Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 08/26/1999Liaison: Kurt Kastein 11 Staff Liaison: Felix Lee A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, August 26, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Fielder, Allan Hauck, Susan Kreul-Froseth, Gene Little, Bradley Massey BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Rudy Hansch and Thomas Hartmann 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: Chairperson Fielder mentioned that on page 7, near the bottom, the minutes referred to Fielder making a motion to have a letter of reprimand placed in a contractor file. He noted that Board Member Hansch made this motion and that he provided the second. It was also noted that Board Member Hartmann's name was misspelled. Board Member Hauck made a motion to approve the Minutes from the July 29, 1999 meeting as amended. Board Member Massey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the Minutes from the July 29, 1999 meeting were approved as amended. 3. EXAM WAIVER REQUEST — RONALD RUDKIN D/B/A RUDKIN CONTRACTOR: Fielder explained the procedures that would be used for the meeting. Ron Rudkin addressed the Board. He mentioned that he started his general contracting business in • 1982 in Casper, Wyoming. At that time, the majority of the work he did was designing and building residential homes. His company built an average of 4-5 homes per year, and expanded into commercial remodels and tenant finishes. In 1986, Rudkin moved his business to Fort Collins. He obtained a Class D license with the City of Fort Collins at that time, and since, had built homes in Taft Canyon and in a variety of other subdivisions. His company has continued to focus on the • • BRB Aug. 26, 1999 Page 2 • design and construction of high -end custom homes, together with a few commercial projects. Rudkin documented the commercial projects he had completed and submitted that information to City staff in support of his Class E license application. He currently has a commercial tenant finish project in Ft. Collins pending. Hauck asked for clarification on Rudkin's current class of license. Rudkin answered that he currently holds a Class D 1 license with the City. Hauck asked for clarification on any exams that were taken in order to obtain that license. Rudkin answered that he took a general contractor's exam given by the City. Board Member Little asked for clarification on the pending project. Rudkin provided this. Board Member Kreul-Froseth asked if the project documentation was sufficient to support the Class E license. Felix Lee answered that staff had just received the project documentation prior to the meeting and that he was currently reviewing the information. He provided Board Members with specifics on the projects that had been submitted. Rudkin added further clarification on these projects. Lee mentioned that some of the projects submitted did not meet the value criteria for a Class E project without combining them. Although, in one instance, the jobs were done at the same address, they were done at different times. He left it up to the Board's discretion as to whether or not these jobs qualified for the Class E license. Hauck asked Rudkin if the last time he took a Ft. Collins contractor's exam was in 1986. Rudkin confirmed this. Hauck asked Rudkin if he was licensed in any other jurisdiction. Rudkin stated that • he was not. Hauck asked if Rudkin had studied or taken an exam on the 1991 or newer version of the UBC code. Rudkin stated that he has studied this information, but has not taken an exam. Massey asked for clarification on the type of construction that is allowed under the Class E contractor's license. Lee answered that the Class E license allows for commercial tenant finish work. The work allowed must be nonstructural, but there is no restriction on value or size of the project. Little asked for clarification on whether license applicants are able to get exam waivers based on proof of experience when they have not taken exams elsewhere. Lee answered that the Board has the discretion to make this decision. The ordinance states that five projects and five years of experience are required to be documented prior to an exam waiver being granted. However, the Board is empowered to consider other factors, i.e., training, hardship, and other mitigating factors that relate to a specific applicant, when making a decision on whether or not to grant an exam waiver. Kreul-Froseth mentioned that in the past the Board has granted exam waivers for contractors who had passed architectural and engineering licensing exams or any other equivalent exam. She asked Rudkin if he had any specialized training or any hardship that the Board might be able to consider. Rudkin stated that his only hardship might be that he waited until after March to submit his application which was the time that procedures changed to require exams. As far as specialized training, Rudkin mentioned that building homes has provided education since contractors are required to stay abreast of code revisions, updates, etc. He mentioned that he has also been involved in many seminars, i.e., energy, stucco applications and other non -qualifying certificate type seminars. Massey mentioned that he was concerned that the Class E license allowed for very large -scope • projects and that most of the projects that were submitted in support of Applicant's license request were for small projects which barely met, or did not meet, the value criteria for a Class E project. • • BRB Aug. 26, 1999 Page 3 • Hauck made a motion to deny Applicant's request for an exam waiver. Kreul-Froseth seconded the motion. Little mentioned that he