Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 07/29/19991-1 •ITY CLERK' S OFFICE (APPROVED MINUTES) A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, July 29, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Hartmann, Rudy Hansch, Charles Fielder, Bradley Massey BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Susan Kreul-Froseth, Allan Hauck, Gene Little STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Director of Building & Zoning Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Sandy Lindell, staff support to Board OTHERS PRESENT: None. AGENDA: 1. ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by Interim Chairperson Charles Fielder and roll taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Board member Bradley Massey made a motion to approve the Minutes from the June 24, 1999 meeting. Board member Thomas Hartmann seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the Minutes from the June 24, 1999 meeting were approved as submitted. BRB July 29, 1999 Page 2 3. EXAM WAIVER REQUEST — James V. Lloyd, d/b/a James V. Lloyd General Contractor: Interim Chairperson Fielder explained the procedures that would be used for the hearing. Felix Lee provided a brief summary of this request. Lee mentioned that Lloyd had submitted an application for a class D-1 license. This license was pending successful completion of an exam or the exam waiver being approved by the Board today. In addition to his application submittal, Lloyd provided documentation adhering to the requirements for licensing, although all the projects submitted as project verifications were constructed within the last year. Lee stated the projects that qualified for the D- 1 level were all completed in the Greeley area. Appellant, James V. Lloyd, addressed the Board. Lloyd commented that he had gone through a four-year apprenticeship and received a diploma from the state of New York, corroborating his qualifications as a carpenter. Lloyd said he has been doing carpentry work for 39 years. Lloyd's goal is not to build houses in Fort Collins, but to start a remodeling business here. Lloyd commented that he has letters of recommendation from projects in New York verifying his competency in supervising Eastman Kodak construction projects. Massey questioned Lloyd if he held a license with the city of Greeley. Lloyd responded that at this time they do not require licensing and therefore did not have a Greeley license. Massey questioned Lee if it was a requirement that the project verification forms reflect at least one project dating back 5 years. Lee replied that to be in strict compliance with the licensing Ordinance and without taking an exam, an applicant is required to provide documentation on five projects spanning a five-year period. Lee commented that the Board could take into consideration other circumstances and experience in factoring their decision. Lee mentioned that there were letters in Lloyd's file reflecting his supervision of other construction projects, but these were not job specific and therefore were not acceptable for submittal as project verifications. Hartmann asked Lloyd if he had obtained any licenses with any other municipality in Colorado. Lloyd responded that he did not have any other Colorado licenses. Hartmann questioned Lloyd if he could provide more documentation dating back five years. Lloyd responded that he did not think he would be able to contact the sources from that far back to obtain the proper documentation. Lloyd made the comment that he had been studying for the test and would take it if the Board decided he needed to. • • BRB July 29, 1999 Page 3 Lloyd asked Lee if would be able to obtain his license if he took the test. Lee affirmed that Lloyd is approved for the license if he passed the test or received an exam waiver from the Board. Lloyd asked if there would be anymore fees to take the test. Lee responded that there would be a $75 testing fee. Massey made the motion to deny the request for exam waiver for James V. Lloyd. Hartmann seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, Hansch, Fielder, Massey Nays: None The motion carried. 4. LICENSE HEARING — James Postle, d/b/a James Construction Company: Fielder read the Hearing Procedures for Alleged Contractor License Violations. Lee reviewed the Summary of Allegations in this case. On May 17, 1999, a City building inspector issued stop work orders for several addresses under construction on Antigua Drive by James Construction Company. These stop work orders were given due to the fact that no building permits and/or applications had been obtained for the foundation work that had commenced. After further investigation, it was discovered that Building and Zoning only had received one application for 6803 Antigua Drive. No paperwork had been submitted for any of the other addresses. No approvals or permits had been issued for any of the addresses. Lee stated that Staff believed the contractor in this case may have committed Code violations to include; willful or deliberate disregard of the building code; failure to comply with a provision of the code; and failure to obtain the required permit for the work performed. Lee suggested the Board review the letter given them at the beginning of this hearing submitted by Craig Constant of The James Company in response to the aforementioned Summary of Allegations. Patricia Lindville, the attorney representing The James Company, addressed the Board. Lindville stated the position of The James Company was that they did not willfully or deliberately disobey the Building Code in the act of pouring the garage foundation, or by commencing the concrete work at 6803 Antigua Drive. Lindville commented that failure by the James Company to follow procedures in the required order was unintentional. She focused on the Development Agreement between The James Company and the City of Fort Collins. Within the Development