Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 02/24/20000 • A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, February 24, 7000, 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, Al Hauck, Gene Little, and Bradley Massey BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Rudy Hansch STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Director of Building & Zoning Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Delynn Coldiron, staff support to Board AGENDA: 1. ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Fielder and roll taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Board Member Hauck made a motion to approve the Minutes. Board Member Massey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the Minutes from the January 27, 2000 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. CONTRACTOR HEARING — RANDY RICHARDSON, d/b/a RICHARDSON CONSTRUCTION: Chairperson Fielder reviewed the procedures that would be used for this hearing. Applicant, Randy Richardson, addressed the Board. He mentioned that he had an opportunity to work on a structure that is outside of the parameters of his residential license, and would like the opportunity to do so in an effort to regain his Class C 1 license. The proposed project was for the Diamond Crest Assisted Living Center located at 1225 Redwood Drive. The scope of the work included removing a portion of existing offices and changing the vacated space into apartments. Approximately 4,500 square feet of the existing structure would be remodeled. The building is one story, and made of brick frame construction. No structural work outside of the current building footprint would be required. Applicant was BRB February 24, 2000 Page 2 requesting that the Board grant him a one-time exemption from his current Class Dl license to allow him complete this project. Felix Lee asked Richardson if he would characterize the work to be done as essentially the same as residential -type work. Richardson confirmed this. He mentioned that the construction would be done with 2 x 4 studs, drywall, etc. An electrician and plumber would be retained to take care of those portions of the project. Board Member Little asked applicant if he had taken the City's C I exam. Richardson answered that he had not and stated that it was his understanding that he needed to gain the experience in order to receive approval to take the test. Massey asked Richardson if he understood that this project falls within the scope of the City's Class E license, and not a Class C1. Richardson stated that his previously held CI license permitted him to do this type of project. Massey asked for clarification on whether this project would work toward fulfilling the requirements of the Class Cl license. Lee confirmed that this project would not work towards fulfilling that qualification. Richardson stated that the project entailed more than simply tearing out walls and doing demo work. He mentioned that this was a sizable project and included all general contractor responsibilities and delegations, coordination of subs, drywall, painting, floor covering, mechanical, plumbing and electrical duties. He was unsure of whether or not an E license allowed someone to actually act as the general contractor for a project. Richardson added that even if the project did not fulfill the qualifications towards the C I -license, it is_a type of project... . ----- that is allowable under the C I license and the experience could not hurt. Massey stated that he was not disputing that the experience would be good, etc., he simply wanted applicant to be aware that this project, if granted, would not work towards fulfilling the requirements of the C1 license. There was some discussion regarding when the applicant could take the exam. Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification from Lee. Lee answered that there is no pre -qualification experience needed prior to taking an exam; the applicant could take the exam at any time. Richardson stated that it was his understanding that even if he took the exam, but did not have the necessary experience, he would not be able to qualify for the C I license. Lee confirmed that both the exam and experience are required; however, there are no pre -conditions on when an exam can be taken. Hauck made a motion to grant applicant a one time exemption that would allow him to complete the proposed project that was referenced in applicant's letter dated February 24, 2000. Little seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, Little, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey Nays: None The motion carried. Richardson asked if it would be beneficial for him to have completed the City's exam prior to coming to the Board for further approval requests. Board Members confirmed this. 0 • BRB February 24, 2000 Page 3 Richardson asked for clarification on the requirements of the Class Cl license. Lee answered that at least two projects sufficient in scope for the Class Cl license and at least one project sufficient in scope for the Class Dl license are required. Fielder asked for clarification on whether there is a time limit between when an individual takes an exam and when they submit all other necessary documentation. Lee stated that there is no time limit. Richardson asked if the test results would expire after a year or so. Lee answered that this would not necessarily be the case. Massey added that at this point the test must have covered the 1991 or a newer version of the UBC to be accepted. At some point, this range might change and then test results falling outside of the new range could be considered as having expired. Lee confirmed this. Applicant stated that he understood this information. 4. LICENSE HEARING — DENNIS SYTSMA, d/b/a CREATIVE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY: Lee stated that in this case, the applicant inadvertently let his license lapse. The license expired in May, 1999, well beyond the 90 day grace period given to contractors within which they must renew, or their license is expired. Once a license expires, the contractor is required to submit a new application and is subject to all current license application requirements. The applicant in this case had a B license for a number of years and has submitted all of the necessary project documentation. However, applicant tested over the 1979 UBC and, as Massey previously mentioned, the current testing criteria requires that the exam cover the 1991 or newer version of the UBC. Applicant is requesting a waiver of this requirement. Applicant, Dennis Sytsma, addressed the Board. He mentioned that he held his City license for 15+ years. He had not done any construction in the City of Ft. Collins for the past five years, and when he recently obtained a demolition job in the City, he found out that his license had expired. Applicant stated that it was not City staff that caused his license to expire. He had done some switching around in his office and, for some reason or other, his staff did not follow through and renew his license. Applicant mentioned that he currently holds a Class A license in the City of Loveland and in the City of Longmont. Sytsma stated that he served on a Construction Advisory Board in the City of Loveland for four years and is very familiar with the building codes. He mentioned that he would take the City's exam, if necessary, but was hoping that he could bypass this requirement this time around due to time constraints. Fielder asked applicant about the codes that are currently being used by Loveland and Longmont. Applicant answered that he did not believe that either of the Cities had adopted the 1997 UBC, and thought that they were using the 1991 UBC. Sytsma stated that he took a class given by Bryce Miller approximately five years ago