Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 02/22/2001A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, February 22, 2001, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Fielder, Gene Little, Bradley Massey, John McCoy, and Cameron Ryland BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Thomas Hartmann and Al Hauck STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Director of Building & Zoning Delynn Coldiron, staff support to board AGENDA: ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Fielder and roll taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Board Member Massey made a motion to approve the Minutes. Board Member Fielder seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the Minutes from the January 25, 2001 meeting were approved as submitted. CONTRACTOR APPEAL — ROBERT COON, DB/A MACRUM BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.: Chairperson Fielder reviewed the procedures that would be used for this hearing. Lee provided information relative to this appeal. He stated that the appellant had applied for a Class B license and had submitted five verification forms, all of which fell within the scope of work required for approval of a Class B license. He noted that the appellant was requesting an exam waiver from the Board based on his 30+ years of construction experience in northern Colorado. Additionally, according to Lee, the appellant indicated that he had ten years of supervision and project management experience. Appellant, Robert Coon, addressed the Board. He clarified that he personally had ten years of project management, supervision and estimating experience and the company, Macrum Buildii Systems, had over 30 years of construction experience. ?B February 22, 2001 Page 2 Lee asked appellant for clarification on the size of buildings he anticipated his company would be constructing in Fort Collins. Coon answered that his company typically did not construct buildings that were over three stories and that the square footage varied depending on the building. Lee asked for clarification on whether the appellant had tested in either of the jurisdictions listed on his application — Loveland or Evans. Appellant answered that neither jurisdiction required testing. Lee asked if the appellant was personally applying for the supervisor certificate. Coon confirmed this. He asked if Coon would maintain a presence onsite to personally supervise the work being done. Coon confirmed this. Chuck Macrum, of Macrum Building Systems addressed the Board. He stated that for the past 30 years his company had done a lot of commercial work in and around Fort Collins. He noted a job that was done for Tynans and stated that they had done numerous projects in the county. According to Macrum, they are applying fora license to enable them to bid for and accept Fort Collins jobs. He mentioned that his company had lost some business in the past due, in part, to the fact that they did not possess a Fort Collins license. Lee asked appellant for clarification on whether he was personally involved in the projects that had been submitted. Coon answered that he was involved in the Remax, Mountain View Academy, Windsor Development Group, and AE Associates projects. He noted that the Greeley Dodge project was done prior to the time he was hired by Macrum. Lee asked appellant if his direct role in those projects was site supervision. Coon confirmed this. Lee asked for clarification on the reasons the appellant was seeking an exam waiver. Appellant answered that this was an option given to him at the time he applied for the license. He mentioned that taking the test would not be hardship for him; however, he felt that he had a sufficient amount of experience and background in the construction industry to qualify him for the license without taking the exam. Lee asked appellant if he were familiar with the 1997 Uniform Building Code and the Fort Collins amendments. Coon confirmed this. He added that his firm is a design build contractor and that they have ample opportunity to utilize the building code when giving direction to the architects and engineers, etc. Lee asked appellant if he was familiar with the local provision that requires fire containment separations in certain -sized buildings. Appellant stated that although he had read through and was somewhat familiar with the amendments, he could not recall specifics. Lee asked appellant for clarification on the types of buildings that they normally construct. Appellant answered that they can do about any type of construction and specifically mentioned that they have done a lot pre-engineered metal building systems, have done some Type VN construction, some conventional building, some structural masonry, some structural steel, etc. Lee asked appellant for clarification on whether Type 1, reinforced concrete fire -resistive construction would fall within the scope of his expertise. Appellant confirmed this. Massey asked for clarification on whether any of the projects that were submitted by the appellant would fall under the C 1 license class. Lee answered that all of the projects submitted were just over the scope of the CI license class and were considered B projects. 4 BRB February 22, 2001 Page 3 Massey asked appellant for clarification on additional education or training that the Board might be able to consider as a replacement for taking the exam. Appellant answered that he had a Bachelor of Science degree in Construction Management from the University of Nebraska, had taken a 1997 building code class taught by Bryce Miller of Larimer County, and had taken numerous safety and other building code classes during the past ten years while involved in construction. In closing, Lee stated that although the respondents gave excellent recommendations on the appellant's project verification forms, he could find no compelling hardship or reason why the appellant could not take the required exam, especially since the appellant was seeking a high level license. Fielder asked for clarification on whether the Board had considered hardships in prior exam waiver cases. Lee provided clarification. Little stated that he did not want to set a precedent that allowed individuals to bypass taking an exam when the system was set up to