HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 03/29/2001A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, March 29, 2001, in the Council
Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Thomas Hartmann, Gene Little, Bradley Massey, John McCoy, and Cameron Ryland
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Charles Fielder and Al Hauck
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Delynn Coldiron, staff representative
Mike Gebo, Acting Building Official
• AGENDA:
ROLL CALL:
The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairperson Massey and roll taken.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Board member Hartmann made a motion to approve the Minutes. Board member Little seconded
the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the Minutes from the February 22, 2001
meeting were approved as submitted.
CONTRACTOR APPEAL — STEVE KELLERMAN:
Chairperson Massey reviewed the procedures that would be used for this hearing.
Delynn Coldiron provided information relative to this appeal. She mentioned that this appellant
was given a framing license in November, 1998 and explained that at that time staff was granting
exam waivers based on the submittal of five completed projects demonstrating a minimum of five
years experience. She confirmed that the appellant had submitted the appropriate documentation
and was granted a corresponding exam waiver at that time.
According to Coldiron, the appellant neglected to renew his license during the time that he was
• working out of state which resulted in the expiration of his license. She stated that the appellant
was seeking to renew his license and, according to the current licensing regulations, must now
submit a new application and fulfill all other related requirements, including successfully passing
IRB
March 29, 2001
Page 2
the required exam. Coldiron stated that the purpose for the appellant's appearance at today's
hearing was to obtain an exam waiver from the board.
Appellant, Steve Kellerman, addressed the board. He reiterated that he was seeking an exam
waiver in order to renew his framing license. He referred board members to the comments
included on the project verification form that had been submitted by KEM Homes which alluded
to the fact that he had worked as a lead framer for them for 25 years and was well versed in the
building code. He felt that the comment was a good indicator of his ability and knowledge and
noted that he had been framing in Fort Collins since 1973.
Board member Ryland asked the appellant if there were any other reasons why, other than
preference or convenience, he did not want to take the exam. Kellerman answered that he did not
feel testing was necessary due to the fact that he had worked with the building code for a number
of years. He also noted the associated cost as a reason for not wanting to take the exam.
Massey asked for clarification on whether the appellant took a test at the time he was originally
granted a framing license. Coldiron confirmed that he did not test.
McCoy asked for clarification on whether any new applicants who brought in sufficient
documents would be given an exam waiver. Coldiron answered that a waiver would be granted
only if the appellant received approval from the board.
Ryland mentioned that the board had discussed the issue of granting exam waivers at their
February meeting. She stated that there was some concern on behalf of the board for setting a
precedent whereby applicants were not having to test to obtain their license. It was her opinion
that there was some agreement amongst board members to not approve exam waivers without
having good reason to do so, i.e., a demonstrated hardship. She added that due to the amount of
experience it appeared that the appellant had, taking the exam should not present a problem for
him.
Little stated that part of the problem the board has is that they have been appointed by City
Council to enact and uphold policy related to the building code, as well as associated licensing
requirements. He added that he and others had spent an entire year establishing the licensing
requirements that are now in place. According to Little, prior to this work, the board was
somewhat uncertain as to how to apply the requirements. Like Ryland, he also confirmed that at
the February meeting the board had come to a consensus that there was a reason why contractor
licensing is required and that the City's requirement for contractors to take an exam should be
upheld. Little noted that a demonstrated hardship was one of the main reasons that would allow
the board to grant an exam waiver but explained that just because an applicant had sufficient skill
and experience, this was not ajustifiable excuse for not requiring the exam. It was his opinion
that the board was attempting to set a precedent that required any contractor who was seeking a
license in Fort Collins to test.
Kellerman asked if a test would be required on a yearly basis. Massey answered that the current
licensing regulations require a new applicant to take an exam as part of the initial license
application and require current license holders to test when a new building code has been adopted
or at times when the current building code had been substantially changed. Coldiron added that
current license holders will have a choice to either take an abbreviated refresher exam covering
the new or amended code, or take a refresher class that will be offered.
