Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 11/30/2000Liaison: Kurt Kastein Felix Lee (221-6760) A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, November 30, 2000, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Fielder, Thomas Hartmann, Al Hauck, Susan Kreul-Froseth, Gene Little, Brad Massey, and John McCoy BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Director of Building & Zoning Delynn Coldiron, staff support to Board AGENDA: 1. ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Fielder and roll taken. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Board Member Little made a motion that the minutes from the October 26, 2000 meeting be approved as submitted. Board Member Massey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. CONTRACTOR APPEAL — DONALD REIDY, DB/A REIDY CONSTRUCTION: Appellant was not present at the meeting. Board Members decided not to take action on this item at this time. 4. CONTRACTOR APPEAL — MIKE KEYS, DB/A KEYS PROPERTIES & CONSTRUCTION: Fielder reviewed the procedures that would be used for the hearing. Felix Lee provided information relative to this appeal. He stated that the appellant was requesting a one-time project exemption that would allow him to enclose a rear porch structure on an existing residence to convert this into living space. Lee noted that the appellant currently had a Home Improvement license and that this project fell outside of the scope of that license. Building Review Board November 30, 2000 Page 2 According to Lee, the appellant was allowed to perform a similar project in March, 1999, through oversight of staff during processing. He added that the work done by the appellant passed all inspections and that a Letter of Completion was issued by the Building & Zoning department for the project. Lee mentioned that the Home Improvement license is a very restrictive license and limits the contractor to the construction of miscellaneous minor structures, carports and patio covers. He added that it also authorizes minor alterations and repairs to the structures previously mentioned, and to residential dwellings, as long as the work does not involve any significant structural work. Led noted that the Home Improvement license was not intended to allow the construction of enclosures and/or additions and that this type of work would be authorized under the City's Class D2 license. Lee directed Board Members to an application for a D2 license and supporting documentation that had recently been submitted by the appellant and stated that it appeared that the appellant had sufficient project experience to enable him to obtain the D2 license but needed to successfully complete the D2 exam before such license could be issued. Appellant, Mike Keys, addressed the Board. He stated that the last project verification form that he had submitted in support of his D2 license application was verified by Mr. Nelson, the customer who has asked him to perform the work that is the impetus of today's hearing. He directed Board Members to Mr. Nelson's comments. Keys stated that he had a lot of building experience that qualified him for the D2 license; however, had not applied for the license until now, and still needed to take the exam. He noted that he was having some trouble locating the appropriate code book that he needed to take the exam, but planned to take the exam soon. Keys noted that the proposed project was structurally less complex than other projects he had done and felt it was well within the scope of his abilities as a contractor. Lee asked appellant if he could elaborate on the first project he did for Mr. Nelson, and on the proposed project. Keys stated that the first project entailed an extension onto the 6' x 16' front porch. He noted that the customers wanted to extend their living room into this area. According to Keys, he removed the existing wall and installed bearing material to make the extension possible. He added that he installed appropriate outlets, performed finish work, etc., and that the work passed all building inspections. Keys stated that the proposed project addition includes no structural alteration. He noted that there is currently a sliding glass door that opens to a 6' x 10' concrete slab porch, just as the front porch was in the previous project. He would simply be enclosing the walls of the porch, raising the floor level so that it matched the house, installing insulation, drywall wrapping the opening where the sliding glass door had been, and performing related finish work. Lee asked appellant about the contract valuation for both projects. Keys answered that the first project was valued at $9,500.00 and that the proposed project was valued at just over $7,000.00. Hauck asked if the Board was considering a one time project exemption or the application for the D2 license. Appellant answered that he was requesting approval of the one-time project exemption in this case since time was of the essence. Hauck asked for clarification on whether the project verification forms that had been turned in meet the requirements of the D2 license. Lee confirmed this. Building Review Board • November 30, 2000 Page 3 Massey asked Keys if he was planning on taking the D2 exam. Keys confirmed this. Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on why the proposed project did not fall within the scope of the Home Improvement License. Lee answered that it falls outside of the scope of this license primarily because the Home Improvement license allows for the construction of unenclosed structures or small miscellaneous structures, i.e. sheds, that are not utilized for living area. Lee asked the appellant for clarification on whether there was any electrical, plumbing, or mechanical work that would be needed for the proposed project. Keys answered that there would be electrical work done and that he would be using a licensed electrician to do this. Massey asked for clarification on the foundation of the porch. Keys answered that the porch was covered and that the roof was supported by existing beams and posts that were set into the ground with appropriate caissons, etc. Massey asked if the floor would be hung from the outside wall that would create the enclosure. Keys answered that he intended to use treated 2 x 8s that had been ripped to accommodate the pitch of the slab, resting directly on the concrete. Massey asked if the concrete slab had a foundation