operate in that fashion; however, he thought that the appellant in this case had a significant amount of experience which was sufficient to justify an exam waiver. He made a motion to approve appellant's request for an exam waiver. McCoy seconded the motion. Massey stated that experience is one part of the licensing requirements and testing another. It was his opinion that experience should not replace the education requirements, and that the approval should be based on the fact that the appellant holds a degree in Construction Management and has taken other related courses and seminars. VOTE: Yeas: Little, McCoy, Fielder, Massey, Ryland Nays: The motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Hearing Guidelines: Fielder asked for clarification on whether education was considered an equivalent for the exam and on how applicants are informed of the option to ask the Board for an exam waiver. Lee answered that the contractor application packet contains information on applying for an exam waiver if an applicant feels that they are in some other way qualified for the license they are applying for, i.e., through experience or other education. Fielder stated that for architects, there is no choice but to take the required exam. He was in favor of requiring applicants to test. Ryland mentioned that approving an exam waiver is somewhat tricky when it is apparent that an applicant would be able to take the exam with some ease, but also has a lot of demonstrated experience which might nullify the need for an exam. There was some discussion on the Board's discretion. Lee directed board members to page 5 of the contractor packet and reviewed the information related to appeals to the Building Review Board and exam waivers. He also directed them to the licensing ordinance and reviewed the ZB February 22, 2001 Page 4 information related to the Board's powers. He read that "the Board is authorized to grant variances from the terms of this Article, where the strict application of any provision of this Article would result in peculiar or exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional or undue hardship upon the person or applicant regulated; or, when such applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board that the applicant possesses other qualifications not specifically listed in this Article, such as specialized training, education or additional experience." Massey mentioned that the Board did not have to find a specific hardship in order to grant an exam waiver. Lee confirmed this. Massey thought it might be good to discuss the position the Board wanted to take with respect to exam waivers. Fielder stated that the whole basis of the exam was to assure that there are people in the field who are knowledgeable about the building code. Lee confirmed this and added that they should know and understand how to use it. Fielder mentioned that he had been operating under the assumption that just because someone had a college degree, did not necessarily mean that they were educated on the current building code. There was some discussion regarding accepting tests from other jurisdictions. Lee mentioned that he was contemplating not accepting exams from other jurisdictions due to the difficulty of determining whether or not the exam is comparable to the equivalent Fort Collins' exam. Fielder stated that he would not object to requiring a Fort Collins exam, especially due to the fact that there are specific local amendments to the building code. Massey asked Lee whether or not the Board should consider exams from other jurisdictions as a basis for granting a waiver. Lee answered that the Board could still consider outside exams; however, that he would be changing staff policy to no longer accept them. Lee added that this would help ensure that all applicants were handled fairly and would alleviate the need for staff to try to track down outside tests and attempt to determine the items contained in the tests, etc. He confirmed that this would also ensure that contractors were familiar with specific Fort Collins' code amendments. Fielder asked if the contractor packet would be changing. Lee confirmed this. Massey stated that the Board talked a lot about setting precedent and was concerned with being fair to all contractors who appeared. He mentioned that he did not think that rulings that the Board had made in the past should keep the Board from changing its position on a certain item if it made sense to do so. Massey added that since the contractor regulations were being revised it might make sense for the Board to make any changes that might be necessary to assure that the Board is aligned with those changes. He thought it might be good to identify those things that would constitute a specific hardship, and to identify specific experience and/or specific education criteria that would clearly be an equivalent to Fort Collins' requirements. Massey also mentioned that experience and education are both essential and that one should not necessarily be accepted in lieu of the other. Fielder suggested that if the Board were going to better define criteria for making decisions on exam waivers, the information should be given to an applicant as part of the application process so they are aware of these prior to appearing before the Board. McCoy asked about contractors who are already licensed but had not taken an exam or attended any kind of continuing education over the current building code and wondered why we would not be just as uncomfortable with them building as we area new applicant in the same situation. Lee answered that one of the proposed provisions to the licensing regulations addresses this situation 0 L BRB February 22, 2001 Page 5 by requiring continuing education or a refresher exam for all supervisor certificate holders, at the time their certificate is up for renewal, whenever the current building code had been substantially changed or a new building code had been adopted. There was some discussion on the difficulty of getting information out to contractors at the time code revisions are adopted, etc. Lee stated that although mailers and handouts are prepared and distributed, they do not always get to all contractors due to changes in addresses, etc. Fielder added that although some of this