Kellerman pointed out that he is really only here because he forgot to send in his renewal check
and, had he done so, would still have a current license.
• • BRB
March 29, 2001
Page 3
• Massey asked for clarification on the date appellant's license had expired. Appellant answered
that it had expired in November, 2000. Massey noted that the sixty-day grace period had also
expired.
Massey mentioned that the board was not questioning the level of the appellant's experience. He
stated that the board is directed to look at demonstrated hardships or other special reasons before
granting an exam waiver and again reiterated that the board had come to a consensus that they
would uphold the City's requirements unless a hardship or other reason had been found.
Little asked appellant if he had any problems that would constitute a hardship that would keep
him from passing the exam. Appellant answered that he was unsure exactly what was meant by
hardship. He noted that he had the time to take the exam and could come up with the money
required, but preferred not to have to take it. He stated that it had been a long time since had been
required to take a test and that he would have to spend time preparing and studying in order to
pass.
Little provided the appellant with information on some specifics of the exam. Kellerman asked if
the exam he would be required to take was different than the tests for other license classifications.
Coldiron confirmed that the appellant would be required to take an exam that was specific to
framing. She also mentioned that there were separate tests for each general contractor license
category.
Mike Gebo, acting Building Official, mentioned that there was a packet available at the building
department that included all of the pertinent code sections that were needed for the framing exam.
• He noted that the framing exam is the only exam where staff has put together a packet of
information to assist testers.
Coldiron asked Kellerman if he had any other education or training that might be considered an
equivalent to the City's exam. Kellerman stated that he had a bachelor's degree in teaching, but
nothing specific to the building industry.
Lawrence Wilson, the appellant for the next scheduled appeal, addressed the board. He
mentioned that he met Kellerman for the first time today and that, based on his discussion with
him, would, as a general contractor, hire this type of framing contractor. It was his opinion that
Kellerman's years of experience and knowledge of the building code and industry more than
qualified him to do the job. Wilson stated that to penalize this contractor for simply neglecting to
send in his check was very shortsighted on the part of the City. Wilson also stated that to make
this contractor, who had been involved in the industry for 28 years, take time away from his job
site to take a test, when he should be on -site supervising the work being done, was a hardship the
City was imposing on a working individual. It was his opinion that an exception should be made
in this case and a waiver granted.
Hartmann again asked the appellant if there were any hardships that would occur if he were
required to test. Kellerman stated that one hardship would be the fact that he would have to send
his son home during the time he tested because he would not feel comfortable having him work
unsupervised.
Little stated that he appreciated Wilson's comments. He agreed that sometimes it seems as
• though people are asked to do things that don't make a whole lot of practical sense. He
mentioned that the board did not create the regulations but is in a position where they have to
enforce the legislation that has been put in place. He added that the board is trying to set a
precedent that makes obtaining a license fair, across the board, for all contractors. To the
>B
March 29, 2001
Page 4
appellant Little stated that he appreciated the amount of experience that had been documented and
the glowing references that had been submitted; however, stated that he was under the direction
of Council and required to uphold the process that had been put into place.
Kellerman answered that the process includes the opportunity for contractors to come before the
board to ask for exemptions. He wondered why this was an option for contractors if the board
was not willing to grant any.
Little stated that it is fairly clear in their directives that there has to be a demonstrated hardship to
allow the board to waive the exam and that that is the reason the board keeps asking whether
there are any hardships specific to this case.
Kellerman reiterated that his hardship is the fact that any current job would have to stop during
the time that he was not there to supervise the work.
Massey mentioned that there are two components required for a license; the test and experience.
It was his opinion that although the experience component is probably the most important, it is
not a substitute for the test. Massey asked the appellant about the last time he had referred to a
code book. Kellerman answered that it had been a long time. Massey stated that this was one
reason why the test is required. Kellerman answered that contractors are made aware of code
changes, not because they read about them in the book, but because others in the field, i.e.,
superintendents, communicate the changes as they occur.
