Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 03/30/2000• I Council Liaison: Kurt Kastein V Staff Liaison: Felix Lee (221-6760) A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, March 30, 2000, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Fielder, Susan Kreul-Froseth, Thomas Hartmann, and Gene Little BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Rudy Hansch, Al Hauck, and Brad Massey 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 Hartmann made a motion to approve the Minutes. Board Member Kreul- Froseth seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the Minutes from the February 24, 2000 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. LICENSE HEARING — WILLIAM RAINEY, DB/A U.S. HOME: Chairperson Fielder explained the procedures that would be used for the meeting. Felix Lee provided information relative to this appeal. He mentioned that Mr. Rainey was issued a license in November, 1995 as Rainey Construction. The issuance of that license was based on the criteria in the licensing ordinance that had been used in the past which authorized the Building Official to use discretion in approving a license based on five years of experience in substitution for an exam. Therefore, Mr. Rainey was never required to take an exam prior to receiving his license. Lee stated that based on the information submitted by Mr. Rainey, it appeared that there had been some confusion on the part of Mr. Rainey's staff, which led to the expiration of his license beyond the 90-day grace period. Lee explained that once a grace period has BRB • • March 30, 2000 Page 2 ended the renewal of an expired license is essentially treated as a new application. The applicant is required to submit a new application, submit the required project verification forms (unless these are already on file and are sufficient for the license being requested), and take the required exam or provide proof of comparable testing. According to Lee, since Mr. Rainey's license had expired beyond the 90-day grace period, he was now subject to all of the requirements of a new application, including taking the required exam. Lee stated that Mr. Rainey was requesting a waiver of the exam requirement from the Board. William Rainey, appellant, addressed the Board. He mentioned that he had been in the construction industry since 1986 and had supervised the construction of hundreds of homes. Rainey referenced the records that had been submitted which documented his building experience. Rainey stated that his construction secretary failed to submit the renewal paperwork on time due to the fact that she was out of the office on medical leave and this is what led to the expiration of his license. Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on the length of time appellant's license had been expired. Rainey stated that it had been expired since November, 1999. Kreul-Froseth asked if there were fees associated with renewing an expired license. Lee answered that the fees were no different than a new license application, and included a $75 application fee, a $75 exam fee (when applicable), and a $125 license fee. Kreul-Froseth commented that due to the resulting consequences of not keeping a license current, including being required to retest, she was unsure why someone would want to entrust the responsibility of renewing a license to someone else. However, she stated that she could understand how the oversight could have occurred in this case and thought that in instances such as this some kind of compromise might be advisable. She suggested that perhaps the appellant could be required to pay all related fees, including the testing fee, but not be required to actually take the exam, as a consequence for not renewing his license within the time period allowed. Fielder stated that the Board heard an appeal similar to this one at their last month's meeting. He asked Rainey if he had any current licenses with any of the surrounding cities. Rainey answered that he had current licenses with the Town of Erie and the Town of Firestone. Fielder asked Rainey about the most current edition of the Uniform Building Code that he was familiar with. Rainey answered that he was familiar with the 1997 UBC. Fielder asked Rainey if he had built under the 1997 UBC. Rainey confirmed this. Rainey mentioned that he was also an instructor for U.S. Home and actually trains the builders that carry supervisor licenses for the City of Fort Collins. He mentioned that this education includes both on-the-job and classroom training. According to Rainey, one of the classes he teaches is on the Uniform Building Code. In addition, Rainey stated that he had served on a committee with Lee related to the development of a field manual for the new energy code and other similar committees. BRB • • March 30, 2000 Page 3 Board Member Little made a motion that Rainey's license be reinstated and that he be required to pay all related fees recommended by the City. Fielder asked if he could make a friendly amendment that made it clear to Mr. Rainey that the exam waiver was a one- time exemption. Little agreed to the amendment. There was brief discussion on fees. Kreul-Froseth was concerned that the Board was setting a precedent in this case. She suggested that the Board might want to consider setting a limit where, once a license had expired beyond a pre -determined length of time, i.e., a year, two years, etc., the Board would no longer approve an exam waiver. She also suggested that perhaps an