Agreement, Lindville mentioned that it states; no permit for the construction of any structure within the development shall be issued by the City until such items as water lines, BRB July 29, 1999 Page 4 curb, gutter, pavement and public streets serving the structure have been completed and accepted by the City. Referring to another section of the Development Agreement, Linville said it makes note of the requirement by the City that the developer provide and maintain accessways to the buildings at all times. Lindville stated that since the garage foundations needed to be tied into the rest of the concrete work, it was necessary to do all the concrete work at the same time and The James Company never intended to begin construction of a building prior to obtaining a building permit. Lindville cited conversations between The James Company and a City engineer assigned to the project, notifying him of their actions of pouring the foundations in conjunction with all the concrete work so as to meet the City's access requirements. She further stated that The James Company assumed they needed to have the access and development requirements met prior to obtaining any permits. Referring to the building application for 6803 Antigua Drive, Lindville commented that the on -site supervisor for The James Company, Scott Holmes, had called the City Building Department to check on the status of the application and was told that there were no holds and it was ready to pick up. Having this information, Holmes proceeded to pour the footings. When Holmes attempted to pick up the permit for 6803 Antigua Drive, he discovered that there was an erosion control hold preventing its issuance. Lindville stated that all permits were eventually obtained for this project and due to procedural non-compliance, The James Company was charged double permit fees and therefore has already been penalized for their actions. Lindville commented that The James Company has since talked with the City Building Department and was informed that they could obtain a "Footing and Foundation" permit prior to having a full permit issued in order to stay within the Building Code requirements. Lee asked Lindville if The James Company knowingly began work on the garage without first obtaining a building permit. Lindville affirmed they did commence the concrete work, but not the actual structural work. Lindville stated that building construction had not begun on the site, only the concrete work and the footings for the garage. Fielder, speaking as an architect, commented that he believed one of the most important parts of a structure is the footing and foundation. Craig Constant, construction manager for The James Company, addressed the Board. Constant reiterated that they had to have the garage foundations in place and tied to the curb and gutter so the asphalt could be poured to the garage slabs. Constant stated the City currently is not doing inspections for footings and foundations, they are now inspected by a foundation engineer. Constant reiterated it was The James Company's understanding that the infrastructure had to be completed before they could obtain building permits and the garage foundations were part of that required development work. Hansch asked Constant if they had previously built in other developments using the same procedures used with the development in this case. Constant replied that they have used the same scenario for all the developments they have built in and • • BRB July 29, 1999 Page 5 suggested that the City Development Agreement should contain wording referring to the availability of Footing and Foundation permits. Fielder asked Lee to clarify the City's procedures on footing and foundation inspections. Lee stated that for new construction, footings and foundations are currently being inspected by the private sector. Lee commented that this situation does not negate the requirement for obtaining a permit prior to pouring the footings and foundations. Lindville stated that The James Company had not intentionally violated any codes or regulations and would take any direction in the future to insure that no violations occurred again. In closing, Lee read a section from the Building Code adopted by the City that stated: "No building or structure regulated by this Code shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, moved, improved, removed, converted or demolished unless a separate permit for each building or structure has first been obtained from a building official." Lee reiterated that the footings and foundations are structurally part of a building. Lee mentioned that part of the reasoning in obtaining a permit before construction begins is to ensure that the proposed building setbacks are correct. The repercussions of progressing construction without the knowledge of the proper setbacks on a lot could result in some major difficulties. Lee commented that he felt The James Company knowingly proceeded with construction without obtaining the proper permitting. Lindville stated that even though The James Company does not dispute the information presented by Lee, she did not believe they knowingly committed any violations. Referring to the Summary of Allegations, Lindville mentioned that the allegations stated in part that the violations committed were willful and deliberate disregard of the Building Code, which The James Company did not do. Also in the Summary of Allegations, there was reference to failure to obtain a building permit. Lindville said that all permits have now been obtained as required. Lindville requested that the Board make the finding of fact that there was no willful or deliberate disregard of the Building Code in this case. Lindville mentioned that according to the Code, if the Board did find The James Company to be willful and deliberate in their disregard of the Code, it could create a misdemeanor charge. She stated that The James Company