had a construction value of not less than $15,000, and entailed significant structural alteration, or the addition to a single family home or equivalent structure. Lee added that staff had determined that only one of the projects submitted by the appellant qualify for the D2 license sought. All other projects entailed nonstructural basement finish and remodel work and were insufficient in scope to qualify for the D2 license. Lee stated that the appellant passed the City's D exam with a score of 91 % and currently holds, or • has held, a Building Class C license with the cities of Denver, Aurora, Littleton and Boulder, as well as a Class II license with the City of Loveland. Lee also mentioned that the appellant had built an 1,100 square foot mountain home and is currently constructing his own personal residence, two projects which are sufficient in scope for a Class DI license. However, Lee noted that no project forms had been submitted for either of these projects documenting this experience. Appellant, William Kennedy, addressed the board. He stated that he had not submitted a verification for his mountain home since he personally did the work. Lee asked the appellant if he used other subtrades on the project that could be used as a reference. Appellant stated that he did use subtrades but was not aware that they could be used as a reference. Lee confirmed that they could be used. Kennedy stated that he needed a license that would enable his company to do basement finishes. He added that his company gets involved in very few projects that involve structural work and that he had sent out project forms on some of the structural projects that they had performed which had yet to be returned to him. In the meantime, he stated that he has customers that would like him to start on their basement finishes and was seeking approval from the board to enable him to do this. Fielder asked for clarification on the C licenses in Denver, Aurora, Littleton and Boulder. Appellant stated that those licenses were the same as Fort Collins' DI license. Lee confirmed this. Fielder asked for clarification on the Class II license in Loveland. Kennedy stated that this, too, was the same as the City's Class D1 license. Fielder asked if the appellant was seeking a restricted Class D2 license. Lee confirmed this. • Kennedy mentioned that his company had no intention of building houses or additions; only basement finish work. He added that when he receives the project forms back from the references he will submit them to the building department so that a full D2 license can be issued. AB April 26, 2001 Page 6 Lee asked for clarification on the basement finish project done at 9535 E. Arbor Place, specifically regarding the structural elements of that project. Kennedy stated that this project was one of the rare occasions where his company performed structural work. He mentioned that he had remodeled this customer's basement and they then wanted to remodel their kitchen. As part of the kitchen remodel, a 10' x 10' addition was added. Lee asked for clarification on whether it was the appellant's intent to supervise entire basement finish projects, including managing the subtrades, even though the work would not necessarily include structural elements. Appellant confirmed this. Lee clarified for the board that although much of the nonstructural work that would be involved in a basement finish project is no longer regulated under the new licensing ordinance, supervising or managing the entire project, including subtrades, would require at least a D2 contractor's license. McCoy asked for clarification on the projects that had been submitted, as well as on the projects that had not yet been documented as to the level of license the projects would qualify for. Lee provided clarification. McCoy asked appellant when he anticipated that his home in Windsor would be completed. Kennedy answered that it should be finished by the first part of August. McCoy, Little and Fielder collaboratively made a motion of finding of fact as follows: that the appellant had demonstrated experience to do the types of projects that he intends to pursue in Fort Collins; and that the appellant had licenses in Denver, Aurora, Boulder, Littleton and Loveland that are above and beyond the scope of license being sought; and that the appellant passed the City's Class Dl exam. Ryland seconded the motion VOTE: YEAS: McCoy, Fielder, Little, Ryland The motion passed unanimously. McCoy made a motion to grant a temporary D2 license to the appellant restricted to basement finish projects with the requirement that the appellant submit his two remaining project forms by October 31, 2001, to finalize the D2 license, and that if the remaining project forms are not submitted by that date, the temporary license will lapse. Fielder seconded the motion. VOTE: YEAS: McCoy, Fielder, Little, Ryland The motion passed unanimously. 6. CONTRACTOR APPEAL — TOM VEHR, D/B/A EXTERIOR WOOD WORKS: Lee provided information relative to this appeal. He stated that the appellant was requesting an exemption to his current Miscellaneous and Minor Structures license that would allow him to construct any type of residential deck. Lee clarified that the Home Improvement license became defunct with the new licensing ordinance and that those licenses were converted to a • • BRB April 26, 2001 Page 7 • Miscellaneous and Minor Structures license. Lee reviewed the work authorized under such license, including: to construct, repair or demolish detached structures such as shelters, storage sheds, play houses, green houses, gazebos and unenclosed structures such as porches, patio covers and decks. He added that the ordinance stipulates that none of this work can exceed one story in height or 200 square feet in floor area. Lee noted that based on the appellant's information, Vehr had experience constructing decks in excess of the 200 square foot limitation and decks that exceeded the one-story limit. According to Lee, the appellant was seeking approval from the board to enable him to build decks exceeding the limitations of his current license. Appellant, Tom Vehr, addressed the board. He referred board members to the information he had provided in packets showing decks he had constructed in the County which exceeded the limitations of his current license. He stated that his company focuses on constructing decks, fences, trellises, arbors, gazebos, etc., and it was his opinion that his Miscellaneous and Minor Structures license severely limited the type of work that he was able to do in Fort Collins. He requested some kind of an exemption from the board that would allow him to build these types of residential structures without restriction. Lee asked for clarification on the square footage allowance appellant was seeking. Appellant stated that the majority of his decks are around 500 square feet and can be up to two levels. He added that he did not plan on building anything over two stories tall or in excess of 1,000 square feet in total surface area. Lee asked the appellant if the structures he intended to build that were over one story would be enclosed or covered. Appellant stated that such a project might entail some type of corrugated type roof system, but did not plan on extending an existing house roof • over a deck, or construct any type of enclosure. Lee suggested that if the board were to grant some type of exemption to appellant's license, they might consider adding restrictions as to the size and number of stories that would be allowed. McCoy asked appellant for clarification on the largest deck he had built. Appellant answered that it was approximately 750 square feet. McCoy asked appellant for clarification on the tallest deck he had built. Appellant answered that it was a second story deck. Lee suggested that the board might want to specify a height above grade as a restriction. Vehr stated that on some of the second level decks he constructs, the customers like to have a trellis or shade structure built above them. He wondered if this would be allowed. Lee answered that if the structure was constructed in an open fashion for the purpose of decoration or shade, it would not be considered structural and would be okay. Fielder asked if the appellant would be satisfied with an exemption that allowed him to build decks up to 2,500 square feet and 16 feet tall. Appellant was agreeable to this. Little made a motion for a finding of fact, as follows: that the appellant, Exterior Woodworks, owned by Tom Vehr, be granted a variance to the licensing restrictions under the Miscellaneous and Minor Structures license based on his successfully demonstrated previous experience • under his Home Improvement license. Ryland seconded the motion. .RB April 26, 2001 Page 8 VOTE: Yeas: McCoy, Fielder, Little, Ryland Nays: The motion passed unanimously. Little made a motion for the approval of a variance to appellant's Miscellaneous and Minor Structures license to allow him to construct decks in excess of 200 square feet, not to exceed 2,500 square feet, and that he be limited to a height restriction of 16 feet above grade. Fielder seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: McCoy, Fielder, Little, Ryland Nays: The motion passed unanimously. 7. OTHER BUSINESS: None. Meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m.