underneath. Keys confirmed that there was not a standard foundation underneath. Little made a motion that the Board approve a one-time exemption for the appellant that would allow him to complete the proposed project. Lee asked appellant if he had anything he would like to add. Keys answered that he had nothing further to add. Lee asked appellant about the timing of the proposed project. Keys answered that due to the licensing problems, he was already running somewhat behind, and hoped that he would be able to finish the project by Christmas. Lee stated that it appeared that the appellant was qualified for the D2 license and, once he successfully completed the exam, would be granted the license which would obviate the need for a special exemption. However, Lee added that perhaps timing was an issue in this case. Hauck seconded the motion on the floor. Massey mentioned that he was somewhat concerned that there might be some building code issues with regards to the way the appellant intended on constructing the new floor and suggested that he might investigate others ways of doing this. Hauck asked for clarification on whether this type of concern would be addressed during the plan reviewed process. Lee confirmed this. VOTE: YEAS: Hartmann, McCoy, Little, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey NAYS: None. The motion passed unanimously. CONTRACTOR APPEAL — DAVID BANDIMERE, DB/A HEIDEGGER CONSTRUCTION: Lee provided information relative to this appeal. He stated that the appellant had applied for a Class D2 license in March, 2000, and was denied this license due to the fact that some of the documented experience did not meet the established criteria. Lee noted that the project submitted for Brain Court in Golden, CO, met the requirements for the D2 license, but that the project for Building Review Board November 30, 2000 Page 4 Holly Street in Denver, CO, did not appear to be sufficient for the D2 license, although there was some structural work involved. Lee mentioned that perhaps a better determination of whether the Holly Street project met the requirements of the D2 license could be made after hearing more clarification from the appellant. For the project submitted for Lowell Blvd., in Denver, it was determined, based on staffs conversation with the reference noted, that the appellant did not have a supervisory role in the project which is one of the criteria for a valid project. Lee noted that he would defer to the appellant to elaborate on this issue if this is different from the information obtained from the signatory on the project form. Lee stated that the appellant was issued a Home Improvement license in lieu of the D2 license requested based on the things that were previously outlined. He noted that the appellant was requesting that the Board make a determination on his D2 license request based on his construction experience and based on the fact that he holds a Denver license which authorizes him to do any kind of work on residential dwellings, including constructing a new one. Appellant, David Bandimere, addressed the Board. He stated that the D2 license expresses that the license holder have structural knowledge of medium sized residential projects that exceed $10,000, have supervision experience, and have a general knowledge of construction. According to appellant, he has the required construction experience; has structural knowledge based on his 2+ years of framing experience both as a contractor and as a laborer; has been involved in several projects that have exceeded $10,000 in value; and has supervisory experience from his Denver projects and a basement.finish project done earlier this year. He added that he has a knowledge of general construction as evidenced by his passing the Denver exam prior to receiving his license. Bandimere stated that if he were not granted a City D2 license his options were to be employed as a supervisor, to take jobs outside of the City that would meet the specification of the D2 license, or to ask for project exemptions from the Board. Bandimere noted that he would be willing ask for project exemptions from the Board; however, at this time, he had four pending projects for which a D2 license would be required, but would not provide sufficient experience to obtain the D2 license. According to Bandimere, two of the projects were for above -ground decks that had structural components to them, but did not have a foundation, roof, walls, etc., and that the other two projects were for basement finishes that exceeded the $10,000 limitation of the Home Improvement license. He stated that he was asking for the D2 license so that he would be permitted to do these projects without having to ask for individual exemptions. Kreul-Froseth asked appellant if he had any formal education experience in a construction -related field. Bandimere stated that he had obtained on -site education from his 7+ years of construction experience. He added that his formal education training was in philosophy. Massey asked for clarification on the process required for obtaining the Denver license. Appellant answered that he was required to pass a test that covered the 1994 UBC and Denver amendments, and to submit a letter that verified two years of construction experience. Massey asked for clarification on the number of projects that were submitted by the appellant that meet the D2 licensing requirements. Lee answered that two of the three projects meet those requirements. Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on the type of construction authorized by the Class C Denver license. Bandimere answered that the license authorizes him to construct single family dwellings, as well as any related remodeling, additions, etc. Little asked for clarification on whether the fact that the appellant holds a Denver license gives staff the ability to accept that license as a qualifying license for Fort Collins. Lee answered that Building Review Board November 30, 2000 Page 5 the Board could consider this, but that there were no provisions in the ordinance that would allow staff to do this. Lee added that the test which was taken for the Denver license would be considered equivalent to the Fort Collins exam and would fulfill the City's exam requirement related to appellant's license application. Hauck asked appellant if he had any other projects that he could submit that would be sufficient for the D2 license. Appellant answered that he had no others that would meet the exact D2 license specifications. Little asked for clarification on whether any of the proposed projects would qualify the appellant for the D2 license. Appellant answered that he had not submitted any of the projects at this point. He noted that none of these projects would qualify for the D2 license requirements since they do not meet all of the specifics. McCoy asked for clarification on the options that were available for the appellant to get the additional experience needed. Lee provided clarification. Hartmann asked for clarification on why the proposed projects would not fall within the scope of a D2 license if a D2 license was required to do them. Lee provided clarification. Kreul-Froseth stated that in the past the Board had considered additional education related to construction, special classes related to trades, and the fact that individuals hold comparable licenses in other jurisdictions when determining similar appeals. It was her opinion that the fact that the appellant held a current Denver license was significant in this case. She added that she had some concerns with the drawings that had been submitted as to their technical correctness, but noted that this was her only concern in this case. Massey asked for clarification on whether the appellant would have had to appear before the Board had he had three sufficient projects, plus his Denver license. Lee confirmed that he would not have had to come before the Board in that case, but noted that it is really the Denver test, and not just the license, that staff would accept in support of the requested license. Hauck made a motion to approve appellant's Class D2 license application based on his license in Denver and the two project verification forms that are on file which are sufficient for such license. Little seconded the motion. Massey mentioned that having a C license in Denver and having taken a test on the 1994 UBC was significant. He noted that the license authorized the complete construction of a residence which is more substantial that what is allowed by the City's D2 license. Hartmann mentioned that if the Board approved a one-time exemption for a project and the appellant was successful in the project this would automatically qualify him for the license he was requesting. He stated that this might be a little more onerous for the appellant, but thought this was in keeping with previous decisions of the Board. Massey mentioned that the exemptions that have been granted by the Board in the past have been project specific, which is not so in this case since there is no defined project. Appellant mentioned that his intent was not to ask for exemptions based on theoretical projects, but rather to show that he has the necessary experience to qualify for the D2 license, just not combined neatly into three specific projects. He reiterated that with his experience, his Denver C license, and his construction knowledge, it was his opinion that he had the ability to construct D2 level projects and was asking for approval from the Board to do that. Building Review Board November 30, 2000 Page 6 VOTE: YEAS: Little, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey NAYS: Hartmann, McCoy The motion passed 5-2. 6. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Charles Fielder was nominated as Chairperson. There were no other nominations. Massey made a motion to elect Fielder as Chairperson. Little seconded the motion. VOTE: YEAS: Hartmann, McCoy, Little, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey NAYS: The motion passed unanimously. Brad Massey was nominated as Vice Chairperson. There were no other nominations. Hauck made a motion to elect Massey as Vice Chairperson. Fielder seconded the motion. VOTE: YEAS: Hartmann, McCoy, Little, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey NAYS: The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF 2001 WORK PLAN: Lee asked Board Members for feedback on the draft 2001 Work Plan. They had no suggested changes. There was some discussion regarding the upcoming review of the IBC. Lee was unsure when the review process would start but mentioned that the review process usually takes about a year. There was some question as to who would be participating on the review committee. Lee answered that there would be a variety of contractors, design professionals, others from the construction community, and representatives from the Board. There was a question as to whether other communities had adopted this code. Lee was unaware of any communities who had done this. He noted that Jefferson County would be conducting some training classes on the IBC this Spring. Little made a motion to approve the 2001 Building Review Board Work Plan as written. Fielder seconded the motion. VOTE: YEAS: Hartmann, McCoy, Little, Fielder, Hauck, Massey NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Kreul-Froseth Building Review Board November 30, 2000 Page 7 The motion passed. CONTRACTOR LICENSING ORDINANCE REVISIONS: Lee introduced Kimberly Stenberg, David Anastasio and Michelle Jacobs from the Home Builders Association. He noted that Kimberly and David were also members of the licensing revision task force. Lee stated that some minor editorial changes had been made to the latest draft of the licensing ordinance for clarity. He reviewed those changes with the Board. Hauck mentioned that it was his recollection that there were two issues that had come up at the previous meeting, (1) the level of supervision for the exempt specialty trade subcontractors and (2) the requirement of worker's compensation insurance, and he asked for clarification on where those items had been addressed in the current draft. Lee answered that the insurance requirements had been addressed on the bottom of page 15 in Section 15-163 where it states that "Every such Contractor or Exempt Specialty Trade Subcontractor shall maintain Worker's Compensation Insurance as required by state law..." Hauck expressed some concern since state law allows owners of a company to opt out of worker's compensation coverage, which creates a loop hole where workers who set themselves up as partial owners of a company end up with no coverage. Massey noted that when the workers take the extra step to set up a business in this manner, it becomes a conscious decision on their part to opt out of this coverage. Hauck stated that the licensing