understood that licensing requirements were critical and were put in place as a guideline to make sure that projects were completed both in accordance with the code, and for the satisfaction of the customer. He was familiar with Rudkin Contracting and mentioned that their residential products were exceedingly good. He mentioned that he was not familiar with the commercial work that had been done. He was in favor of granting an exam waiver due to the in- depth experience the Applicant had in Fort Collins under the current code requirements, etc. Hauck mentioned that his motion was in no way intended to question the quality of workmanship of Rudkin Contracting, it merely addressed the exam waiver process. There is an exam process in place which helps assure that everyone who obtains a license has taken an exam and is current with building codes, etc. Rudkin mentioned that the difficulty of this process for him has been that the procedures may have been somewhat lax previously and now have gone significantly the other direction. Although this is probably for the better, when there are contractors who have been in the Community and have done a good job, this is not reflected as experience. He asked the Board to consider that he had been in the Community since 1986 and had no violations against his license. He also asked the Board to take into consideration the projects that had been completed by his company. Little mentioned that when a contractor comes into our Community and brings with them a past • portfolio but is not familiar with our building code requirements, he would be more apt to require testing for that individual. However, when there is a contractor that has built in the Community for as long as Rudkin has, and that contractor has had solid performance, the license seems to be somewhat of a technicality. Little in no way wanted to violate the technicality requirements if these were absolutely necessary. He was somewhat undecided on this issue. VOTE: Yeas: Massey, Fielder, Kreul-Froseth, Hauck Nays: Little The motion carried. Applicant's exam waiver request was denied. 4. EXAM WAIVER —RONALD K. JOHNSON: Ronald Johnson addressed the Board. He mentioned that he postponed submitting his license application while he was trying to get all of his framing crews licensed and, during that time, policies changed that required all contractors to test. He was bom and raised in Ft. Collins, went to school here, watched the town grow, and helped the town grow through building. His current boss is thinking about retiring which is the reason he had applied for a license. He was hoping to get an exam waiver from the Board. Fielder asked for clarification on whether or not the documented project experience was sufficient to support the license requested. Lee confirmed this. • Hauck asked if the Board had received all of the project documentation and noted that on two of the forms Johnson's primary responsibility was listed as framing. Lee verified that the Board did receive all of the project documentation that was submitted and pointed out that a couple of the forms were • • BRB Aug. 26, 1999 Page 4 • for numerous projects. Johnson added that in one of the subdivisions he has been involved with as an employee of Odau Construction, he has overseen 86 homes in a five year period. Little made a motion to approve a Class D exam waiver for Ronald K. Johnson, based on documented past experience. Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on the necessity of submitting five project documents versus only submitting three project documents. Lee answered that the minimum requirements for obtaining a license and supervisor's certificate are three projects and an exam. For the Dl license, which is the license that has been applied for in this case, all three projects would need to be equivalent to a new single family home. Under the exam waiver criteria that is included in the licensing ordinance, at least five projects and five years of experience must be documented before an exam waiver can be granted. Massey asked for clarification on exam equivalents. Lee answered that staff considers exams from other jurisdictions as equivalent to the Ft. Collins exam only if the exam covered the 1991 or later version of the UBC and when it has been determined that the exam was similar in scope to the test given in Ft. Collins. Lee mentioned that the Applicant in this case had not tested, but had been building under the 1997 code. Hauck's concern was that the Board be consistent with all applicants. If it is in the ordinance that five projects are sufficient for granting an exam waiver, then the Board should be consistent with this. • Kreul-Froseth mentioned that it appeared that Johnson met the requirements as set out in the ordinance. Hauck seconded the motion on the floor to grant Applicant's request for an exam waiver. VOTE: Yeas: Massey, Little, Fielder, Kreul-Froseth, Hauck Nays: None The motion carried. Applicant's exam waiver request was granted. 