Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 01/25/2001A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, January 27, 2000, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Hartmann, Charles Fielder, Bradley Massey, John McCoy, and Cameron Ryland BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Al Hauck and Gene Little 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 McCoy made a motion to approve the Minutes. Board Member Massey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the Minutes from the December 21, 2000 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. CONTRACTOR APPEAL — WAYNE SNYDER, D/BIA TUFF SHED, 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 was requesting approval of a limited Class Cl license to allow his company to install sheds and garages in commercial applications. Lee clarified that under the current ordinance, a C1 license is required for any commercial buildings, including storage buildings. He added that the occupancy under the Building Code for such commercial storage buildings would be the "S" group occupancies and that currently those are not permitted under the Class D2 license, which the appellant already holds, since these occupancies are considered non-residential. Lee clarified that the Class D2 license authorizes residential remodels and the construction of residential garages and additions up to 1,000 square feet. BRB January 25, 2001 Page 2 According to Lee, in order for the appellant to obtain the required Class C1 license, he would need to successfully pass the required exam and submit all of the related paperwork, including project forms documenting the supervision and construction of at least two commercial buildings. However, Lee noted that the storage sheds and garages that appellant's company assembles are not sufficient in scope to meet the qualifications of the Class C I license. Lee stated that the applicant has indicated that his company's work is strictly limited to the manufacture and site assembly of garages and sheds, together with the installation of related foundation systems. He added that they do not perform, or subcontract, any electrical, mechanical, heating, plumbing or other related work. By way of information, Lee stated that under the proposed licensing changes, the specialty trade license for Miscellaneous and Minor Structures will allow the construction of storage sheds, including the Groups S occupancies; however, will not allow the construction of garages. He explained that authorization for the appellant to construct sheds and garages in commercial applications would require either a limited version of the Class C 1 license or an expanded version of the Class D2 license to include S 1 and S2 occupancies. Lee clarified that S I and S2 occupancies allow non-combustible and moderate -hazard storage. Appellant, Wayne Snyder, addressed the board. He stated that he was the local sales representative for Tuff Shed. He reiterated that Tuff Shed's business is strictly limited to the construction of storage sheds and detached garages. He noted that his company does about $50M in sales through ten western states; has approximately 800 employees; and has their own engineering department. He added that they are quite good at what they do and have no intention of providing any other products or services. He mentioned that the reason he had come before the board was to find some kind of mechanism that would allow his company to provide their two products to commercial customers. According to Snyder, between all of the Tuff Shed entities, approximately 2,300 sheds/garages are constructed each year for commercial applications. Snyder reiterated that there is no electrical, plumbing, mechanical, heating, etc., involved in their buildings whatsoever. He added that their work is strictly limited to the manufacture of the buildings in their factory; the on -site installation of the buildings themselves; and, in the instances of detached garages, the installation of the foundations underneath of the garages. Snyder reviewed some of the commercial projects that his company had already completed, including the installation of garages for school districts. He also described a proposed project for a neighboring business who intends to build two detached garages on site to make up for some storage space he will be losing when the City completes their stormwater project through the back of his property. He added that these projects demonstrate the need for his company to obtain authorization for the construction of their products in commercial applications. Lee asked if the 1,000 square foot maximum prescribed by the Class D2 license would be sufficient for most of the products they construct. Snyder confirmed this and added that typically they are under 500 square feet. Lee asked if the current supervisor, Tom Saurey, understood the implications in terms of commercial structures with respect to property lines, adequate setbacks and requirements regarding the possible need for fire resistive construction. Snyder confirmed that Saurey would be familiar with all of those things. Snyder also stated that they pay a great deal of attention to doing things properly to ensure that their relationship with the various municipalities they deal with, as well as with customers, is a good one. January 25, 2001 Page 3 Massey asked for clarification on who was responsible for doing the site planning that is submitted at the time a permit is obtained. Snyder stated that this is typically the responsibility of the salesperson. He added that for his jobs he will: 1) check with the customer to determine where they want to locate the shed and/or garage; 2) meet with building department personnel to determine the various setback requirements and other restrictions; and 3) follow-up with the customer to relay the information from the building department and make necessary changes to assure that all requirements are met. According to Snyder, once this process has been completed, he then has sufficient information to apply for a permit in a proper manner. Board Member Ryland asked if this was a request for either an expanded D2 license