Ryland mentioned that taking the test confirms that fact that a contractor is aware of the code
changes. She added that she did not feel that the appellant was being penalized for having to take
a few hours away from his work in order to take an exam. On the contrary, it was her opinion
that the health and safety of the community were being disregarded in instances where contractors
were not required to test.
Kellerman stated that taking and passing the exam would make no difference in his work.
Massey answered that should the appellant learn even a small amount of additional information
regarding code changes this would constitute a benefit. He also mentioned that relying on
supervisors to communicate changes was not necessarily a good thing since there is a chance that
they may have come before the board for an exam waiver themselves. He noted that if all
requested waivers were approved, a ripple effect would be created where no one in the field has
current knowledge of the building code. It was Massey's opinion that unless a hardship could be
demonstrated, or unless an applicant had other types of education that was comparable to the
testing requirement, he thought it was reasonable to expect contractors to take the exam.
Hartmann stated that the board could grant, if a hardship was shown, the re -issuance of the
appellant's license to enable him to complete his current project as a compromise that would give
him additional time to take the test. Kellerman stated that his current project was outside of the
city limits so the Fort Collins license was not needed in order for him to continue working.
Hartmann made a motion to deny appellant's request for an exam waiver. Little seconded the
motion.
VOTE:
Yeas: Hartmann, McCoy, Massey, Little, Ryland
Nays: None.
• • BRB
March 29, 2001
Page 5
• The motion passed unanimously.
4. CONTRACTOR APPEAL — LAWRENCE B. WILSON, d/b/a LB WILSON CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY:
Coldiron presented information relative to this appeal. She stated that the appellant was
requesting an exam waiver for a Class A supervisor's certificate based on the fact that he had
submitted sufficient supervision experience on five completed projects that required such
certification, and also based on the fact that he holds current Class A certificates in the City of
Denver and the City of Aurora. Coldiron mentioned that the City of Denver had records on the
appellant dating back to the 1970s and that his certificate was current. The most recent code test
that they had on file for the appellant was February of 1986. According to Coldiron, the City of
Aurora was unable to find testing information for the appellant, but confirmed that he had a
current certificate with them.
Coldiron stated that the appellant submitted his information prior to the time that the new
licensing regulations were adopted and; therefore, staff would be allowing the appellant to follow
the more lenient submittal requirements that were in place. She explained that for the Class A
supervisor's certificate, the following projects were required: at least one new commercial
building in excess of 5 stories (Class A project), two new commercial buildings either in excess
of 2 stories or in excess of 7,500 square feet (Class B projects), and an exam. She also explained
that in past situations where exam waivers were granted, the applicant was required to submit five
projects demonstrating at least five years of supervision experience at the level of
license/certificate being requested. In this scenario, the appellant would be required to submit
isone Class A project and the other four would need to fall in at least the Class B category, with
one project going back five years prior to the date of submittal.
Coldiron next reviewed the projects that had been submitted by the appellant. She mentioned that
the vehicle maintenance facility that was constructed at DIA was considered by staff to be a Class
B project. She noted that the appellant had done a fair amount of work at DIA and that staff had
had some trouble determining the license class that appropriately depicted the work that was done
since a lot of the construction was civil in nature. Even though some of the work done exceeded
five stories, none of the work included an entire building with habitable space and, therefore, the
work was not given a Class A designation. According to Coldiron, the addition for the Arthritis
Foundation was considered by staff to be a Class B project and the personal residence considered
to be a Class D1 project. She noted that staff was willing to give the appellant a Class 1 license
and certificate based on the information that had been submitted, provided that the appellant took
the associated exam.
In order for staff to approve the requested Class A certificate, Coldiron explained that the
appellant would be required to submit one additional project sufficient for Class A designation, as
well as take the associated exam. She stated that should the board approve the requested exam
waiver, the submittal one additional Class A project and two additional Class B projects would
still be required unless the board also waived this requirement.
Appellant, Lawrence Wilson, addressed the board. He stated that he was requesting a waiver of
the exam requirement.