has already been penalized by their mistake, with the approximately $3,700 that was assessed in double permit fees. Hartmann made a motion and finding of fact that The James Company was in violation of items 2 and 6 in the Summary of Allegations; failure to comply with a provision of the Code related to a specific construction project, and failure to obtain any required permit for work performed. Fielder seconded the motion. BRB July 29, 1999 Page 6 VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, Hansch, Fielder, Massey Nays: None The motion carried. Hansch made a motion that no further action be taken regarding the violations found in the finding of fact above. Massey made a friendly amendment to the motion before the Board to include that a letter of reprimand be placed in The James Company's file regarding the violations. Hartmann seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, Hansch, Fielder, Massey Nays: None The motion carried. 5. LICENSE HEARING — William Zimme, d/b/a Ponderosa Custom Carpentry, d/b/a Willaim E. Zimmie Construction: Lee reviewed the Summary of Allegations in this case. Lee stated that on July 1, 1999, a City inspector issued a stop work order for 433 N. Roosevelt Street. There was construction work in progress at the address — an addition and interior remodel. No permit had been obtained for the work. A permit was subsequently obtained on July 8, 1999. Lee directed the Board to review the letter submitted on July 28, 1999 by the owner of 433 N. Roosevelt, Tom Berger, stating that he was responsible for obtaining a permit and had forgotten to do so. Respondent, William Zimmie, addressed the Board. Zimmie stated that Tom Berger called him to help him finish a remodel that had already been started. After viewing the construction site, Zimmie saw that there was some minor work left to be done and proceeded to line up sub -contractors to help finish the project. Zimmie mentioned that he was not sure if a permit was required for the construction work, which included closing in a covered patio, but Berger had said he would take care of obtaining a permit and therefore, Zimmie thought that had been done. Zimmie said after it was discovered that a permit had not been obtained and received the stop work order from the City, Tom Berger went to the City Building and Zoning office and obtained the proper permit. Hansch questioned how it came about that Zimmie's license was under scrutiny. Lee responded that at the time the stop work order was issued, a worker on the site submitted his card issued by the City showing him to be an employee of Ponderosa Custom Carpentry. • • BRB July 29, 1999 Page 7 Zimmie stated that he intends to be stricter in adhering to the requirements set forth by the City Building Department. Zimmie asked Lee some general questions on what was exempt from requiring a permit. Lee summarized some of the exemptions for building permits. Hartmann made a motion and finding of fact that William Zimmie, d/b/a Ponderosa Custom Carpentry, violated item number six listed in the Summary of Allegations: Failure to obtain a required permit for the work performed or to be performed. Hartmann seconded the motion. Hartmann commented that it is ultimately the contractor's responsibility to make sure a permit is obtained as it is his license that could be put in jeopardy. Hartmann also verified from Lee that a permit is to be posted in a conspicuous place and therefore, its issuance would be obvious. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, Hansch, Fielder, Massey Nays: None The motion carried. Hartmann asked Lee if it would be feasible to send a letter to all the City licensed contractors informing them of their responsibilities, etc. Lee replied that although it would be a sizeable list, it would be a possibility. Hansch made a motion to have a letter of reprimand placed in William Zimmie's contractor file. Fielder seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Hansch, Fielder, Massey Nays: Hartmann The motion carried. 6. LICENSE HEARING — Charlie Micallef, d/b/a Custom Environments: Lee reviewed the Summary of Allegations in this case. On June 2, 1999, City staff sent correspondence to Mr. Micallef informing him that he was in violation of the Uniform Building Code, Section 109.1, for allowing occupancy of buildings without the benefit of final approvals and Certificates of Occupancy as noted in the letter from City Codes and Inspections Administrator, Mike Gebo. As of July 20, 1999, a Certificate of Occupancy had been obtained for 5919 Auburn Drive and for 514 Dunraven Drive. As of July 20, 1999, no Certificates of Occupancy had been BRB July 29, 1999 Page 8 obtained for the remaining addresses listed in the aforementioned letter. Lee listed Code violations City staff believed were infracted upon. The Respondent, Charlie Micallef, d/b/a Custom Environments, addressed the Board. Micallef stated that all the inspections had been completed for the addresses listed in the reference letter. He commented that 5 of the permits involved were older permits and that due to holds by City departments had not been issued a Certificate of Occupancy until recently. Micallef stated that some of the holds were erroneous and all of them have since been cleared up. Lee asked Micallef if he was aware that the Certificates of Occupancy had not been issued in these cases. Micallef replied that he was not aware of that fact until contacted by the City Building Department notifying him of these instances. Lee asked if the homes not receiving the Certificates of Occupancy had been purchased and closed without verifying the Certificate of Occupancy had been issued. Micallef confirmed that closings did take place without the Certificates of Occupancy. Micallef recounted several instances of erroneous departmental holds that caused the Certificates of Occupancy not to be issued. Fielder mentioned that he