that covered the 1991 UBC. BRB February 24, 2000 Page 4 Applicant mentioned that he uses building codes daily. However, according to applicant, when he gets a project all of the code requirements are drawn out on the plans. The engineers, architects and building departments assure that the codes are enforced 100%. If a problem arises, applicant stated that he is able to find the necessary information in the code book in a timely fashion. However, as a general contractor, applicant said that he does not have any power to change anything that has been approved in the plans. The project has to be built according to the plans that have been drawn up. It was his opinion that the code test was a good thing when a contractor is just starting out; however, applicant mentioned that he has used his code book probably only 10 times over the past 18 years because all of the relevant information that he needs is already included in the plans. Fielder mentioned that he is an architect and that he relies on the contractors in the field to help catch things on plans that are not in compliance with building codes. Hauck asked applicant about the last exam he took on the building code. Applicant mentioned that the one taken over the 1979 UBC was the last exam he took. Hauck asked if he had taken tests in any other jurisdictions. Applicant stated that he had not. Hauck asked if applicant had any verification showing that he took the class with Bryce Miller that covered the 1991 UBC. Applicant stated that he could obtain this. Little asked for clarification on the differences between the Class B and Class A licenses and on whether or not the Board could grant a waiver of the exam based on an applicant holding an equal or greater license with another jurisdiction. Lee provided clarification on the differences between the Class B and Class A Ft. Collins' licenses. He stated that he could not speak to the differences between license classes in other jurisdictions because they are all different and in many instances there are no direct correlations between Ft. Collins' license classes and license classes from other jurisdictions. Lee also stated that an applicant holding an equal or greater license with another jurisdiction was a criteria that the Board could use in determining whether an exam waiver should be granted. Applicant mentioned that the Loveland Class A license allows for unlimited construction; however, the City has building height restrictions so no construction can go over 5 stories. The Longmont license is unlimited, with no height restrictions. Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on the grace period given to contractors and on whether or not reminder notices are sent. Lee answered that as a general practice, reminder notices are sent. Contractors are given 90 days after their expiration date within which time they must renew, or the license becomes defunct. Applicant verified that the City had been very good about sending out renewal letters. He stated that he took full responsibility for his license not getting renewed. Hauck asked applicant if he had work pending in Ft. Collins. Applicant answered that he did not. Massey asked applicant for some recent examples of work in Loveland and Longmont that would qualify for the Ft. Collins Class B license. Applicant answered that his company completed a couple of restaurants in Loveland. One was more of a remodel, but the existing structure was barely a shell when they started to covert it into a restaurant. His company has also completed an automotive building, a vet clinic, and other small commercial projects. Applicant mentioned that his company does not get involved with commercial high-rise buildings. His company performs a lot of commercial and residential additions. BRB • • February 24, 2000 Page 5 Little made a motion to grant the requested exam waiver based on the fact that applicant held his Ft. Collins license for 15 years, that he currently holds existing licenses in Loveland and Longmont equivalent to at least a Class B license in Ft. Collins, and, based on applicant's testimony, that he has been in business for approximately 18 years and has an experienced track record of operating this type of license. Massey seconded the motion. Massey asked if it had been confirmed that applicant currently holds Class A licenses in Loveland and Longmont. Lee stated that there was no confirmation of this in the file. Massey stated that he would like to add a friendly amendment to the motion that the applicant be required to show verification that his license is current and in good standing in both Loveland and Longmont and that a letter be placed in the file covering the Board's actions, making it clear that this exam waiver was a one-time exemption. Fielder asked Little if he was amenable to the proposed amendment. Little confirmed this. Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman asked Massey if the waiver was conditioned upon the applicant first producing the requested documentation. Massey confirmed this. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, Little, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey Nays: None The motion carried. S. BOB CAMPBELL, representing CECO CONSTRUCTORS: Lee outlined the hearing procedures that would be used in this case. Lee clarified that Bob Campbell, the appellant in this case, is actually one of the owners of the project in question and not merely a representative of CECO Constructors. Campbell is proposing a 224 unit multi -family project and is asking that a waiver be granted around the City's framing contractor license requirements. It is Campbell's intent to use a single licensed framing contractor and non -licensed framing subcontractors who would be responsible to that licensed framing contractor. Lee referred Board Members to the information submitted by Campbell that was included in Board packets. In that information, appellant listed several factors that contributed to the need for the variance requested, including: the large scale of the project; the specialized nature of the construction process in that they use very systematized and modular sequential framing that requires specialized crews and an experienced large-scale framing contractor that is familiar with this production method; and that a hardship is created if the waiver is not granted since production and project momentum would be adversely affected if all independent framing crews are required to be licensed. Lee stated that the appellant has proposed an alternative for quality control that includes the hiring of a engineering firm that would perform independent inspections in addition to the standard City inspections in an effort to provide an extra measure of quality assurance. Lee noted that at least in the beginning stages of a previous project that appellant and CECO Constructors were involved in, there were some problems in terms of deficiencies that were observed by City inspectors who performed framing inspections. The deficiencies included damaged and broken truss members that were in place and specified connector systems that were not installed. Lee BRB February 24, 2000 Page 6 stated that, eventually the issues were resolved and that when the hired quality control agency issued their final report, it verified that these items had been corrected. Lee provided a brief overview of the City's framing license requirements and reviewed the authority given to Board Members related to this hearing. Eckman provided some additional clarification on the definition of hardship. He stated that a hardship is not just an inconvenience that the operation of a law imposes upon everyone. It has to be unique to the appellant. Appellant, Bob Campbell, addressed the Board. He mentioned that he is proposing a 224 unit multi -family