• Wilson mentioned that he had been involved in the construction industry since the 1960s. He
referred to the City's Class A criteria (buildings that are in excess of five stories) and stated that
he had never tried to work on anything that small.
jRB
March 29, 2001
Page 6
Wilson noted that his first major building project was the Denver Art Museum where he spent
three years completing the work. Other projects, according to Wilson, included hanger buildings
at the Stapleton International Airport for Western Airlines; new buildings at DIA; the Park
Central project which is now the Central Bank and Trust building in downtown Denver which
was a multi -story, multi -building complex; apartment complexes; office buildings for Bill
Walters; commercial tenant finishes; and two personal residences.
Wilson stated that the City's licensing packet requires contractors to list and have verified jobs
they have worked on. He mentioned that it is difficult to go back 40 years and find people who
were involved with the projects so that they can provide a reference. Some of the companies,
Wilson explained, are no longer in business, and many of the associated people he has lost track
of.
Appellant mentioned that staff had said that there did not appear to be a five -story building,
including interior finish, on his resume. He stated that staff did not understand the nature of high-
rise building construction in that contractors are either responsible for the core and shell or
responsible for the interior finish.
According to Wilson, his resume shows that he has ten years of experience, not one year of
experience for ten years. He said that he has purposely done different types of work to make life
interesting and to broaden his expertise.
Wilson stated that it appeared that the board was trying to make all contractors test according to
some mandate they had been given. He noted that he had taken building code tests many years
ago, one of which was for the City of Denver, and that he continues today to be required to know
what is in the current building code. Wilson explained that he also took a building code test with
the City of Aurora based on the then current UBC which was an open book test similar to the one
given in Fort Collins. It was Wilson's opinion that the tests given are not tests to determine
whether or not someone knows the building code, but tests to see how well someone can use an
index and regurgitate the answers. He mentioned that he had studied civil engineering and
business and was fully able to use a book index.
Appellant stated that he had experience in excess of what was required by the City of Fort Collins
for a Class A certificate, although it may not be in one complete building package. He reiterated
that he had been in the building industry for 40 years and, by now, knew something about the
business.
Wilson explained that he has entered into a contract to purchase some ground in the Harmony
Village in Fort Collins and plans to construct some small shell and core office buildings. He
stated that he needs a license that will allow him to do this and felt that he should be granted a
Class A certificate, without taking the Fort Collins exam, on the basis that he is qualified for it,
has the experience for it, and has done the testing for it twice over.
Wilson mentioned that he appreciated the fact that the board was trying to upgrade licensing
standards but thought the board was taking a hard stance on the City's new mandate to have all
contractors test. He alluded to the fact that new requirements had gone into effect since the
beginning of the year. He reiterated that he knows how to take tests and can look up information
in the index and answer the questions. He asked whether that would truly assure that he knows
how to do what he does for a living. It was his opinion that it would not, and that what it would
really demonstrate is that he knows how to take a test.
• • BRB
March 29, 2001
Page 7
• Coldiron provided a couple of clarifications. First, she noted that the testing requirements were
not new and explained that the one thing that had changed relative to testing was that contractors
were now required to take the Fort Collins' exam. She stated that exam requirements have been
in force for many years and that had the appellant asked for a license prior to this change, he
would have still been required to either take the Ft. Collins exam or to submit testing information
from another jurisdiction that was considered comparable to the Fort Collins exam and covered
the 1991 or a newer version of the UBC. Next, Coldiron provided clarification on hardships. She
explained that the ordinance only allowed variances when the board determined that the strict
application of any article in the ordinance would result in peculiar or exceptional practical
difficulties to or exceptional or undue hardship upon an applicant. She gave as an example the
requirement that an applicant would have to take time away from work in order to take an exam,
as was cited in the previous hearing, and mentioned that this would not necessarily be considered
a hardship since this is a requirement for all contractors and was not unique or peculiar to just that
applicant. Although the appellant in this case had purchased a piece of ground in Fort Collins
that he planned to develop, Coldiron was not sure that this constituted a unique or peculiar
hardship for only Wilson that would justify the requested exam waiver.
