Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 12/21/2000A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, December 21, 2000, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Hartmann, Susan Kreul-Froseth, Gene Little, Brad Massey, and John McCoy BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Charles Fielder 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 Vice Chairperson Massey and roll taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Board Member McCoy made a motion that the minutes from the November 30, 2000 meeting be approved as submitted. Board Member Kreul-Froseth seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. CONTRACTOR APPEAL — ALAN ERPS, DB/A QUALITY ENERGY INSTALLATIONS: Vice Chairperson Massey reviewed the procedures that would be used for the meeting. Felix Lee provided information relative to this appeal. He stated that the appellant in this case was requesting approval of a limited HVAC license that would allow him to install wood and gas fireplaces, as well as an exam waiver for such license. Lee mentioned that a check of department records found that the appellant had been issued a Fort Collins specialty license in 1985 that authorized similar work. Lee noted that that license category had become defunct at least 10 years ago. Lee added that the appellant had also provided evidence of having a license in Cheyenne in 1987 which also authorized similar work. According to the appellant's information, he was required to pass an exam in order to obtain the Cheyenne license. Building Review Board December 21, 2000 Page 2 Lee mentioned that a similar license category was being proposed as part of the current licensing revisions, but that at this point, there was no such license available. This type of work, according to Lee, currently must be done under the HVAC license. Lee added that the related HVAC exam covers a myriad of topics in addition to fireplace and/or wood stove installations including gas piping, vent sizing, combustion air, refrigeration issues, etc. Lee stated that since the City does not currently offer a specialized license for fireplace installation, the appellant's options are to pursue a full HVAC license, or to obtain approval from the Board for some sort of limited HVAC license that would allow him to do this type of work. Appellant, Alan Earps, addressed the Board. He stated that he owns Quality Energy Installations and had been in business since 1985. He mentioned that he had been doing work in Fort Collins and in the northern Colorado area for approximately 16 years, doing this type of work. He requested a special license that would allow him to install wood stoves, gas fireplaces and related equipment. Earps mentioned that he had worked for approximately 60-70 contractors in the northern Colorado area and had had no problems with any of them. He was willing to provide additional letters of reference if the Board so desired. Lee asked appellant if he currently had any other licenses. Earps stated that he did not. He added that he was required to take an exam to obtain his Cheyenne license, but opted not to renew the license since he wanted to concentrate on work closer to his home. Lee asked appellant for clarification on how long he held his Fort Collins license. Earps answered that he held it for a year and went to renew it but was told that it was no longer needed. Lee stated that it was his recollection that this license went defunct some time in 1987. Kreul-Froseth asked for a time frame on when the new fireplace installation license might be in effect. Lee answered that, depending on the recommendation made by the Board at today's meeting, the licensing revisions were scheduled to go before the Affordable Housing Board on January 4, 2001, and before Council for first reading on February 6, 2001. Lee anticipated that the ordinance, if approved by Council, would become effective around March 1, 2001. Kreul- Froseth asked if the proposed license covered only the installation of fireplaces and wood stoves. Lee confirmed this. Massey asked for clarification on whether an HVAC was required from 1987 until now in order to install fireplaces. Lee confirmed this. Massey asked whether it was of concern that the appellant had been doing this type of work over the years without having the required license. Lee answered that this is most likely one of those little-known issues that no one has paid much attention to. Lee mentioned that the fireplaces are typically installed and inspected during the framing stage of new construction and that no one had probably thought much about who actually installed it. Lee added that it was primarily the dealer installers, i.e., Friendly Fire, who do work in existing homes that have actually pursued the required HVAC license. Board Member Little asked appellant if he was responsible for connecting the gas lines to the fireplaces he installed. Appellant answered that this work was done by a separate contractor. Appellant added that he only installs the fireplace and the related venting; no gas hookups, no electrical, etc. Little asked for clarification on whether the Board could grant a limited HVAC license based on appellant's number of years of experience and prior licenses until such time that the proposed license for fireplace installation was approved. Lee answered that the Board had the authority to make such a determination. Building Review Board • • December 21, 2000 Page 3 Little made a motion to approve a limited HVAC license that would allow the appellant to install fireplaces and wood stoves and to approve the exam waiver requested by the appellant based on appellant's previous experience and the fact