project located between Huntington Hills and Miramont. He stated that this is a project that has been going through the City's process for two years. It was very difficult to obtain Planning & Zoning approval, but that has now been obtained. He is currently in the process of submitting a development agreement and mylars. Campbell presented some slides of the previous project that was done. He 'stated that his company builds a high -end product and that they plan to take what they learned from the first project and do an even better job on the project that has currently been proposed. Appellant stated that multi -family construction is an industry of its own, and is not like residential or commercial construction. He mentioned that he is asking for this variance because the framer sets the critical path of the project. His particular framer will not come on -site until seven slabs have been poured. The framing contractor will come on -site, will start the job with a layout crew and then, within a week, will increase to approximately 50 workers. The framing contractor that appellant intends to use has been used for all of his Coloradoprojects. It is, a large framing company in the Colorado area. This contractor breaks his employees into specialized crews because the volume of the job is so large, i.e., layout crews, walls & component crews, etc. The reason so many slabs are required is because the layout crew will do their part of the work on all of the slabs, and then are followed by the framing crew who will frame one story on all of the slabs, who, in turn, are followed by the truss crew who will lay the trusses on all of the slabs, etc. The crews start to develop a rhythm. According to the appellant, these crews have been used by the contractor many times over and are specific to the industry. They are not home framers, but framers who have found a niche, have learned the construction, and perform only that construction. Campbell stated that one thing he is very proud of in his projects is the use of components. The doors, windows, etc., are all preset which aids in accuracy so that doors and windows all fit properly and are square. He has found the use of components to increase production and feels that it is a premium to use them. Another thing, according to appellant, that differs on multi- family projects from typical residential construction is the size of the buildings and the differences in the design and engineering that is required due to the size difference. Campbell referred Board Members to some drawings that were provided. He drew their attention to hardware requirements and shear wall components. It was his opinion that these items were very complicated, but designed this way to handle the wind speed requirements of Ft. Collins. The framing contractor that Campbell uses is very familiar with these items. Campbell stated that he believed he could provide the quality and safety required by the City, but wanted the flexibility to utilize the team that he is familiar with and that he knows can provide the production that is needed to get the project completed in a timely fashion. Appellant mentioned that the cost of the project is approximately $21 million dollars. The framing aspect of the project equates to approximately $3.5 to $4 million dollars, and is an essential piece of the project. BRB February 24, 2000 Page 7 Campbell stated that he uses Terracon as a third party inspection agency because he wants to build a good project and because it is a requirement of his lenders. Using Terracon for the proposed project was offered by Campbell as a way to provide an additional level of quality assurance if the framing license requirements were waived in this case. Campbell briefly reviewed some of the framing problems that occurred in his first project and stated that he believed he was now meeting all of the City's requirements related to providing a quality project. The appellant stated that he began working on the proposed development two years ago, and has diligently worked to get the project off the ground. In those two years, governmental fees have greatly increased. For his first project, Campbell mentioned that he paid $1.7 million dollars for 280 units and that the fees for the proposed project (224 units) have risen to $3.3 million dollars. This increase was something that appellant could not have anticipated, but he has chosen to move forward in good faith because he believes in the project. Campbell reiterated that the framing portion of this project, due to the size of the project and the amount of lumber that is used, is a critical portion of the project and stated that it sets the tone for the remainder of the subcontractors. Campbell was concerned that if he were required to use already licensed Ft. Collins framers the majority of the companies would not be able to complete the project in a timely fashion. He stated that there would be a percentage that could do it, but that those framing crews are unknown to him and he was unsure whether the type of construction that would be used on the project would be a normal type of construction for them. Campbell stated that the subcontract crews that he intends to use that are not licensed with Ft. Collins have worked with his framing contractor for years. This type of construction is the only type of work they do. He mentioned that his framing contractor had completed at least 75 similar projects along the front range over the past five years. The framing contractor came from Houston, Texas, but has not gone back for five years because the work in Colorado is so good. This contractor has informed Campbell that he is not interested in getting himself and all of his subcontractors licensed in the City to enable them to do this project. According to Campbell, if he is not granted a variance to the license regulations, he will have to choose another framer. Campbell introduced Bill Attwooll from Terracon and provided Board Members with copies of the inspection reports that were generated on his first project. Mr. Attwooll addressed the Board. He stated that he is the manager of Terracon consultants in Ft. Collins and a registered Professional Engineer in the State of Colorado. Attwooll verified that Terracon provided the services that had been previously discussed, including shear wall, building, concrete and other inspections. Attwooll stated that the primary inspector that was used on the project was ICBO certified and that registered professional engineers from Terracon staff also assisted with inspections and signed off on the individual buildings. The manner in which the buildings were constructed, where one crew followed right behind another, required that an adjustment be made to increase the number of times Terracon performed on -site inspections. A log and spreadsheet were set up for each building noting the inspections that had been done, the issues that needed to be resolved, and the subsequent inspections that were done to assure that the issues were corrected. It took between 5 and 8 visits to each building to accomplish the inspections. Attwooll stated that there were a few hiccups in the early stages of the project. Before actually signing off on the buildings, there were some instances where the contractor was required to open up finished walls so that Terracon could view the work that had been done. Attwooll mentioned that their inspections showed that everything was appropriately and correctly done. m February 24, 2000 Page 8 Campbell stated that his initial agreement with Terracon had a set number of inspections per building. They found that the number listed in the contract was not sufficient and renegotiated the number of inspections that were needed for each building. Campbell mentioned that this explains some of the