or a limited C1 license and whether appellant had a preference. Snyder confirmed that he really had no preference, he was simply trying to meet the objective of constructing sheds and garages in commercial applications. Fielder asked if staff would be more comfortable expanding the D2 license rather than limiting a C I license. Lee stated that this would be his preference simply because the nature of the buildings are primarily residential. He added that there is really no difference in the construction between the residential and commercial applications, it is simply the occupancy that is dictating the commercial status. Massey mentioned that the board had expanded licenses before and was in support of appellant's request. Hartmann asked for clarification on electrical work related to the garage buildings. Snyder stated that his company does not provide or arrange for this and that, if the customer desires electrical service in the garage, they are required to obtain a separate permit for this. Hartmann asked if this was also true for commercial jobs. Snyder confirmed this. Hartmann made a motion to approve an expanded D2 license for Tuff Shed, Inc., to include the S 1 and S2 occupancies. Fielder seconded the motion. Board Member McCoy asked for further clarification on what this would allow. Lee provided clarification. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, McCoy, Fielder, Massey, Ryland Nays: The motion passed unanimously. 4. CONTRACTOR APPEAL — RICHARD DROUILLARD, D/B/A LANE SUPPLY, INC.: Lee provided information relative to this appeal. He stated that the appellant was requesting a license that would allow his company to install structural canopies for fuel stations. Lee explained that the City does not have a specific license for this type of construction which is the reason the appellant had come before the board. Lee noted that under the City's current licensing structure, a C1 license was required to do this type of work. Lee added that in this case, the canopies are a specific type of construction that this company provides on a nation-wide basis, and that they have no desire to perform any other types of construction. To accomplish this, according to Lee, a modified or limited version of the CI license would be required. BRB January 25, 2001 Page 4 Lee mentioned that the appellant was also seeking an exam waiver based on his supervision experience. Lee noted that the C1 exam would be comprehensive and include many occupancies and various scenarios in terms of code requirements. Lee directed board members to a list that had been submitted by the appellant showing the various licenses that he holds in other municipalities and to the information confirming that the appellant had tested in the states of Nevada, New Mexico and Florida. Lee explained that without seeing the specifics of the exams, it would be difficult to determine whether or not any of them were comparable to the City's. Appellant, Richard Drouillard, addressed the board. He stated that he was the Director of Construction for Lane Supply, Inc. He mentioned that his company had been in business for 40 years and originally specialized in the construction of carports. According to Drouillard, over the past 20 years, the company had grown to be an international company specializing in the construction of service station and rental car canopies. He noted that some of their canopies had been installed as part of the construction at the Denver International Airport. Drouillard mentioned that the canopies they build are made out of structural steel. He explained that they have three engineers on staff who design the canopy specifically for each job site. Drouillard also noted that they do not get involved in any electrical or plumbing work; they only erect the structural steel. According to Drouillard, the canopies are typically under 20 feet tall and are built in accordance with the adopted building code of the specific municipality where the project is located. He explained that his company is familiar with the requirements of the Standard Building Code, the Uniform Building Code, BOCA, ICBO, and others that have been required throughout the United States. Drouillard mentioned that he anticipated having some future projects in Fort Collins, especially since grocery stores are now branching out into the gas business, and wanted to obtain a license that would enable him to construct the canopies. He reiterated the fact that he was seeking a license that would allow him to perform his specific type of construction, as well as an exam waiver based on his years of supervision experience, and the licenses that he holds in other jurisdictions. He provided board members with some additional information regarding the tests that he had completed. Lee asked the appellant if his company was responsible for the foundation work that was performed as part of the canopy installation. Drouillard stated that the general contractor he is working for installs the foundation. He noted that the anchor bolts used are provided by his company, but are installed, along with the rebar, by the general contractor. Drouillard added that when his company arrives on -site, the footings and anchor bolts are in place, and that they simply erect the actual canopy. Fielder asked if this type of construction were similar to a Butler building. Lee and the appellant confirmed this. Lee asked for clarification on the roof structure. Appellant provided clarification. Lee asked for clarification on the electrical work done for thesejobs. Appellant answered that the only thing his company performs is attaching light fixtures to the decking and assuring they are sealed properly. He added that the actual hook-up of the lights is done by an electrician. Fielder asked for clarification on whether the appellant had a Denver license to allow him to do the work at DIA. Appellant answered that he was not required to have a Denver license since he was considered a subcontractor under the general on the job. January 25, 2001 Page 5 Hartmann asked if appellant would be required to have a license with the City if he were doing this work under a general. Appellant answered