that he had previously tested for his Cheyenne license. He added that the appellant would be required to retest and/or take a refresher course at such time that a new building code was adopted pursuant to the provisions contained in the proposed licensing revisions, if approved. Massey asked if Lee had any closing statements. Lee stated that this situation was somewhat of a dilemma since the appellant was trying to legalize his status in the City but there was no license available specific to his niche except for a full-blown HVAC license. Lee mentioned that the appellant probably was not qualified for, nor was he seeking, such a license. It was his opinion that these were compelling circumstances for the Board to consider. Massey asked appellant if he planned to apply for the fireplace installation license, once it was approved, and take the applicable test, etc. Appellant stated that if a test was required for that license he would be more than willing to take it. Massey asked Lee for clarification on testing requirements for the proposed fireplace installation license. Lee answered that although an exam would be required, no exam had been prepared to date. He added that the codes relative to this type of installation have changed very little in the last fifteen years and that he would be inclined to accept the Cheyenne test as long as this information could be verified. McCoy asked appellant for clarification on the impetus of his request. Appellant stated that he had heard that the City had begun to increase enforcement efforts on all trades and he was trying to get the appropriate license in place that would allow him to legally do this type of work. Kreul-Froseth asked Lee if it was appropriate to grant a limited license or whether approval should be given on a per project basis. Lee answered that a conditional or limited version of the HVAC license would be acceptable. Massey agreed that this would be appropriate and suggested that the motion should clarify whether or not the limited HVAC license would transfer to the proposed specialty fireplace installation license, once approved, with no further action or testing on the part of the appellant; and should clarify that the appellant was not authorized to perform gas or electrical work as part of any installations. Little reiterated his previous motion, as follows: that the appellant be granted a limited HVAC license for the purpose of installing fireplaces and wood stoves, excluding any gas piping, plumbing or electric work, based on previous experience and testing, and that the appellant be granted the appropriate fireplace installation specialty license once this license has been approved. Kreul-Froseth seconded the motion. VOTE: YEAS: Hartmann, McCoy, Massey, Little, Kreul-Froseth NAYS: None. The motion passed unanimously. Building Review Board December 21, 2000 Page 4 4. CONTRACTOR APPEAL — JOHN ALLEN, D/B/A FULL CIRCLE CONSTRUCTION: Lee provided information relative to this appeal. He stated that appellant's license had expired four months ago, which was beyond the 90-day grace period, and was placed on inactive status. According to Lee, the appellant was required to reapply, including submitting all applicable forms and fees, and to fulfill the required exam requirements, before his Dl license could be reissued. Lee mentioned that the appellant was originally issued a D1 license in 1985 and that, as a part of that process, he took an exam which covered the 1982 UBC. Lee noted that a check of department records found no violations or serious issues on file for the appellant. Lee stated that recent projects on file for the appellant included: a. 303 %2 Wood Street — residential remodel project which was still ongoing; and b. 220 Lyons Street — residential remodel project which was completed last Spring. Appellant, John Allen, addressed the Board. He stated that he let his license expire and was seeking approval from the Board for re -issuance of his license without requiring him to retake an exam. Lee asked Allen for clarification on how he had been maintaining concurrency with recent building codes. Allen stated that, although he had not studied the code book, he had read all of the information that had been provided by the City with regard to code changes, and had been required to conform with those code changes on the projects that he has had ongoing since the time his license was originally issued in 1985. Lee asked Allen for clarification on whether he had constructed entire single- or two-family dwellings. Allen confirmed that he had experience building these types of structures but mentioned that it had been several years. Allen noted that he built four complete single family homes in the late 1980s. He added that he had not built a full home since that time and had concentrated on remodeling projects. Lee asked Allen if the homes were built in Fort Collins. Allen confirmed this. Lee asked Allen if he was aware that there were fairly significant changes in the 1997 UBC from earlier versions of the code. Allen stated that he was aware that there were significant changes but that he was not fully informed on all of them. Kreul-Froseth asked appellant if he received a letter regarding renewal of his license. Allen confirmed that he did. He added that he assumed full responsibility for not renewing his license by the deadline. Little asked appellant if he had applied for any permits during the last four months. Allen stated that he had not. Little asked for clarification on whether the appellant had any jobs that he needed to complete or start. Allen stated that he had an ongoing project that was ready for an inspection and he was unsure whether or not he