deficiencies that were found early on in the project. Hauck asked Attwooll for clarification on the extent of their inspections for the proposed project and if they would be primarily limited to shear walls. Campbell answered that the inspections would not be related only to shear walls and that a variety of inspections would be scheduled including a framing inspection. Hauck asked for clarification on the proposal from Terracon that was included in Board packets. Attwooll stated that the proposal that was included in Board packets was only for shear wall inspections. A separate proposal would be done for framing inspections, etc. Hauck asked Attwooll about pricing for framing inspections. Attwooll was unsure and mentioned that he would have to sit down with the framing contractor and work through the level of effort that would be required to perform all of the necessary framing inspections. .They have not done this yet, but plan to. Campbell mentioned that at this point he anticipated contracting with Attwooll for an approximate amount of $45,000 and planned to have them visit the site on a regular basis throughout the duration of the project. Campbell introduced Steve Cohera with United Builders, a drywall subcontractor he used for his first project. Steve addressed the Board. He mentioned that his company had.done three projects. with l�ti. Campbell His company'is based out of the Denver area and they do a lot of work in Colorado and the front range area. He stated that eighty percent of the work they do is multi- family work. Cohera stated that he has an opportunity to see many different contractors. According to Cohera, his experiences with Campbell have been very successful due primarily to the extent of coordination between the hired general contractor and the various subcontractors. Cohera mentioned that the variance that Campbell is asking for would enable him to use a specific framing contractor who is well-known to Cohera. According to Cohera, his company follows behind this framing contractor on approximately ninety percent of their multi -family work. Cohera stated that the quality of the framing contractor that Campbell is intending to use is very good. There are not a lot of corrections needed which is important to Cohera since the success of his company is based on production. It was his opinion that having one framing contractor in control would be very positive for the overall coordination of the project. Cohera reiterated that the framer sets the pace of the project and stressed the importance of avoiding hiccups due to the time and effort that are required to fix the issues. Cohera was very complimentary of Campbell's company and his general contractor. Little asked Cohera how many projects his company had completed behind Campbell's framing contractor. Cohera answered that they had completed approximately 20 jobs behind this framing contractor over the past five years, equating to about 3,000 multi -family units. Little stated that he was aware of the importance of having the framing done correctly prior to installing the drywall and asked Cohera what his experience had been regarding the quality of framing work done by Campbell's contractor. Cohera answered that generally when there had BRB February 24, 2000 Page 9 been problems in the past, the problems were detected early and corrected quickly and that there have been very few times when his crews' work has been delayed due to outstanding problems. Gale Chadwick, owner of Chadwick Electric, addressed the Board. He stated that requiring Campbell to use a different framing contractor could create a hardship for the project by creating delays. According to Chadwick, it is currently impossible to find skilled labor in the Ft. Collins and Denver areas. The only way to get skilled labor is to train them, which takes time, or to take already trained employees from someone else. Chadwick mentioned that his labor costs are increasing at a rate of thirty perc6nt per year since he is forced to continually increase wages in order to keep trained employees. If projects become delayed, it creates a financial hardship for his company. Chadwick stated that he has done one job for Campbell and, at the present time, is involved in eight projects that are very similar to the project that has been proposed. He added that Davis Brothers, the general contractor hired by Campbell, constructs a quality product, is well organized, and he appreciates working for them. Chadwick mentioned that quality is not of any concern with this contractor. Massey mentioned that one of the charges the Board has is to find that a hardship is exceptional or peculiar to a specific project. He asked Chadwick how the labor cost increase was special to this project versus any other project. Chadwick answered that he would have more of a problem with a Ft. Collins contractor because of the delays that would occur due to the reduced speed of construction. Instead of a seven or eight month project, Chadwick stated that it could easily become a twelve or thirteen month project. According to Chadwick, in this particular case, the proposed framing contractor would be able to come in and get the job done in a timeframe that a local framing company probably could not do. Chadwick mentioned several other multi -family projects in Ft. Collins that his company is working on and stated that he could compare the speed of those, which have been done by local framing contractors, to what is anticipated for the proposed project. He stated that the local framing contractors are slower and it costs his company more when they work on those jobs. Campbell mentioned that his hardship is created by the specific nature in which his projects are built. He did not believe that this type of construction was typical or that the licensed framers in Ft. Collins were the best framing contractors to hire for his project. He stated that the components, the shear walls, the hardware, etc., are extensive and the framer that he wants to use is extremely educated in this type of construction. Lee asked Campbell to elaborate on the nature of the relationship between the licensed framer and the structure under which the non -licensed crews would work, together with the number of workers that would be present on -site. Campbell mentioned that the framer he is proposing to use holds a City framing license and has two on -site hourly supervisors together with some hourly employees. Outside crews are hired to construct specific items, i.e., a crew for wall erection, a separate crew for floor trusses, another crew for roof trusses, etc. A crew may consist of three to eight men and there could be multiple crews for each specific item. All of the crews would report directly to the supervisors of the framing contractor who would then report to the superintendent of the general contractor. According to Campbell, when the project is in full momentum, there could be up to 150 men on -site. This number of workers would be maintained for approximately three months and would then start to scale back down. BRB February 24, 2000 Page 10 Lee asked for additional clarification on the crews that are hired. Campbell stated that each crew has its own foreman who reports directly to the supervisor of the framing contractor. For more complicated construction, i.e., shear wall placement, the licensed framing contractor would utilize hourly employees from his company. He would also use his employees to resolve small issues or to "catch up" an area that is behind. Hauck asked for clarification on the number of licensed people that would be on site. Campbell answered that the general contractor's superintendent would be licensed and on the site full-time. The framing contractor would have a license, but would not be on -site full-time. The framing