5. LICENSE HEARING — CRAIG SCHULTZ, D/B/A PRECISION ROOFING: Delynn Coldiron mentioned that the Respondent for Precision Roofing had to go out of town on a family emergency. He left a letter for the Board concerning his case. This letter was provided to Board Members. Fielder asked if the Board had dealt before with respondents who did not appear and whose license had been suspended by the Building Official. Lee mentioned that there was a roofing company approximately three months ago for which this was the case. Fielder asked for clarification on the outcome of that hearing. Coldiron mentioned that the Board imposed an additional 30 day suspension to that license. Lee reviewed the Summary of Allegations for the Board. On or about August 8, 1999 a City • inspector issued a Stop Work Order at 3018 Worthington due to roofing work being done without a permit and by a contractor who did not have a valid license. The contractor subsequently submitted the appropriate paperwork to obtain a roofing license; however, due to the fact that violations had occurred, the license was granted only to complete the work that had been started and was then t • BRB Aug. 26, 1999 Page 5 • suspended pending the Board hearing. The contractor did obtain the necessary permit prior to completing the job. This contractor previously had a license under the name of Elite Roofing which had expired. Lee mentioned that the Board may determine, with respect to the project at 3018 Worthington, that there was willful and deliberate disregard of the building code or other adopted code; and/or that there was a failure to comply with a provision of the code; and/or that there was a failure to obtain the required building permit; and/or that the work was performed without a valid license or supervisor certificate. Staff s assumption was that the Respondent should have known about the requirements for a license and permit since he had previously held a roofing license with the City of Ft. Collins. Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on the reason a license was issued to this contractor and then immediately suspended. Lee mentioned that this is staffs standard procedure when a contractor is found on a job without a license, especially with roofing, because it is the only way they can legally finish the job. Rather than have the contractor stop in the middle of the project, unless there are other mitigating factors which would dictate otherwise, a license is typically issued and the job -in -progress completed. Once the project is completed, the license is placed on suspension until the next Board hearing to determine what disciplinary action, if any, should be imposed. Lee mentioned that the Respondent's previous license expired in 1997. Massey asked for clarification on whether the license was issued to a company or an individual. Lee answered that specialty licenses are somewhat different since supervisor certificates are not issued. These licenses are issued to an individual person with the company's name listed. Massey asked • whether the Respondent's first license simply expired or if the Respondent went out of business as Elite Roofing. This was unknown. Kreul-Froseth asked about the procedure for reapplying for a roofing license. Lee provided clarification on this. Massey mentioned that it appeared from the Respondent's letter that he was trying to collect all of the necessary information so that he could reapply for a roofing license, but it was taking a long time for him to get the necessary reference letters back. Massey surmised that at the time the Respondent thought he would lose the job if he didn't start the work, he panicked and started the job. Lee mentioned that the license could have been somewhat delayed due to inconsistencies that occurred with staff vacations. There were reference letters on file under Elite Roofing that could have been used in support of this license. However, the file for Elite Roofing was not found until a later date. Massey asked if there were any actions against the Respondent under Elite Roofing. Lee answered that there were none. Massey mentioned that the Board has been directing that letters of reprimand be placed in contractor files for those contractors who have not had previous violations. Hauck asked if there were any other violations under Precision Roofing. Lee confirmed that there were no other violations. Hauck made a motion to unsuspend Respondent's license and place a letter of reprimand in the Respondent's permanent contractor file making note of the violations and informing him that any further violations would have severe consequences on his license. Fielder seconded the motion. • Kreul-Froseth asked if there was a way to cross-reference information so that violations can be tracked when contractors change company names, etc. Lee answered that this has been somewhat problematic in the past, but staff is working on ways to improve this. • BRB Aug. 26, 1999 • Page 6 VOTE: Yeas: Massey, Little, Fielder, Kreul-Froseth, Hauck Nays: The motion carried. 6. LICENSE HEARING — MIKE NICELY, D/B/A GENTLE EARTH: Lee mentioned that staff was unsure of whether or not the Respondent had received the paperwork relative to his appeal. This item was postponed to the September meeting. 7. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Charles Fielder was nominated as Chairperson. There were no other nominations. Massey made a motion to elect Fielder as Chairperson. Kreul-Froseth seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Al Hauck was nominated as Vice Chairperson. There were no other nominations. Kreul-Froseth made a motion to elect Hauck as Vice Chairperson. Fielder seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 8. OTHER BUSINESS: There was some discussion regarding developing guidelines that would help the Board maintain consistency in their decisions. Lee mentioned that under Tab 9 in the Board notebooks, there is some • information that was prepared related to this that could be helpful to the Board when making decisions. There was a request to get a summary of the cases that have come before the Board over the last six months including the action requested and/or the offense and the Board's finding related to each case. Staff will forward this information to the Board. Meeting adjourned at 2:20 p.m. 40 Felix ec C f Building & Zoning