that for his last Ft. Collins project, the general did not want to obtain the permit for the canopy and so he attempted to obtain one. He noted that he was not able to do so since he did not have a City license. Appellant stated that his company had done several jobs in Fort Collins for Diamond Shamrock which were done under the general's permit. Massey asked for clarification on whether a motion would need to include language that would prohibit enclosing the structure. Lee answered that it would be his preference that if a conditional license were approved it be very specific to the type of construction done by the appellant. Lee asked the appellant if he intended to obtain individual permits for canopy installation for future jobs. Appellant answered that 99% of the time they would be a subcontractor of the general and would not be obtaining a separate permit. Lee confirmed that in most cases canopy work is included as part of the general's permit and thought that the appellant's circumstances for his last Ft. Collins project were very unique. He questioned whether a special license was necessary for something that occurred so rarely and mentioned that perhaps better options would be to bring these types of cases to the board for approval on a case by case basis, or to exempt this type of work from the licensing requirements altogether. There was a question as to whether the general would be held responsible for the canopy construction if the work was authorized by a permit separate from.the general's. Lee answered that it makes the most sense for canopy work to be included as part of the general's permit. He noted that in the appellant's latest Ft. Collins project, the general did end up obtaining the necessary permit so that the project could continue. There was further discussion on a possible scenario where a car rental business might want to add a canopy in their parking lot and the fact that this might not necessarily require a general contractor. There was some agreement that in those types of cases an appellant could come to the board and ask for a one-time license that would allow them to construct the project. There was also discussion regarding simply exempting this work from the licensing regulations altogether. Fielder noted; however, that in the example of the car rental business canopy, a general contractor would still be involved due to the foundation work required. It was suggested that perhaps this type of construction could be added under the sign specialty license as part of the licensing revisions that are currently underway. Lee stated that there are provisions in the proposed ordinance for a sign contractor, as well as an awning contractor, but was not sure that either would cover this type of construction as written. Hartmann asked appellant if he had any pending work in the City that he would be unable to complete if a license were not granted. Drouillard stated that he had no pending projects that would be affected. He added that he was here as a courtesy to make sure that he was operating in accordance with the City's rules and regulations. Massey made a motion to deny the request for a modified C I license and exam waiver with the understanding that should the appellant ever have a situation in the future where an exemption might be necessary, the board would be willing to hear the case and attempt to resolve the issues. Fielder seconded the motion. BRB January 25, 2001 Page 6 VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, McCoy, Fielder, Massey, Ryland Nays: The motion passed unanimously. 4. CONTRACTOR APPEAL — BRADLEY REICHERT: Lee provided information relative to this appeal. He stated that the appellant was requesting a waiver from the experience standards required for a Class DI license. He noted that the appellant had submitted evidence of a Master of Architecture degree from the University of Colorado, and had provided documentation for a project which entailed the completion of a 4,700 square foot home for which he was responsible for the design, construction and supervision of the project. Lee also noted that the appellant had indicated that he had six years of practical experience as a carpenter where he was responsible for interior trim work and furniture design. Lee explained that the standard procedure for obtaining a Class DI license was for an applicant to successfully complete the required exam and to submit three projects which document the complete construction of a single- or two-family residences, or the equivalent. He stated that the appellant had indicated that he was willing to take the necessary exam; however, that he had only one project that he could submit that complied with the Class D1 license criteria. Appellant, Bradley Reichert, addressed the board. He provided board members with a copy of a project verification form for the project he had completed. He reiterated that he was willing to take the required exam and that he was offering his additional educational experience, together with his practical experience as a carpenter, as the additional experience necessary to meet the project experience criteria of the Class DI license. Reichert mentioned that he is the President of a corporation known as Hardy -Reichert Homes & Design and that his completed project was built under that corporation. He noted that his partner had decided to pursue other interests and that he was now in a position of needing to acquire a license of his own. Reichert added that he owns a lot in Fort Collins which he planned on using as the location for his next project. Lee asked for clarification on whether the appellant could submit any additional project experience that was sufficient in scope to qualify for the Class D1 license. The appellant answered that this was the only project he had to submit, but added that he acted as the project designer and project supervisor on this project, as well as managed the sub -trades, and personally performed the framing, siding and interior trim work. Lee asked for clarification on appellant's other construction experience. Reichert answered that most of his experience was in interior finish trim carpentry. Reichert