contractor would also have two to three supervisors who would have a license and would be on - site. Campbell added that there might be some chance that one or more of the framing subcontractors that are used may also have a license. Hauck asked if the foreman of the subcontractor crews would generally not have a license. Campbell confirmed this. Hauck asked about the nature of reimbursement for the crews. Campbell stated that they are paid by piece work. Hauck asked if the crew members were direct employees of the subcontractor. Campbell answered that they are not direct employees. Lee asked Campbell if City staff would receive all of the reports done by Terracon and if inspections would be done prior to the time City staff performed inspections. Campbell confirmed this. Jon Estabrook, and City building inspector, addressed the Board. He stated that his comments are not addressed against any of the contractors or developers, but are comments in favor of.the _.. _ — City's framing license. Estabrook mentioned that three to five years ago, multi -family construction virtually did not exist in Ft. Collins. However, the real estate industry has predicted that multi -family permits will out pace single family permits in the near future. Estabrook stated that multi -family construction does have some special requirements, but those requirements are in addition to basic framing requirements that are the same as those required for single-family construction. According to Estabrook, some of those specifics include one -hour occupancy separation of units, draftstop construction, three story construction techniques, certain commercial requirements that do not apply to residential, accessibility clearances, etc. Estabrook mentioned that typically with multi -family construction, contractors come from out of town and may not be familiar with our local codes and amendments. Part of the testing requirements for the framing license address those specifics and are directly applicable to framing. After reviewing the City's exam, Estabrook stated that twenty-five percent of the test dealt directly with multi -family construction. Another item, according to Estabrook, that is particular to multi -family construction which has already been addressed is the fast -track construction schedule, meaning that there are multiple buildings on a job site that are in various stages of progress. City inspectors have found that this type of construction has lead to mistakes being repeated from one building to another, and have had trouble on numerous occasions with inspections being scheduled prior to the time the work is actually complete and ready for an inspection. Estabrook stated that another item particular to multi -family construction is the larger workforce which, based on experience from previous projects, has led to some concerns among the inspection staff that the amount of supervision for these work groups has not been adequate. February 24, 2000 Page 11 Estabrook mentioned that the common problems that were found on Campbell's first project included basic framing issues, truss bracing issues, broken trusses, structural shear wall assemblies, pull -down components, point load posting, firestopping and structural truss hangers that were either missing, modified or improper hangers used. Estabrook commented that he was unaware of any multi -family contractors and/or developers that are immune to these types of problems. Estabrook reiterated the fact that there is a thriving market in Ft. Collins and that there is a shortage of skilled labor. It was his opinion that this was an overall industry problem. He also mentioned that the increase in framing wages was specific to the industry as a whole and not related to one specific contractor more than any other. City inspection staff addressed the Home Builders Association earlier in the month and specifically asked them about Ft. Collins' framing license requirements and about the impacts it has had on the industry. Estabrook was informed at that meeting that this had been a somewhat heated issue and that it caused problems and concerns for many contractors when the license was initially implemented. However, the consensus at the meeting was that the problems have now been resolved, that contractors have caught up with the licensing requirements, and that the quality of framing is at a higher level than prior to the time the license was required. Estabrook stated that there are several multi -family projects being constructed in Ft. Collins and that those contractors have been able to comply with the licensing requirements. He thought it would be competitively unfair to those contractors who are complying if a variance was granted in this case, and that granting a variance would set a negative precedent in the framing industry in Ft. Collins. If one variance is granted, it would be difficult not to apply the same variance to all framing contractors. Little asked Estabrook if he saw the validity of Campbell's request from the standpoint of continuity. Estabrook answered that he did not think there were any residential contractors that were not doing the same type of work that Campbell has proposed. He stated that single-family, as well as multi -family contractors are now using component systems. Little asked if Estabrook could comment on Campbell's issue of hardship as it related to needing multiple, specific crews to complete the project. Estabrook answered that he did not believe that this was a hardship. Other multi -family projects are able to perform the same type of construction and still adhere to the City's licensing requirements. According to Estabrook, it would be hard to say that this was a hardship specific to Campbell that does not apply to any of the other contractors. Little asked for clarification on the numbers of buildings and units that were represented in other multi -family projects currently being constructed in the City. Estabrook answered that the projects range from 10 to 20 buildings, representing 100 to 200 units. Eckman discussed with the Board the terminology from Section 15-153 of the City's licensing regulations. He mentioned that the first part of the Section that deals with hardship is applicable to this issue. However, it was his opinion that the second part dealing with qualifications did not. He read a portion of the regulations, as follows: "or when such applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board that the applicant possesses other qualifications not specifically listed in this article, such as specialized training, education or additional experience which the Board has determined qualifies the applicant to perform, in a confident manner, any construction authorized under the license or certificate sought..." BRB February 24, 2000 Page 12 Eckman mentioned that as he read this, it became apparent that Council intended this language to apply to individuals seeking licenses under Section 15-156(d). He stated that this language is not applicable to a variance application. Fielder asked for clarification on whether the additional inspections were of any relevance in this issue. Eckman answered that if the additional inspections were intended to show that this gave them additional qualifications, based on what the language of the regulations states, it was his opinion that this would not be something the Board should consider in the variance request. Eckman stated that the Board should consider all of the arguments made regarding hardship, to see if a peculiar or unique hardship could be found relative to the proposed project. Eckman instructed the Board to also consider any items that might constitute exceptional practical difficulties or an exceptional undue hardship relative to the proposed project. Chris O'Brien, President of Front Range