would be able to obtain the inspection without having a current license. He added that he wanted to keep his license current regardless. McCoy mentioned that he knew appellant's work. He asked appellant if he had designed one of the homes that he had previously built. Allen confirmed this. Building Review Board • • December 21, 2000 Page 5 In closing, Lee mentioned that he felt there was usefulness in contractors understanding the current code since that is what is enforced in the field. He stated that he was somewhat concerned that the appellant, by his own admission, was not extremely familiar with the 1997 building code. Lee thought it was important that the appellant have some fluency in the current code prior to the license being reissued. He added that the typical way of assuring this is through the exam process but stated there might be other ways of accomplishing this. McCoy asked if there were any continuing education requirements for licensees. Lee stated that currently there are no such requirements. He noted that under the proposed licensing revisions a proficiency requirement had been added. McCoy asked if a license could expire for non-use. Lee answered that licenses are not expired for non-use, but primarily, for non-payment of the renewal fees. Kreul-Froseth mentioned that perhaps the appellant could obtain a copy of the 1997 code and the related amendments, study them, and submit a letter documenting his familiarity with the new code. She added that the letter could be placed in his file, along with a note that he had let his license expire past the 90-day allotted grace period. Massey asked for clarification on when the appellant would be required to retest and/or take a refresher course based on the proposed licensing proficiency requirement should his license be reinstated at this time. Lee answered that it would be at the time a new building code was adopted. Massey asked whether that would happen soon. Lee answered that the international code had many significant changes and, at this point in time, he was not convinced that there was any urgency in adopting this code, other than to have consistency throughout the country. He thought that perhaps in the coming year a review of the 1997 UBC might be done, resulting in some changes, without going to a completely new code. Massey stated that the Board had seen a number of these cases in the past. He agreed that it would be beneficial for the appellant to do some type of refresher work on his own and then submit a letter demonstrating that fact to the Building Department. Appellant stated that he would be agreeable with that. Board Member Hartmann added that the appellant should identify in his letter two or three of the most significant changes between the previous and current versions of the building code. He reiterated that it was important for licensed contractors to understand and know the code. Appellant stated that he thought this request was reasonable. Kreul-Froseth made a motion that the appellant's license be reinstated at such time that he had submitted a letter to the Building Department indicating that he had reviewed and now understood the changes that had been made in the 1997 UBC and that he give an opinion on the significance of those changes. She added that a letter should be placed in his file indicating that he had failed to renew his license within the allotted 90-day grace period. Hartmann seconded the motion. VOTE: YEAS: Hartmann, McCoy, Massey, Little, Kreul-Froseth NAYS: None. The motion passed unanimously. Building Review Board December 21, 2000 Page 6 5. CONTRACTOR APPEAL — JAMES SCOTT, JR., D/B/A INTEGRITY BUILDERS, LLC: Lee provided information relative to this appeal. Lee stated that the appellant was requesting an exam waiver for a Class DI license and supervisor certificate based on his experience. He added that the appellant currently held a Class E license with the City, which was issued approximately three years ago. Lee noted that the appellant was granted an exam waiver based on experience at the time he obtained his Class E license. Lee explained that this was done at the time when he was approving exam waivers based on the criteria that an applicant provide evidence of five completed projects documenting at least five years building experience. Cory Christianson, an employee of the appellant, addressed the Board. He stated that the appellant regretted that he could not be in attendance but that he had to be out of town. Christianson stated that Integrity Builders was made up of James Scott and himself, and that they subcontracted all of their work. He noted that he was responsible for project management, some of the design work, project bidding, and other similar items. Christianson mentioned that appellant had been building for approximately 17 years. He noted that a majority of their building had been done in Weld County but that the appellant had also done some work in Boulder County. According to Christianson, the emphasis of their company was building a high quality and safe product. He noted that Integrity Builders was following the 1997 UBC, together with all of the related amendments. Christianson informed the Board that their company had a potential project within the Fort Collins City limits which was the reason they had come before the Board with this request. Lee mentioned that he was of the opinion that the appellant should be required to take the exam. He stated that although the work allowed under the appellant's Class E license (commercial tenant finish work) could be complicated, there were aspects of building homes that were very different. Lee noted that the references that had been provided by