noted that in 1996 he worked for Woodcraft Enterprises doing primarily interior trim for multi -family projects. According to the appellant, he then started school and started working for a Fort Collins contractor where he was responsible for doing interior trim for single family residences. Reichert added that he had also performed framing, siding and some remodeling work. Fielder mentioned that he had reviewed past board rulings for purposes of consistency and it appeared that exam waivers had been approved based on additional education, but that the experience requirements had been maintained. The only exception he found was the case for Merl Haworth, where the board approved a Class C1 license with a lesser amount of project January 25, 2001 Page 7 experience than was required by the ordinance. However, Fielder mentioned that this applicant was willing to take the exam and had approximately 25 years of experience in construction administration of commercial projects. Fielder asked staff if they had any recollection of similar cases to the appellant's where the board had granted the license. Lee could not recall any instance where the board granted a license based on only one completed project. Massey mentioned that prior to his appointment to the board, Carl Glaser, a licensed architect, was granted a contractor's license. He asked for some clarification on that case. Lee stated that he could not recollect the specifics; however, knew that Glaser had been a practicing licensed architect for many years and had served in the role of building owner representative and had done some site supervision on the construction projects he was involved with. Massey asked appellant if he was a licensed architect. Appellant answered that he was not licensed, but held a professional degree. Massey asked the appellant for added clarification on his role in the project he had submitted. Reichert answered that he designed the home, prepared construction documents, consulted with the project engineer and made necessary changes, managed sub -trades, and performed framing, siding and interior trim work. Appellant stated that it was his opinion that this project was really three in one since he was responsible for design, construction and supervision. This, together with his past building experience, and his additional education he believed sufficiently qualified him for the Class D 1 license. Appellant added that he intended on being a design/builder and would be involved in all aspects of the project, not just the construction management. i There was some concern that although a degree in architecture was cmainly beneficial, it did not necessarily assure that the holder of the degree was qualified to actually construct a home only a year after receiving the degree. Hartmann asked for clarification regarding the licensing and permit requirements in the county. Appellant answered that no licenses were required, but that permits and all associated inspections were required. He added that the electricians were required to be licensed through the state and were also inspected through the state. Reichert explained that the reason he built his last project in the County was to develop a construction track record that would assist him in obtaining a Fort Collins contractor's license. Hartmann asked appellant if he owned a lot in Fort Collins that he wanted to build on. Appellant confirmed this. Hartmann asked if this would be the appellant's personal residence. Reichert answered that it would not be his personal residence. Hartmann explained that a homeowner is authorized to construct their personal residence without obtaining a license. Fielder reiterated that the board, in nearly all cases, had required contractors to have the prerequisite amount of building experience prior to granting a license. Massey agreed and noted that additional educational experience of an applicant had been used in the past to grant exam waivers since many of the courses that are taken provide information similar to what is on an exam. However, he mentioned that school does not provide the hands-on construction experience which is the counterpart needed to obtain a license. Ryland asked for clarification on whether the appellant could continue to build projects in the county without a contractor's license in an effort to gain additional experience. This was confirmed. BRL January 25, 2001 Page 8 Appellant asked for clarification on what part of his experience was inadequate. Fielder stated that it was the lack in number of completed projects that was causing concern. Appellant asked how three projects became the requirement. Lee answered that this was a provision in City code that had been in place for 10+ years. He explained that at the time this was done, there was agreement that the experience criteria should require more projects than one single family home which could have been built as a personal residence, and that three was determined to be a reasonable number. Appellant stated that the home he submitted was a spec home and not his personal residence. He mentioned that he understood the experience requirements that the board wanted him to have, but was unsure which part of his experience he was having a hard time relating to the board since he felt he was more than qualified to build single family homes in the City of Fort Collins. He asked for clarification on what was causing the board to question whether or not he was capable of performing the duties necessary to be general contractor. Hartmann stated that it was the lack of the two additional projects that was causing concern. He added that it would be highly unlikely that he would support this request due to the precedent it would set. Hartmann added that there were other opportunities by which the appellant could gain the additional experience necessary including building in the county or building a personal residence in the City. Fielder stated that three projects was really a minimum. He noted'that when houses are configured differently, various structural elements come into play. It was his opinion that requiring the three projects helped assure that the builder had a good