Framing Contractors, addressed the Board. He mentioned that his company is locally owned and operated. He has personally been involved in the construction industry for over 18 years, has worked in the New England area, in California and, for the last six years, in Colorado. He studied architecture for five years at the University of Southern California and has worked for architects, engineers, contractors, etc. It was O'Brien's opinion that the real issue in this case was money. He stated that the appellant's proposal works well to his advantage since it allows him to bring in large groups of piece workers from out -of state who, often times, are minorities who do not read, write or understand English. O'Brien mentioned that this is not unique to appellant, it happens a lot. O'Brien stated that a lot had been said about needing professional carpenters and specific crews, etc. However, it was O'Brien's opinion that the caliber of workers that are actually used in the field precludes them from being able to take the City's exam since many of them could not read the test to begin with, and most of them would not come close to passing the test. As far as local availability, O'Brien stated that his company is available to work on these types of projects. There are other local contractors that O'Brien knows of that would be able to assist. O'Brien mentioned that although none of the local companies operate with 150 workers, if they were given the opportunity to band together, similar to what is being done by the framing contractor appellant is proposing to use, they could supply 60-100 workers, six fork lifts, etc., and probably do a much nicer job than what would be done otherwise. O'Brien stated that he holds a City Class B license. He mentioned that he chooses to operate as a framing company because that is the work he likes to do. According to O'Brien, his company has been hurt time and time again by outfits who come from out of town and don't pay for compensation insurance, don't pay employment taxes, don't contribute to social security, don't have safety programs, etc. O'Brien mentioned that his employees are individuals who live in the community, pay taxes, own homes, many have families, etc. They are hard working citizens that care about what they do and build good products. As far as the complexity of the buildings that are proposed, O'Brien stated that he has built numerous buildings that have similar constnuction, as well as large commercial buildings that ranged anywhere from 20,000 to 60,000 square feet and as high as four stories. He mentioned that shear walls, hardware, etc., are standard items in construction. It was his opinion that components were being used in an effort to make the construction as simple as possible for the inexperienced workers that would be obtained so they could complete the project. February 24, 2000 Page 13 O'Brien stated that there was no hardship in this case and that the appellant was simply trying to have workers come in from out of town who would work below cost compared to a competitive bid from other contractors who are licensed. By hiring piece workers, the employer is not required to pay for worker's compensation, employment taxes, etc. O'Brien stated that this is a "slap in the face" to those employers in town who do pay for worker's compensation and all other employee -related expenses. O'Brien mentioned that he was never given opportunity to bid on the project. He said that appellant's statement that there were no local framing contractors who could do the project was not true. According to O'Brien, on large projects similar to the one being proposed, his crews pre -fabricate items. When the first hole is being dug for a foundation, O'Brien said his crews will begin pre- fabricating the walls for the buildings. This gives O'Brien's crews better quality control, added precision in the work being done, and increased efficiency. O'Brien stated that he operates similar to appellant in that he separates his employees into wall crews, floor crews, roof crews, etc. O'Brien agreed that this process works better in production framing situations so that the learning curve does not have to be repeated. O'Brien stated that if the Board grants this variance, then the licensing might as well be dropped altogether. It was his opinion that rules should be adhered to or abandoned. From a financial standpoint, O'Brien stated that it would be advantageous for him not to have to purchase worker's comp, pay FICA, etc. However, he mentioned that his employees are not unknown piece workers, but rather employees that he knows and cares for, so he does it. O'Brien thought that this was a chance for the Board to do the right thing and give those contractors who are trying to operate legitimately a boost and a reason to band together to make Ft. Collins a better place. Rick Garhart, President and Co -Owner of Bear Construction, addressed the Board. He stated that he was a local contractor that was able to bid on the proposed project. According to Garhart, in appellant's request, Campbell was not being completely truthful because none of the bidding contractors were informed that the project needed to have 150 workers, that there would be eight buildings under construction at the same time, etc. Garhart stated that when he asked for this type of information, he was told that the framing contractor would be given 18 days per building, that two to three buildings would be going at a time, and that the first building would need to be constructed by itself. Garhart mentioned that in the appellant's request it stated that he needed experienced, specialized crews and then later on mentioned that unlike framing, there are professional subcontractors being utilized in the areas of mechanical, plumbing and electrical. Garhart stated that these trades are licensed and appellant will be using them and paying them accordingly. It was Garhart's opinion that the City of Ft. Collins' framing license made framing a professional subcontractor. Garhart stated that all contractors have to coordinate with other subcontractors on a daily basis to make projects go well, to ensure the quality of a project, etc. This is not new to them. He also mentioned that appellant has stated that framing is critical. Garhart questioned why, if the framing was critical, appellant would not want to use a professional framing subcontractor who would be the sole contact point and would guarantee the work that was performed. BRB February 24, 2000 Page 14 Garhart clarified that he was not in attendance at this hearing because he was trying to obtain this job, but that he was at the hearing because he has worked for nine years in the Ft. Collins community to build a professional subcontracting business and to provide customers with the stability and security that a professional subcontractor should provide. Garhart added that if the appellant did not want to use a local contractor that is okay — it is his business, his money, etc. However, if that framer is not required to abide by the same regulations as other local framing contractors, according to Garhart, an unfair advantage is created. Garhart stated that the appellant's proposal in this case makes him a labor broker. It was Garhart's opinion that the appellant would not know the workers who were hired, would subcontract the work at a price that is based on quantity and not quality, and would not care if a worker was sick, injured or left the company. Garhart continued that this arrangement would allow the appellant to cut his costs by 30% -- 20% for costs associated with carrying worker's compensation and another 10% for costs associated with payroll expenses, and would enable him to underbid other contractors. It was Garhart's opinion that this variance was requested for no other reason than money and that that reason should not be sufficient to change a rule which has already shown a positive impact on the quality of work being done in Ft. Collins. Garhart stated that the local building code does not change for projects based on size, type, or who is performing the work. He questioned why the local regulations should be changed for any of those reasons. Paul Diana from the Rocky Mountain Regional Council of Carpenters addressed the Board. He mentioned that he had just recently been assigned the Ft. Collins' area and that one of the first _._._.