the appellant reflected a very high opinion of Mr. Scott and the work that he had performed. He added that despite these glowing references, the City had no track record of dwellings that had been built in Fort Collins. He stated that unlike the previous case where the applicant had asked for reinstatement of a previously issued license, the appellant in this case was requesting a new license. Lee stated that he did not feel that an exam waiver was warranted in this case. Christianson mentioned that the appellant had some problems taking written exams and thought that this was one reason he had asked for the exam waiver. Little asked Christianson if he was an owner of the company. Christianson answered that he was an employee, not an owner. Little asked for clarification on whether Christianson could take the required exam and hold the supervisor certificate for the company. Lee answered that in this case Mr. Scott had applied to be the license holder and the designated construction supervisor. He confirmed that Mr. Scott could designate another person as the construction supervisor and that that person could apply, take the required exam, submit the required experience documentation and then obtain a supervisor certificate for the company. Little asked Christianson if he had site supervision experience on homes that had been built by Integrity Builders. Christianson confirmed this but noted that it would depend somewhat on the definition of supervision since the appellant had overall supervision responsibility of the projects. Little asked if he had supervised at least three projects. Christianson confirmed this. Building Review Board . • December 21, 2000 Page 7 Little suggested that perhaps Christianson should apply for the license and supervisor certificate in this case. Lee stated that the appellant could continue to be the license holder for the company without being required to take the exam. He noted that only the supervisor was required to test. Lee also mentioned that a license is ineffective until such time that a qualified supervisor has been approved. Kreul-Froseth stated that there appeared to be options in this case. She noted that typically when exam waivers are granted, the applicant had other qualifications that could be substituted for the exam, i.e., a comparable license from another jurisdiction or educational experience. Massey stated that he was concerned that since the appellant had been granted an exam waiver when he received his E license it appeared that at this point there was no person in the company who had ever passed any kind of construction exam. He asked Christianson for clarification on this. Christianson was unsure whether the appellant had any prior testing experience. Christianson asked if the supervisor of a company could be a subcontractor. Lee answered that the supervisor must be an employee, a company officer, or someone having substantial interest in the company. He directed board members to the ordinance language regarding this. Christianson asked Board Members to review the project verification forms that had been submitted. He stated that the appellant had a substantial amount of building experience and that he was very familiar with the current building code. Christianson added that he was unsure whether or not the appellant would want an employee of the company to hold the supervisor certificate. He hoped that the Board could give some additional options other than having an employee of the company obtain the required supervisor certificate if the appeal was not granted. Massey mentioned that the appellant always had the option of taking the exam himself. He asked Christianson if the appellant had any other education that the Board could consider. Christianson answered that the appellant had a Bachelor's Degree from CSU in Industrial Arts. Massey asked if the appellant had taken any other courses or workshops related to the construction industry. Christianson answered that they occasionally attended presentations from product manufacturers, but was unaware of any other coursework. Massey asked for clarification on whether an applicant was required to submit five completed projects that documented at least five years experience in order to obtain an exam waiver. Lee confirmed this. Hartmann asked if the appellant held another license in Weld County. Christianson stated that a license was not required in Weld County. Hartmann asked if he held a license in Windsor. Christianson stated that they did not have a license for Windsor, nor had they built any houses there. Christianson mentioned that he was sure that the appellant held a license in Boulder County, but was unaware of what the licensing requirements were at the time the license was obtained. Kreul-Froseth stated that perhaps a hardship should be considered in this case for someone who struggles when taking exams; however, that person was not present for the Board to question. It was her opinion that the appellant must have had to take exams in order to obtain his degree with CSU. Because of those things, she stated that she was not in support of appellant's request. Massey stated that he felt it was important for a contractor to be able to read drawings, specifications, understand related terminology, etc., to make sure that things go correctly on a job site. He also was not in support of appellant's request. Building Review Board December 21, 2000 Page 8 Christianson stated that he did not believe it would be impossible for the appellant to take the exam. He noted that the appellant did not have a great deal of comfort in taking exams and thought that time might also be a factor in why the appellant chose to pursue the