Coldiron asked the appellant for clarification on his role in the Denver Art Museum project and
the downtown office buildings and on whether he had supervised the complete construction of
those buildings. Wilson answered that he was the project manager for these projects. For the
Denver Art Museum, Wilson stated that he was in charge of constructing the building from
digging the hole to doing some of the interior finish work. He added that on the office buildings
he was primarily responsible for tenant finish work.
• Coldiron asked the appellant about the height of the Denver Art Museum. Wilson answered that
he thought it was approximately eight stories tall. Coldiron asked for clarification on whether
that project could be submitted in support of the Class A certificate that had been requested.
Wilson answered that he had no idea how to contact the people that he worked for on that project
to get them to provide the needed reference.
Massey asked for clarification on staffs position regarding appellant's request for a Class A
license. Coldiron stated that based on the information submitted, staff would be willing to grant
only a Class C1 license. She stated that granting the Class A license would fall to the purview of
the board based on the testimony that was given by the appellant regarding his building
experience and the difficulty that he has had trying to document that experience.
Wilson stated that he also submitted a resume as part of his application package. He stated that
the information contained in that resume resulted in him being a finalist for the Coors Field
project management job, as well as the only independent contractor interviewed for the parking
structure that was built for the City of Vail.
McCoy asked if the scope of appellant's buildings that he plans to construct in Fort Collins
require a Class A license. Coldiron answered that based on her understanding of what is
proposed, a Class C1 license would be adequate. Wilson confirmed this.
Hartmann asked appellant for additional clarification on the firms he was employed with. Wilson
answered that he was a project manager employed by Mead and Mount Construction Company,
Bill Walters Construction, and Urban Investment and Development Company. Hartmann asked if
• these companies were general contractors. Wilson answered that they were developers/builders.
Hartmann asked if the work done with these companies was done in the 1970s and 1980s.
Wilson confirmed this. Hartmann asked if appellant had used his licenses since that time.
Wilson stated that he had his own construction company in the 1970s for a period of time, until
3RB
March 29, 2001
Page 8
the recession hit, and then found it easier to work for others. Wilson stated that he obtained his
Class A certificate with the City of Aurora while employed for Bill Walters to enable him to
manage two jobs in the City of Aurora that were for 10-12 story office buildings. Hartmann
asked for clarification on his role. Wilson stated that he was the project manager.
Hartmann asked for clarification on the work done at DIA where the appellant was a resident
engineer. Wilson answered that a resident engineer is something that the larger contractors
utilize. He stated that Morrison-Knutsen was the contractor that had the construction
management contract with the City of Denver and that they provided an overall site
superintendent, and then brought in area engineers who were responsible for specific areas who
then utilized resident engineers who were responsible for specific buildings. Hartmann asked if
Morrison-Knutsen was the general contractor or the design engineer on the project. Wilson
provided clarification. Hartmann stated that it appeared that Morrison-Knutsen was the
construction manager on the project. Hartmann asked Wilson who he was employed by while he
acted as a resident engineering at DIA. He answered that he worked for Stone and Webster for a
period of time and then was switched over to Asphalt, Paving and Technical Services. He added
that all of the employees worked under Morrison-Knutsen for the City and County of Denver.
Hartmann asked Wilson if he was personally at risk as a contractor in terms of profit and loss of
the project. Wilson confirmed that he was not. Hartmann asked appellant if he worked in an
inspecting role. Wilson stated that it was more of an inspecting and project management role to
assure that the work was done right. There was some discussion regarding the role of a general
contractor versus the role of a resident engineer.
Hartmann asked for clarification on the work done for Asphalt, Paving and Technical Services
and on whether appellant's role was again that of a resident engineer. Appellant stated that he
was the resident engineer and was responsible for overseeing the construction of a vehicle storage
facility. Hartmann asked for clarification on whether the appellant was working as an at -risk
general contractor for this project. Appellant stated that he was not working in an at -risk position
He added that he had had other jobs where he worked directly for the general contractor, the
developer, the construction manager, the City and County of Denver, etc.