applicant who had missed their renewal date should have a choice of either re -taking the exam, or of paying for the exam, in addition to all other related fees, but not actually taking the exam, as a sort of deterrent to keep this from recurring. Fielder stated that he agreed with Kreul-Froseth that it might make sense to impose a penalty, or have a choice of penalties, associated with letting a license lapse. He added that other organizations do this, including architect licensing. He asked for clarification on whether this was something that the Board could determine, or something that had to be implemented by staff. Lee answered that he would be concerned about the validity of imposing a broad -based system of penalties that were not explicitly identified in the licensing ordinance, and that feedback from the City's legal staff would be advisable on this issue. Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on staffs renewal procedures. Staff provided clarification. Kreul-Froseth seconded the pending motion. VOTE: Yeas: Little, Hartmann, Fielder, Kreul-Froseth Nays: None The motion passed unanimously. 4. LICENSE HEARING — ALAN STAHMER, DB/A BROWN-STAHMER HOMEBUILDING: Lee summarized the specifics relative to this appeal. He mentioned that this case was essentially similar to the preceding one in that Mr. Stahmer had been a license holder since 1985 and received, at that time, approval from the Contractor Licensing Board to test for his license once all required documentation had been submitted. The applicant took and successfully passed the required exam in 1985, and staff issued a license to him. According to Lee, Mr. Stahmer's license expired in October, 1999, well beyond the 90- day grace period. In order to get his license renewed, Stahmer is now required to meet all of the terms of the current ordinance, including either re -taking the City's exam, or providing proof of comparable testing that covered the 1991 or newer version of the UBC. Lee mentioned that, according to the applicant's information, his license was BRB • • March 30, 2000 Page 4 renewed two years ago without requiring him to submit additional information and that prior to that renewal, his license had been inactive for six years. Lee explained that at the time of that renewal, staff was not doing a thorough review of all files as has been done for the last two years, nor was there a requirement to have current testing in place at that point. Lee stated that in addition to not having current testing information, there were no project verification forms in the file documenting the appellant's experience. Lee explained that at some point when the appellant let his license lapse, his file was likely purged since records were not kept indefinitely, which is one reason that staff now requires an applicant to go through the reapplication process. At the time Stahmer's license was previously renewed, only a new application was obtained. Lee also explained that had Mr. Stahmer's license remained current, as part of this year's renewal process, he would have been asked to provide supporting documentation prior to the time his license would have been renewed. Lee noted that Mr. Stahmer had just recently submitted three project verification forms and he reviewed those forms with the Board. Lee stated that the garage project submitted by Stahmer is a D2 level project and was not sufficient to qualify for the Dl license. The ordinance requires three projects equivalent to a single family home or a more extensive structure in order for an applicant to qualify for the Class D 1 license. According to Lee, the submittal of one additional project verification form at the D1 level, and proof of current testing, would still be needed prior to staff being able to renew appellant's license. Lee stated that Stahmer was requesting a waiver of the exam requirement from the Board. Alan Stahmer, appellant, addressed the Board. He stated that he did not feel that this situation was fair and that his twenty years of experience didn't seem to mean anything. Stahmer mentioned that he never received a renewal letter and suggested that the City send these notices out by certified mail so that there is proof that the letter was sent and received. Stahmer stated that another reason he did not keep up with his license was due to the fact that his partner also holds a license and there are many jobs that they work on that his partner actually obtains the permit and Stahmer's license is not needed. It was Stahmer's opinion that there should be some kind of penalty clause, i.e. $25, for these types of occurrences. He stated that his wife, who is a registered nurse, is penalized $15 for not renewing her license within the prescribed time limit. He added that she would not be required to re -take any exams, etc. Kreul-Froseth stated that based on the Board's discussion from the previous appeal, she thought the solution for this appellant should be similar to the decision made in that case. Fielder asked for clarification on the project verification form that did not meet the DI requirement. Lee provided clarification. Fielder asked Stahmer if he had been building in Ft. Collins under the 1997 UBC. Stahmer confirmed this. Stahmer noted that it has been difficult for him to keep up with all of the code and other miscellaneous changes that have occurred and stated that he was discouraged and frustrated by, what he believed, were continual changes made by the City that he was never informed of. BRB • • March 30, 2000 Page 5 Stahmer stated that another reason he did not keep his license current was due to the fact that he, for a period of time, acted as a framing subcontractor and his license was not needed. Stahmer mentioned that he framed numerous homes for John Skeen and Rick Splittgerber. Fielder asked for clarification on whether the previous appellant, and an appellant from last month's meeting who had a similar case, had submitted all of the necessary project documentation forms. Lee provided clarification. Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on office procedures related to disposing of file documentation. Lee answered that this procedure has been done on a somewhat sporadic basis, but that typically expired records are kept for a year or so and then purged. Lee clarified that there are no City or state archive regulations that require that these records be kept indefinitely. Fielder asked for clarification on the number of project verification forms that are required. Lee answered that three verification forms are required, plus a current exam. Fielder asked Stahmer how hard it would be for him to get one additional project verification form that would qualify for the D 1 license. Stahmer stated that he could obtain one easily. Fielder made a motion to waive the exam requirement upon the submission of one additional project verification form that was sufficient for the DI license. Kreul-Froseth seconded the motion. Kreul-Froseth added a friendly amendment that a letter be placed in Stahmer's file indicating that the Board is granting a one-time exam waiver. VOTE: Yeas: Little, Hartmann, Fielder, Kreul-Froseth, Nays: None The motion passed unanimously. DENNIS SYTSMA, D/B/A CREATIVE CONSTRUCTION: Lee mentioned that this appellant requested an exam waiver at last month's meeting. The Board granted the appellant's request for an exam waiver with the stipulation that the appellant submit proof of having a current license in good standing with both Longmont and Loveland. Lee stated that the appellant, while trying to obtain this information, found out that his Longmont licensed had also expired. Lee explained that this appellant was asking that the Board reconsider his case and determine whether the Board's recommendation to grant the exam waiver would stand in light of this new circumstance. Fielder stated that the appellant mentioned that he was licensed with both Longmont and Loveland. It was his opinion that the Board was simply looking for verification that the appellant was currently licensed in another jurisdiction that was acceptable. March 30, 2000 Page 6 Fielder made a motion to amend the Board's decision from the previous month as follows: to grant the appellant's exam waiver with an amendment to the stipulation that he be required to submit proof of having a current license in good standing with only the City of Loveland. Little seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Little, Hartmann, Fielder, Kreul-Froseth Nays: None The motion passed unanimously. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Update on Bob Campbell, representing Ceco Constructors: Lee mentioned that Bob Campbell, the appellant from last month's meeting that requested an exemption from the framing licensing requirements, had filed an appeal with City Council. The appeal is scheduled to be heard on April 181s, 2000. According to Lee, the allegation for the appeal was that the Board conducted an unfair hearing by considering evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. Lee explained that the appellant is claiming that the testimony from the two framers who said that there were enough framing contractors in town who were able to complete his proposed project was false and/or misleading. B. Board Member Hansch: Board Members reviewed the memorandum that was prepared recommending to City Council that they replace Board Member Hansch due to sporadic meeting attendance. Board Members approved the memorandum. Staff will forward this to Council Member Kastein. There was some discussion on the process for obtaining a new board member and on current board member term expirations. Fielder mentioned that it might be helpful if contractors were chosen to participate this time around to help bring some balance to the current make-up of the Board. It was suggested that a comment be added to the memorandum that will be forwarded to Council Member Kastein reflecting this. C. Contractor License Revision Task Group: Lee mentioned that the first meeting for this task group would take place later this evening. He stated that Board Member Little is a member of this group. Lee reviewed a couple of additional changes that were being suggested in addition to the information that was sent out in board packets, including: BRB March 30, 2000 Page 7 - Moving to a 2-year license. The cost of the license is being proposed at $200; $50 less than the current license fee would be for two consecutive years. - Reducing the expiration grace period from 90 days to 60 days. - Adding a mandatory testing requirement for all contractors who are renewing their license at the time new editions of the code are adopted. Lee clarified that this would be a condensed test that covered the updated code changes. Fielder mentioned that the task group might want to consider an alternative of accepting continuing education classes in lieu of requiring contractors to take the exam. Meeting adjourned at 2:15 p.m. Felix Lee, Building & Zoning Director