appeal process. Little stated that there were three recommendations that could be considered, including: 1) that the appellant take the required exam; 2) that a separate employee apply for a supervisor certificate and take the required exam; and 3) that five acceptable projects be submitted to the Board in support of an exam waiver. Massey stated that five projects had been submitted. He noted that the oldest project went back to August, 1995, which was six months shy of the 5 year experience requirement. Massey noted that there had been cases in the past where there were other circumstances that the Board could consider when approving an exam waiver. However, Massey mentioned that the fact that there was no verification that a test had ever been taken by the appellant worried him somewhat. Hartmann reiterated that another item that the Board had considered in other cases was comparable licenses in other jurisdictions. He asked if a license was required in Larimer County. Christianson answered that Larimer County did not require a license. Hartmann mentioned that the Board might want to consider the fact that the appellant had an expired Boulder County license. Little mentioned to Christianson that the appeal could be withdrawn until such time that he was able to discuss this information with the appellant and could then be re -addressed by the Board in the future. Christianson stated that he would like to do this. Massey asked Christianson if he was formally withdrawing this item. Christianson confirmed this. 6. CONTRACTOR ORDINANCE LICENSING REVISIONS: Lee stated that the last meeting of the licensing task force was productive. He directed Board Members to the copy of the letter from the Homebuilders Association reflecting their support of the latest draft of the proposed licensing changes. Lee mentioned that there were two new attendees at the last task force meeting including Michelle Jacobs, the new Government Affairs liaison for the Homebuilders Association, and Bob Browning, from the Affordable Housing Board. Lee noted that Browning was concerned about how the licensing revisions would affect affordable housing, non-profit, volunteer -type projects. According to Lee, he felt that most of the concerns raised had been satisfactorily addressed at that meeting. Lee directed Board Members to the latest draft of the revised licensing ordinance. He reviewed the changes that had been made, including: a) Added clarity in the definition of a supervisor on Page 3; Building Review Board ! • December 21, 2000 Page 9 b) Expanded scope of work allowed by the new Miscellaneous and Minor Structures Specialty Trade Contractor license described on Page 12 to include construction of buildings classified as Group S, Divisions 1 and 2 (small buildings used for incidental storage of moderate combustibles). Also expanded scope of work authorized under the Class C2, Class D 1, Class D2 and Class E licenses to include any work allowed under the Miscellaneous and Minor Structures Specialty Trade Contractor license; c) Moved language denoting the additional supervision required of a licensed Specialty Trade Contractor supervisor when utilizing exempt workers from the definition of an Exempt Specialty Trade Subcontractor on page 2, to items (a)(7) and (b)(1) on page 13; and d) Inclusion of language on page 14 denoting that the Building Official shall not suspend a contractor's license for more than fifteen days pending a hearing before the Board, for first offense violations. Little stated that he thought that at the last meeting the task group was able to finally bring closure to this issue. He stated that everyone seemed to be in agreement when the work was completed. He noted that the document continues to be a "living" document and will change as needs arise. Little felt that the revised document would facilitate monitoring and managing the contracting community since it will help put everyone on a level playing field. Little mentioned that he was pleased with the process and it was his opinion that the resulting document addressed the health and safety issues that the public would expect to be required of contractors who are building in the community. He thanked staff for their time and effort in the process. Massey suggested that the size of structures allowed under the Miscellaneous and Minor Structures Specialty Contractor license be increased to 200 square feet. He noted that 150 square would not be sufficient for a carport, which is one of the items authorized under said license. Lee noted the suggestion. Little made a motion that the Building Review Board accept the revised draft of Article V of the Contractor's Licensing code as approved and submitted by the task force to the Board, and as modified per today's discussion. He added that the Board recommends that City Council adopt the final draft of the revised Article V of the Contractor's Licensing code. Kreul-Froseth seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, McCoy, Massey, Little, Kreul-Froseth Nays: None. The motion passed unanimously. Lee thanked the Board for their support. He stated that this had been an incredibly important and worthwhile effort. He also expressed thanks to Little for his help and participation on the licensing task group. Building Review Board December 21, 2000 Page 10 OTHER BUSINESS: A. New Board Member. Lee introduced new Board Member, Cameron Ryland. He noted that she would be taking Kreul-Froseth's position starting in January, 2001. Staff and Board Members expressed their thanks to Board Member Kreul-Froseth for her participation on the Building Review Board. Meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. Felix Lee, Director