For clarification purposes, Little referenced comments specific to the vehicle storage facility
project, that were included on the project form from staffs follow up with contact person listed,
which confirmed that the appellant did have some level of project supervision responsibility.
Hartmann stated that the purpose of his questions, since the appellant was applying for a
contractor's license, was to decipher whether the appellant was the actual contractor or a resident
engineer. It was Hartmann's opinion that a resident engineer was hired as an owner's
representative and was responsible for looking out for the best interests of the owner and, in some
cases, this was an adversarial position to that of the general contractor.
Wilson stated that he had held at -risk positions during the time he had his own construction
business and was responsible for at -risk contractors on the Denver Art Museum and the hanger
building at the Stapleton Airport. He added that he developed a parcel of ground out by Cherry
Creek High School in Denver for which he was at -risk, and that he is now attempting to buy some
ground in the City of Fort Collins where he plans to construct some buildings and again will be
at -risk.
Hartmann asked for additional clarification on the Denver Art Museum and hanger projects. He
asked if the appellant personally held a license during that period of time. Wilson confirmed this.
He asked why those projects were not submitted as project experience. Wilson answered that he
was unsure where he could find someone who could provide a reference.
• • BRB
March 29, 2001
Page 9
• Little made a motion to approve a Class C1 license with an exam waiver based on the building
experience that the appellant had testified to, as well as his prior educational experience;
specifically, his B.S. degree in Business Administration and B.S. degree in Civil Engineering.
Massey asked appellant if this was an acceptable option. Wilson confirmed this.
McCoy seconded the motion on the floor.
Hartmann stated that he could not support the motion due to the fact that the board is attempting
to make testing a standard for licensing and that he did not feel that the appellant had brought
forth sufficient evidence that taking the exam would cause him any specific hardship.
Little mentioned that the applicant had submitted his request prior to the board changing its
direction on exam requirements. He stated that he felt his recommendation was consistent with
previous board approvals for exam waivers based on the fact that he had other educational
experience.
Massey stated that he agreed with Hartmann on his position that an exam should be required. He
added that the appellant had submitted sufficient experience; however, felt that the exam should
be required to fulfill the second part of what is needed to obtain a license.
VOTE:
Yeas: Little
Nays: Hartmann, McCoy, Massey, Ryland
• The motion was denied.
Massey asked for clarification on whether the appellant's original request required action from
the board. Coldiron confirmed this.
Hartmann made a motion to deny appellant's initial request for an exam waiver for a Class A
license and supervisor's certificate. Ryland seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Yeas: Hartmann, McCoy, Massey, Little, Ryland
Nays:
The motion passed unanimously.
Wilson stated that the ordinance allows waivers and that he had now observed two instances
where a waiver was not granted. It was his opinion that the rule should be removed if the board
was not willing to grant them.
5. CONTRACTOR APPEAL — RICHARD K. JOHNSON, d/b/a PEACE RIVER COMPANY:
Coldiron presented information relative to this appeal. She stated that this appellant was
requesting an exam waiver for a Class A supervisor's certificate based on the fact that he
currently holds other unlimited licenses and has worked continuously as top on -site management
• responsible for supervising all trades. According to Coldiron, staff from the City of Denver
confirmed that the appellant had tested with them in June, 1985 for a Class A certificate and that
he continues to hold such certificate; and staff from the City of Aurora confirmed that the
appellant tested with them in May, 1983 for a Class B certificate and that he continues to hold
JRB
March 29, 2001
Page 10
such certificate. She noted that the Aurora Class B certificate allows for residential construction,
multi -family and commercial construction up to three stories, and commercial tenant finish work.
Coldiron reviewed the projects that were submitted by the appellant. She mentioned that staff
had changed their designation on the addition to the Lutheran Hospital from a Class A project to a
Class B project based on discussion with the contact person listed on the verification form. She
added that staff considered the 6-story athletic club a Class A project; the fueling and
maintenance facility at DIA a Class B project; the Cherry Hills Community Church a Class B
project; and the 5 story condominiums in Breckenridge a Class B project. She stated that based
on the information submitted, staff would be willing to grant a Class A license and supervisor's
certificate upon successful completion of the exam.