had some personal experience on his own residence regarding occupancy before a Certificate of Occupancy was obtained. Fielder said that the he was told by a City inspector that he could occupy his new home after the inspector completed his final inspections. Fielder said he proceeded to close on the home without the Certificate of Occupancy being issued. In his case, Fielder said the reason the Certificate of Occupancy was held up was because his driveway had not been poured yet and apparently the Engineering Department would not give their release for C.O. until they determine that the apron to the driveway was not damaged. Fielder wanted to verify for the Board that there are occurrences of this kind taking place. Micallef mentioned that perhaps his office could put in place a system to cross reference information so as to prevent these issues from happening, as he had not been immediately informed of the issuance problems of the Certificates of Occupancy. Micallef explained that he has someone from his office deliver the required documentation to the City for the issuance of the Certificates of Occupancy and then the Certificates are sent to him. Massey commented that it is ultimately the contractor's responsibility to ensure that Certificates of Occupancy are obtained and to see to it that this takes place, even if it requires his personal intervention to resolve any problems. Hansch questioned Micallef how long some of the homes had been occupied prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancies. Micallef responded that some of them had BRB July 29, 1999 Page 9 been occupied as long as one year before they were issued a Certificate of Occupancy. Massey questioned Micallef on issues that were brought up in the letter written by Mike Gebo dated June 2, 1999. The letter referred to Micallef not complying with the Uniform Building Code, Section 109.1, by allowing occupancy of buildings without first obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy. The letter also mentioned that Micallef had been repeatedly informed of the requirement to provide the Model Energy Disclosure Forms, which are required to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. Massey commented that in this letter, Gebo gave Micallef a lawful order to comply with the requirements set forth in the letter and that Micallef apparently had not done this. Massey mentioned that after having been given the lawful order by a building official, it appeared that Micallef ignored the order. Micallef responded that he and Gebo had discussed the issue and Micallef tried to comply by bringing in the Disclosures. Massey questioned the use of the word "repeatedly" in the letter, giving the impression that Micallef had been informed of the requirements, but had not complied. Micallef replied that Gebo may have been referring to the last four homes listed in the letter that had not received Certificates of Occupancy. These had holds from other departments preventing the release of the Certificates. Hansch asked Micallef if he currently makes it a practice to close on a home before obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy. Micallef replied that he is now making sure that a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued before any closings. Lee recounted a case in recent history brought before the Building Review Board where a builder had been given some indication that he was authorized to allow occupancy of a new home prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy. In this case, the Certificate of Occupancy had not been cleared by all the required departments. Lee mentioned that the City Building Department would not authorize occupancy of a new residence without all the required departmental approvals. Lee commented that departmental holds are placed on Certificates of Occupancy for appropriate reasons, although there is always a possibility of an erroneous hold being placed on a Certificate of Occupancy. In closing, Micallef stated that his company will be more diligent in checking their paperwork to ensure that a case such as this does not arise again. Micaleff reiterated that in the case of the last four permits, the Certificates of Occupancy were being held by the Engineering and Zoning Departments and he was not aware of this at the time he spoke with Gebo, so he thought he was in compliance. Hartmann asked Micallef how long he has been a general contractor. Micallef replied that he has been a contractor approximately 20 years. BRB July 29, 1999 Page 10 Hansch made a motion and finding of fact that Charlie Micallef, d/b/a Custom Environments, was in violation of the Code by; willful and deliberate disregard of the building Code; failure to comply with a provision of the Code related to a specific construction project and failure to comply with any lawful order of the Building Official. Hartmann seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, Hansch, Fielder, Massey Nays: None. The motion carried. The Board discussed the appropriate action to take in this case. Massey commented that after 20 years of general contracting, he believes Micallef should have a good idea on the proper procedures involved. Massey made the motion that a letter of reprimand be placed in the Respondent's contractor file and impose a six month probationary period. If any violations arise within this six month probationary period, Micallef would be brought before the Board and the Board would take into consideration the actions taken today and determine what further disciplinary action should be taken. Fielder seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, Hansch, Fielder, Massey Nays: None. The motion passed. Fielder stated that the Respondent would have the opportunity to appeal any of the Board's decisions to the City Council. Meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m. -� � Felix Lee, Di for of Building & Zoning