-..., ..__- a things he found out about was the City's framing license tegwrement. Diana stated that he found this requirement refreshing because it showed that there was some thought about protecting the City's taxpayers and consumers who would be purchasing homes. He mentioned that this type of regulation has been lacking in the country for more than 20 years now. Diana stated that he has watched, over the past 31 years, the decimation of workers who were, at one time, a very proud group of individuals. He continued that these workers perform a very important job — building the infrastructure of our country. According to Diana, the construction industry is the most highly skilled industry in America. Diana thanked the Board for the framing license regulation. He stated that he was encouraged by this and that the union was in support of it. He continued by saying that it is the position of the union that the construction industry is responsible to the community and if workers are unskilled and uneducated then the education should be provided to them. It was Diana's opinion that the City's framing license is a way of providing that education. Diana pointed out that one of the reasons that electricians and plumbers have a better industry is due to the control and regulations that are provided through licensing. Diana closed by stating that he was encouraged by the City's licensing efforts and applauded the Board's efforts related to this. Campbell provided a closing statement to the Board. He mentioned that the City inspector verified by his remarks that multi -family construction had experienced recent growth in the City of Ft. Collins and that there was a labor shortage. Campbell stated that he was glad to hear that Bear Construction had had the opportunity to bid on his project and did not believe that the project was misrepresented to him. He encouraged Front Range Framing to bid on his project and stated that this contractor would need to prove that he had the ability to staff the job appropriately for the schedule that is needed. FEW, February 24, 2000 Page 15 Campbell was concerned, due to the labor shortage, that his job would be handicapped if he were not granted this variance. He referenced another framing company in town that he had knowledge of that had framing labor difficulties and stated that project momentum suffered because of this. With the shortage of labor, if this were to happen on the proposed project, Campbell feared that it would have a rippling effect throughout the balance of his contractors. Campbell also confirmed that he would not be using all out-of-town contractors. His mechanical, electrical and plumbing contractors that he anticipates using are all local. His proposed framing contractor is from the Denver area, has knowledge of the front range and, on a regular basis, has 400 to 500 workers available to him at any time. Campbell stated that these are not workers that this contractor simply digs up, but rather workers that are maintained by the company due to the volume of business they have. Campbell closed by stating that he did not believe that granting a variance in this case would set a precedent. Based on the current labor shortage, Campbell was concerned about the development of his project and he stated that he was simply trying to do proactive things to ensure the success of his project. According to Campbell, any developer would be able to come before the Board and ask for the same thing. It was his opinion that the Board granting this variance would not be setting a precedent, but simply acknowledging current industry conditions. Lee referred Board Members to the three letters that were received by staff in support of the City's framing licensing regulations. He closed by stating that the City's licensing regulations are in place to help assure the health and welfare of the community at large. He added that the Board should not consider any of the testimony that related to the financial arrangements between workers and employers, worker's compensation costs, payroll taxes, etc. The issue before the Board is whether or not the appellant haddemonstrated sufficiently that a unique hardship exists. Fielder asked for clarification on the amount of time the proposed project had been in the planning process. Campbell answered that the project had been going through the planning process for approximately two years. There was brief discussion regarding the cost of worker's compensation, payroll taxes, etc., that are required as part of the framing license if the contractor has employees. Lee stated that these items are not germane to this case since the appellant was not requesting a variance due to a financial hardship. Hauck stated that for the last fourteen months the framing contractors have been treated as a licensed trade. It was his opinion that once the City made the determination that framing contractors were a licensed trade, the same set rules should be used for all framing contractors. Hauck mentioned that there were only two ways to adhere to the City's licensing requirements — to utilize subcontractors who hold a valid City license, or for a licensed subcontractor to be in the direct supervision of an employee that meets all of the regulations of being an employee including worker's compensation, tax benefits, etc. Hauck continued by stating that if a similar proposal came before the Board from an electrical trade the Board would have no trouble denying the variance. It was his opinion that none of the Board Members would support having unlicensed electricians or electricians that were not in the direct employ and supervision of a license holder on a project. Hauck stated that since it was determined fourteen months ago to treat the framing trade the same as the electrical trade, he thought it was extremely clear that this variance should not be supported. Little mentioned that after being a developer of multi -family units for more than twenty years, he was aware of the difficulty of scheduling, etc., and was sensitive to the appellant's request. However, he was concerned that there had not been enough supporting evidence presented that February 24, 2000 Page 16 demonstrated that a production hardship existed. Little stated that it would have been helpful if the appellant had gone out to the licensed framing contractors and asked for bids and had he not received any acceptable bids back, then possibly a hardship would have existed. As much as Little was sensitive to appellant's situation, he did not think, in fairness to other contractors in the community that had been subject to the City's licensing requirements, that an issue of hardship had been proven. Kreul-Froseth stated that she agreed that no hardship had been proven in this case. It was her opinion that all contractors should be treated the same despite the size of the company or the project. Massey stated that although the labor shortage may be hardship, he did not believe it was a hardship that was peculiar or exceptional to only the appellant. On the issue of project fees doubling, Massey mentioned that he had a client relate this exact same thing to him on a project that he was working on. It was Massey's opinion that this, too, was