Appellant, Richard Johnson, addressed the board. He stated that in addition to the information
that was submitted in his packet, he also has held a Class A license with the State of Florida. He
mentioned that he had since let that license expire; however, took continuing education courses
with the State of Florida until the time it lapsed in 1994. Appellant noted that the Florida license
was a state-wide license and required a two-day, written, open -book test.
Appellant stated that he is currently a construction manager for Exempla Healthcare in a not -at -
risk position. He added that he was very familiar with building and mechanical codes, and
showed his marked -up code books and gave examples of how he uses the code books as part of
his current employment as proof.
As far as additional industry experience, Johnson mentioned that he has taught a masters level
construction management course for the DeVry Institute of Technology, classes for contractors
(the latest one was on how to deliver value-added services to their contracts), and has done some
executive development work.
Johnson stated that it would not necessarily be a hardship for him to take the Fort Collins' exam;
however, mentioned that his work week currently runs approximately 60-80 hours per week and
he lives in Evergreen, so it would be difficult for him time -wise to take it. Johnson noted that he
and his wife plan to retire in Fort Collins one day which is one of the reasons he plans to build his
proposed Fort Collins project. He added that he has, like the previous appellant, already
purchased two lots for this purpose.
Coldiron asked for clarification on the type of code used in Florida and on the date the appellant
last tested on the Uniform Building Code. Appellant answered that in Florida they use a
combination of codes, including the UBC. He added that their reference list included
approximately 14 books. Coldiron asked for clarification on the date the Florida test was taken.
Appellant answered that he took the initial test in 1990 and then took continuing education
classes for the next two or three years.
Ryland asked for clarification on the date that he taught the masters level construction
management course. Appellant answered that he taught this semester -long class approximately a
year or so ago.
Massey asked for clarification on the time requirements of the continuing education courses that
the appellant took in Florida. Johnson answered that the training took three days. Massey asked
how many times he had taken these courses. Appellant answered he had done this twice. Massey
asked if that was equal to six full days of training. Appellant confirmed this.
• • BRB
March 29, 2001
Page 11
• Hartmann asked if the Appellant would be able to provide evidence of those continuing education
courses to the building department. Appellant thought that he could.
Hartmann asked for clarification on the appellant's role in the projects that were submitted.
Appellant stated that for the athletic club project he was the construction manager for the job.
Hartmann asked if he was the superintendent on that job. Johnson confirmed this. Hartmann
asked if he worked in the role of construction manager on the Lutheran Hospital addition.
Johnson confirmed this but mentioned that he was the owner's representative. Hartmann asked
for clarification on the general contractor for that job. Johnson provided clarification. Hartmann
asked about the appellant's role in the Cherry Hills Community Church. Appellant answered that
he was the owner's representative. He stated that they had a trailer on -site, supervised the
project, etc. Hartmann asked about the fuel maintenance facility at DIA. Johnson answered that
he was part of the program management team which was set up as an at -risk construction
manager. He added that this set up was a joint venture between Morrison-Knutsen and Griner
Engineering and that he was employed by Griner. Johnson stated that personnel for this project
were sourced through many local engineering firms in an effort to give these smaller local firms a
boost. He stated that his actual paycheck came from Aguirre Engineering, but that he worked for
the Griner portion of the program management team. Hartmann asked if he was again in the role
of an owner's representative. Johnson confirmed this. Hartmann asked about the five -story
condominium project. Appellant answered that he was the president of Tyra Summit
Construction in the role of superintendent. Hartmann asked if this was an at -risk position.
Johnson confirmed this.
In closing, Johnson thanked the board for their time. Coldiron, in closing, reiterated that it was
• staff's opinion that the appellant was qualified for the Class A supervisor's certificate that was
requested, but recommended that he be required to take the exam.
Hartmann asked if the appellant would consider receiving a lower -level of license. Johnson
stated that he had no problems with that. He simply wanted a license that would allow him to
build the small buildings he has proposed for Fort Collins. Hartmann asked if a C 1 license would
be sufficient for his proposed buildings. Johnson confirmed this.