regulations that are currently in effect require that workers be either a licensed contractor and/or actual employees of a licensed contractor, helping to assure that appropriate insurance coverages are in place. He added that the new licensing regulations appear to allow workers to be exempt from both worker's compensation and licensing requirements. There was some discussion on the difficulty of enforcing this issue and whether or not this is a responsibility of the City. Lee stated that the task force had struggled with this issue for nine months. According to Lee, the new provisions for exempt workers were added as a compromise to attempt to address the reality in the workforce. He added that this item eventually became an item of consensus amongst the task group members. Massey asked if there were any loop holes that allowed the exempt subcontractors to sub work out to other subcontractors. Lee answered that the draft provisions require that all exempt subcontractors have a direct contract with a licensed specialty trade contractor to avoid this from happening. McCoy asked for further clarification on this issue. Lee provided clarification. Hauck asked for clarification on definitions related to supervision, i.e., how many people/projects one supervisor could be responsible for and still provide direct supervision, what constitutes a "site", etc. Lee answered that these specifics had purposely been left out of the ordinance, but that policies would be put into place that would further define these items. He added that staff would be meeting to further address this issue. Kimberly Stenberg addressed the Board. She provided them with a copy of a position paper written on behalf of the Home Builders Association (HBA). She stated that they had some remaining concerns with the proposed revisions and provided an overview of those concerns, including: A. The consistency of text related to supervision. The HBA suggested that "reasonable standards of attendance" should he used as the key phrase related to Building Review Board November 30, 2000 Page 8 supervision and should replace other phrases, including "continuous personal supervision", "under the continuous personal supervision", "to supervise on site and in person on a regular basis", and "continually on site". B. The addition of a new specialty contractor trade for cast in place concrete workers. The HBA suggested that this license be deleted from the ordinance as it seemed an unnecessary, additional layer of licensing. C. The procedures for disciplinary action, violations and penalties. The HBA was of the opinion that the provisions for disciplinary action failed to identify a process that would be followed when violations occurred. They suggested that a paragraph be inserted that would give a first time violator a 30 day corrective action period prior to any license suspension taking place. Stenberg stated that the HBA also suggested that on Page 15, paragraph #10, the words "The act of be inserted at the beginning of the paragraph for clarification. She added that the HBA commended the City for acknowledging and adding wording on transition provisions. Stenberg closed by stating that the position paper provided was written on behalf of the HBA membership and did not represent the individual member companies' support or opposition of the proposed draft ordinance. Gino Campania, also a member of the licensing revision task group, addressed the Board to respond to the information that had been presented by Stenberg. He stated that it was his understanding, based on his involvement on the task group, that the level of supervision was intended to be different for those specialty contractors who opted to utilize exempt workers versus supervising the company's actual employees. It was his opinion that that was the reason for the different phrases related to supervision. He stated that the task group discussed the issue of the cast in place concrete and had come to the conclusion that although the work is engineered, so is the entire house, and that doesn't change the fact that framers need to licensed, etc. He added that the group discussed the value of licensing the framers and felt that there was general consensus that this held true for contractors who constructed foundations, as well. With regard to the issue of disciplinary procedures, Campana stated that it was his recollection that this was a tool that the task group had agreed to give to the Building Official. Lee stated that he was convinced, based on what had been presented, that there was a need to reconvene the task group and delay seeking approval from Council until these issues were resolved. Lee noted that he was not aware that these issues were outstanding and that he would no longer be seeking a recommendation from the Building Review Board at this meeting. Stenberg mentioned that she and Michelle Jacobs had attempted to poll the entire task group prior to writing the position paper to assure that they were not stepping on any task members toes due to the efforts of the group to come together as a team and support the ordinance. She added that the paper includes recommendations and suggestions but is not intended to circumvent any of the work that the task group had done. She noted that they had heard back from only four of the task group members prior to issuing their statement. Stenberg stated that she would be in favor of meeting with the task force another time in an effort to resolve these issues. Little stated that he thought it was important for the task group to bring closure to this issue and to have a unified position to bring back to the Board. It was his opinion that it would be advisable for staff, the task force, the HBA, and the Board to be unified in their support of the revisions prior to seeking approval from Council. He was also willing to meet with task force another time. Building Review Board November 30, 2000 Page 9 Lee stated that staff would work on scheduling another meeting of the licensing task group. He added that he was unsure what this would mean as far as scheduling, but thought it would delay sending this item to Council until at least the January 16 meeting. 9. OTHER BUSINESS: December meeting: There was discussion on whether or not there would be a quorum for the December 2 1 ' meeting. It was determined that there would be a quorum. Meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.