not a peculiar or exceptional hardship specific only to appellant. Hauck stated that he wanted to make it clear that no one was saying that appellant could not hire the contractor he wanted to use -- this was not a local hiring issue. He said the issue is an insistence that if an outside contractor is used, they meet the same requirements as all other contractors. Hartmann asked for clarification on why the proposed framing contractor was not interested in obtaining a license in the community. Campbell stated that this contractor works. all along the front range and has an abundance of work. Whether or not he does this project is of no consequence to him. He is not willing to make the effort to obtain the necessary licenses. Campbell mentioned that he heard what the Board was saying regarding the increase in fees not being a unique hardship to him. However, he continued, that whenever a project goes from $1.7 million to $3.3 million, this chokes a project. According to Campbell, because the project has been in process for two years and he has so much money invested in it, he almost has to go forward with it. Adhering to the licensing criteria is yet another layer of difficulty that Campbell will be forced to deal with if the variance is not granted. Campbell stated that although you can get through difficulties, the project suffers. He reiterated the fact that he can provide the quality of product and safety that the City requires, he just wants to do this in a manner that will work for him. Campbell stated that his general contractor had obtained bids from some local framing contractors and had talked with dozens of them. However, it was his opinion that it takes a certain type of contractor to have the ability to oversee a $3.5 to $4 million dollar contract. Hauck made a motion, based on the reasons outlined in the discussion of the Board, that appellant's request for variance be denied. Lee stated that the Board might want to identify some findings of fact with respect to the appellant's variance request. Eckman mentioned that it might be acceptable to find that there was a failure to show an appropriate hardship. Hauck amended his motion to read that due to the fact that an appropriate hardship had not been demonstrated and due to the fact that the appellant had other options available that would allow him to keep the same subcontracting team by either licensing the subcontractors if they are acting 17, BRB February 24, 2000 Page I? as subcontractors, or hiring them as direct employees if they are going to act as employees, he made a motion to deny the appellant's variance request. Kreul-Froseth seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, Little, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey Nays: None The motion carried. Fielder reminded appellant that he had fourteen days within which to appeal the Board's decision to City Council. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Contractor License Regulation Revisions: Lee referred Board Members to the information in their packets regarding this issue. He mentioned that for the past couple of years he had intended on revisiting the contractor licensing ordinance and making necessary revisions. One primary impetus for revising the licensing regulations was to clarify that framing is a licensed trade, rather than relying on the broad language of the current ordinance under which we now operate. In addition, some housekeeping items will be proposed that would create the same requirements for virtually all of the contractors, i.e., equalizing fees, requiring the same application/approval process for specialty trades as currently exists for general contractors, and requiring that the specialty trades have certified supervisors as currently exists for general contractors. Other housekeeping items will include clarifying definitions and exemptions. Additional specialty trades including wood frame construction, wireless telecommunications systems, structural concrete/masonry, elevators, insulation, fire protection materials, solid fuel appliances and radon systems are also being proposed. Lee stated that he will be enlisting a task team to work on the proposed revisions. He anticipates that this group will be a cross-section representing some of the proposed specialty trades, the framing industry, general contractors, and a non-professional citizen constituent. Lee welcomed any direct participation from Board Members who were interested. Lee anticipated that this group would meet during evening hours in two to three fairly concentrated meetings. The group will work through the licensing issues and come up with an agreeable form that will be presented to the public at large through an open house, and then to the Board for further action. The last step will be to forward a final proposal to City Council along with a recommendation from the Board. Hauck asked for clarification on the time span. Lee answered that he hoped to have something finalized by May, 2000. Fielder asked for clarification on how this project fits into the work proposed for the 2000 code. Lee answered that the licensing revision project is of higher priority at this point since the City is working under a fairly new building code. It is anticipated that work on the 2000 code will start later this year. Eckman provided some clarification on changes he is proposing to the draft license regulation revisions. RB February 24, 2000 Page 18 Little asked for clarification on where the volunteers would come from. Lee answered that he hoped to get volunteers directly from the building industry and the homebuilders association. Little expressed an interest in participating on the task team. B. Board Member Attendance: Fielder stated that Board Member Hansch had been absent regularly. Fielder had tried on numerous occasions to contact him, but had not received any response. Fielder stated that Hansch had been a real contributor to the Board in the past and that it was with reluctance that he brought up the idea of entertaining the thought of replacing him with another board member. Eckman provided clarification on the process. He stated that only City Council has the authority to replace a board member. According to Eckman, the board chair could discuss the situation with the Council liaison and let him forward the issue to Council, or the Board could pass a motion recommending to Council that the board member be replaced, or both. Fielder stated that he would be more comfortable if the Board would vote on this issue. He made a motion that, due to excessive absences, the Board make a recommendation to City Council that Board Member Hansch be replaced. Hauck seconded the motion. Massey mentioned that it appeared that Hansch had already made the decision for the Board by. not showing up, He was, in support of the motion. ., Board members discussed whether or not there had been any communication with Hansch, verbally or in writing, and whether it made sense to communicate with him again in writing asking for his resignation. Fielder was concerned with timing since Hansch had already been absent from four or five meetings. It was suggested that this be done concurrently with the recommendation to Council. Eckman stated that no letter of resignation was required. Lee mentioned that Board Members were given the option of submitting a letter of resignation due to conflicts, etc., in the letter that was sent out a couple of months ago. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, Little, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey Nays: None The motion carried. A memorandum outlining the Board's action will be forward to Council Liaison Kastein for further action. Meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m. � �� Felix Lee, bit5Wr of Building & Zoning