understanding of those structural differences and the associated changes and requirements that must occur. He also agreed that supporting appellant's request would set a precedent. Hartmann stated that another item the board could address is a hardship that might be encountered by not being able to perform a project. Appellant stated that there would be financial hardship for him if he was not allowed to obtain a license since he already owns and is paying for the lot in the City. Hartmann stated that the appellant could amend his information and come back before the board to demonstrate that a financial hardship exists. However, he noted that simply owning the lot is not any different than others who own lots for speculative reasons and that that in itself would probably not constitute a financial hardship. There was some discussion on the ordinance provisions that allow an owner to build a personal residence. Lee provided some clarification on this issue. Chris Hardy, the appellant's business partner, addressed the board. He stated that he had known the appellant for 19 years and that he had worked with him to construct the home that was submitted as project experience. He mentioned that during this process he watched Reichert prepare and provide drawings to the engineer which required nothing further from the engineer except for verification of calculations and a stamp. Hardy also mentioned that while out on the job site Reichert was able describe to him, the contractor license holder, the structural analysis of how the house was completed. According to Hardy, the appellant had been involved in numerous remodeling projects that included various structural issues in terms of wall removals, beam replacements, etc. He added that the appellant's experience dated back to his high school years where he took drafting and worked with his drafting teacher to actually build a home. Hardy stated that the appellant had also participated in the construction of an addition to his family's residence in Fort Morgan. It O January 25, 2001 Page 9 was Hardy's opinion that for the board to overlook the appellant's applicable job experiences, even though the appellant had just graduated from college and may not have had the exact experience required, was doing his knowledge base a gross injustice. Hardy invited board members to drive by the house that they had completed and to look at the structure as something that could be the future for the City of Fort Collins. Hardy stated that denying the appellant a license denied the City of Fort Collins the added benefit of thoughtful and appropriate design and architecture in a City that, in his opinion, was grossly lacking in this in the tract homes and other construction that is currently being built. He added that the appellant's building standard goes far above the standard that is required by the UBC. Ryland mentioned to the appellant that if his request was denied she thought it was important for him to understand that the board was not doubting his abilities or qualifications, but that it was more an issue of setting a precedent that would be a detriment. Hartmann stated that it appeared that there might be other experience that was not submitted in support of the appellant's license request. He again asked the appellant if there was additional experience that he could submit. Appellant stated that he did not have any additional experience that he could submit that met the criteria of the Class D1 license. Fielder mentioned that he thought it was important that the board stay within the prescribed requirements of the ordinance and that if Council wanted to override this, that was in their purview to do so. McCoy stated that for the board to waive the experience requirement would be to essentially change the ordinance. He was not supportive of this. He encouraged the appellant to work with Felix if he thought he had other construction experience that might cbunt towards obtaining the requested license. Hartmann stated that another avenue the appellant might want to consider is to submit his construction experience for a lesser license. He noted that, based on the today's testimony, he thought the additional projects mentioned might qualify him for a Class D2 license. He added that the board had, in the past, granted one-time exemptions to licenses that had enabled the holders of those licenses to construct projects outside of the authorized scope of work based on special circumstances that were present. Fielder confirmed this. Hartmann asked if the appellant wanted to withdraw his request and come back to the board at a future date, or if he preferred that the board rule on his case. Fielder noted that if the board ruled on the case, no additional information could be presented. The appellant withdrew his case. 2000 BUILDING REVIEW BOARD ANNUAL REPORT Lee reviewed the annual report with the board. Board members were appreciative of the information and suggested only a couple of small editorial changes. Staff will finalize the report and file it with the City Clerk's office. BRL January 25, 2001 Page 10 6. OTHER BUSINESS: Update on Contractor Licensing Ordinance Revisions: Lee stated that the board should have received a flier summarizing the various revisions. He noted that the next public opportunity for discussion would be at the Home Builders Association brown bag lunch meeting at 281 N. College Avenue, Conference Room A, at 11:30 a.m., on Friday, February 2, 2001. He also noted that this item was scheduled for first reading before City Council on February 20, 2001. He encouraged board members to attend these if they desired to do so. There was some discussion regarding the Home Builders Association's concerns. Lee stated that following the November Building Review Board meeting where the Home Builders Associated noted their concerns, the licensing revision task force was reconvened to address their issues. Lee explained that all of the concerns had been addressed and that a second position paper from the Home Builders Association had been received confirming full support of the changes now being proposed. Meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.