Coldiron provided some additional clarification from the licensing regulations regarding
supervision. She mentioned that the ordinance allowed for documentation of projects where an
applicant acted in the principal role of a general contractor, project supervisor, or in some other
primary supervisory role. She added that the board had the discretion under this section of the
ordinance to determine whether the supervisory experience of an owner's representative was
acceptable.
Johnson added that his current company, Peace River Company, had been in business for ten
years and that he had built several "trophy" houses in Evergreen under this license with
construction loans reaching a half million dollars. He stated that the buildings he is proposing in
Fort Collins would not require any more than these homes did.
Massey asked the appellant if he had any other continuing education courses or training. Johnson
stated that he had a college degree in literature, went to law school for a short time, obtained his
realtor's license, and had taken courses in theory of constraints management. He added that his
continuing education in Florida is probably all that is relevant.
3RB
March 29, 2001
Page 12
Massey stated that some of the exceptions the board looks for when considering whether or not to
waive an exam is specialized training, education and refresher courses where an applicant has
attempted to stay current on the building code. Johnson stated that he had spent a lot of time in
the new building and mechanical codes.
Ryland asked Massey if he felt that the education and refresher courses that had been obtained by
the appellant were an equivalent for the Fort Collins exam. Massey answered that he thought the
board could consider this. He added that Larimer County, ICBO and other municipalities
periodically put on training classes related to the code and that he, personally, looks for that type
of training when considering whether or not the education is equivalent to an exam.
Hartmann made a motion to approve a Class C1 license and supervisor's certificate with an exam
waiver based on appellant's current work experience as a contract administrator for contractors
and the continuing education courses taken, conditional on the appellant providing evidence of
the continuing education courses demonstrating that training was done over the 1991 or newer
versions of the building code.
Ryland seconded the motion.
VOTE:
YEAS: Hartmann, Massey, Little, Ryland
NAYS: McCoy
The motion passed.
Hartmann made a motion to deny appellant's original class for a Class A exam waiver. McCoy
seconded the motion.
VOTE:
YEAS: Hartmann, McCoy, Massey, Little, Ryland
The motion passed unanimously.
6. BOARD HEARING GUIDELINES:
Board members reviewed the hearing guidelines that were prepared by staff as a handout for
potential appellants to help them understand the decision process that would be used by the board
for variance, exam waiver and other requests and/or appeals.
Massey mentioned that at the board's previous meeting there was lengthy discussion regarding
the fact that it was not taking much for appellants to receive exam waiver approvals from the
board. He noted that there was general consensus amongst members that the duties of the board
weren't being followed as far as finding "peculiar or exceptional practical difficulties to, or
exceptional or undue hardship upon the person or applicant regulated," or that the applicant has
demonstrated "that the applicant possesses other qualifications not specifically listed in this
Article, such as specialized training, education or additional experience, which the board has
determined qualifies the applicant to perform in a competent manner..." He stated that the board
asked staff to generate a document that could be used has a handout that would give applicants
some expectations as to what the board would be looking for when ruling on appeal requests.
• BRB
March 29, 2001
Page 13
• Little asked for clarification on whether staff was accepting other exams. Coldiron answered that
at this point staffs policy was to only accept Fort Collins exams. She stated that it was becoming
increasingly difficult to determine whether or not exams from other jurisdictions were
comparable to the City's exams and that local amendments were not included in other's exams.
Massey asked if the board could consider exams from other jurisdictions. Coldiron confirmed
this and mentioned that there may be times when Felix uses his discretion to accept an exam from
another jurisdiction in instances where he is familiar with and certain that the exam is comparable
to the City's.
There was some discussion regarding Item #4 and some potential ways that applicants might be
able to document their familiarity with current building codes.
Board members were pleased with the handout.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Coldiron directed board members to the memorandum in their packet regarding the 2002-2003
budget and stated that any feedback could be submitted to staff.
Meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
•
0