training could occur by building department staff in the field, the onus of educating contractors of changes should not necessarily rest on the building inspectors since they themselves are learning the revisions. He mentioned that this was another example of why exams and continuing education requirements are advisable. Little stated that the Board serves at the leisure of City Council and that they are trusting staff to give the Board guidance on the way the process should function. He suggested that staff come up with a framework outlining criteria that would assist the Board with its decision making process related to exam waivers and other requests to assure that the decisions were upholding the requirements set out in the new licensing ordinance, the building code, etc. Fielder mentioned that he would like to be able to ask staff if they had interviewed an applicant that was appearing before them and have staff speak to the applicant's competency in the current building code. He also agreed with Little that having more precise groundwork that would give the Board clear-cut answers as to whether an exam waiver was warranted would be helpful. Massey stated that staff should not be put in a position where they are viewed as steering the direction of the Board. He was not sure that the Board should ask for such a recommendation. He added that the Board could certainly agree to deny any exam waiver requests unless there was a very clear reason why the waiver should be granted, instead of leaning automatically towards granting an exam waiver because of experience, etc. He added that he would be very comfortable requiring a contractor to have to convince the Board of the reason that he/she deserves an exam waiver and that the reason should be more than simply having 30 years of experience in the field. Fielder mentioned that perhaps they should be required to verify that they have knowledge of the current building code. Little added that they should elaborate on why they could not take the exam; is it because the contractor does not want to be bothered by it, they feel that could not pass it, etc. It was his feeling that perhaps the Board was not supporting the processes that have been set up by allowing contractors to bypass the exam. Massey agreed with this. Ryland stated that it appeared that the exam waiver was an automatic option for contractors. She thought this created some gray area for the Board by leaving this up to their discretion without having some established guidelines/criteria in place to help them make their decision. She was in favor of the Board coming to an agreement that unless there was a very definitive reason for a contractor to not take an exam, they should be required to take it. Lee directed Board Members to a synopsis that he had prepared a couple of years earlier. He reviewed the language the specifically dealt with exam waivers and the methodology that he used at the time he was granting those waivers. He added that this was not done to direct the Board, but to give the Board his impressions related to exam waivers. Lee mentioned that he would be happy to work with the Board to develop some sort of guidelines that could be used. He noted, however, that an appellate body is always in somewhat of a pickle since each case has to be looked at individually and resulting decisions must be made by considering the specific aspects of each case. RB February 22, 2001 Page 6 Fielder suggested that perhaps contractors who were seeking an exam waiver could be required to bring their code book and respond to an established set of questions at the hearing to determine their familiarity with the building code. Lee stated that he would be a little bit apprehensive about screening someone in this manner based on their right of review. Lee also mentioned that he was hesitant to put in place administrative roadblocks for an applicant who wanted to appeal. Fielder stated that his main concern was whether or not an applicant had a good understanding of the current code. He added that without an exam or interview he really had no way to determine this. Lee concurred with this. Little asked if Lee could established some definitive criteria for the appeal process that could be provided to potential appellants. Lee noted that some guidelines could be established that would include the type of experience, knowledge, education, or other information that the Board would be looking for in making their decision as to whether or not an exam waiver would be approved. Lee stated that it was his opinion that the Board had done a really good job on the cases they had heard. He thought that all members had a good moral compass and that the decisions made by the Board had been sound, based, in part, on the diverse interests and knowledge brought to the Board by each member. McCoy asked for clarification on whether a state-wide test would be implemented. Lee answered that the state had grappled with this issue numerous times without resolution. He added that nearly every jurisdiction that had participated in the process was opposed to state control. Lee suggested that the Board and staff should meet and come to agreement on guidelines that would inform proposed appellants on the criteria that the Board would be considering at the hearing and on how their situation would be judged. Fielder suggested that it include a provision that requires an appellant to provide evidence of their personal knowledge of the current building code. There was general agreement with this. McCoy asked for clarification on how nation-wide firms like Kaufman & Broad, or commercial contractors work through local licensing requirements. Lee provided clarification. Lee stated that staff would draft a set of guidelines for the Board's review at the next meeting. B. Update on Contractor Licensing Ordinance Revisions: Lee noted that this item passed as part of Council's consent agenda with no discussion. He mentioned that he spoke with a contractor after the meeting who was not familiar with Council's procedure who would have pulled the item off of the consent agenda for discussion. Lee anticipated that this issue might be pulled off the consent agenda on second reading, which is scheduled for March 6, 2001. Meeting adjourned at 2:25 p.m.