Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 08/29/2002• • 2. 0 Minutes approved by the Board at the September 26, 2002 Meeting FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting — August 2% 2002 1.00 P.M. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat IStaff Liaison: Felix Lee (221-6760) 484-011 A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday August 29, 2002, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. m1#75 Ll s Uy I Puy t :RM Charles Fielder Leslie Jones Gene Little Bradley Massey John McCoy Jim Packard STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Building and Zoning Director Delynn Coldiron, Contractor Licensing Administrator Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board AGENDA: ROLLCALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Fielder, and roll call was taken. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Boardmember McCoy made a motion to approve the minutes from the July 25, 2002, meeting. Boardmember Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: Fielder, Jones, Little, Massey and McCoy. Nays: None. BRB 08/29/02 Page 2 3. Contractor Hearing — Dale A. Hill, d/b/a Schroeder Roofing, License Number R-1408, Case Number 17-02. Fielder explained the procedures for contractor hearings. Lee provided an introduction to the hearing. Lee stated that based on a recent violation observed by staff, a stop work order was issued at 818 Rocky Mountain Way on August 13, 2002, for commencing work without first obtaining a permit. As a result of that action, based on history of similar violations, Schroeder Roofing was sent a copy of the suspension and hearing notice. Lee stated he imposed (as authorized by the ordinance) a temporary suspension of the license privileges. The acts are identified as follows: (1) That Mr. Hill or Mr. Hill's company, Schroeder Roofing, did in fact knowingly or deliberately disregard the building code or any other code adopted by the City related to a specific project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or license holder; (2) there was a failure to comply with provisions of the code related to the construction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or the license holder; and (3) there was a failure to obtain the required building permit for the work that was performed or being performed. Lee noted there was a brief summary in the boardmembers' packets that explained some of the history regarding the contractor as well as the current alleged violation. There was a stop work order issued for another address on Wallenberg Drive in July of 2001 for the same offense. A letter was subsequently sent indicating the nature of the violation and the potential for a hearing before the Building Review Board if further such violations occurred. A perni t was obtained several weeks later, and an investigation fee was also imposed. Lee noted there are other issues related to the contractor, particularly the issue regarding roofing inspections. Lee stated Schroeder Roofing was continually in non-compliance with the roofing inspection procedures, i.e. no access to the job because of a ladder not being in place, and inspections not being scheduled prior to the completion of the work. Lee referred boardmembers to the list of pending projects, and stated approximately twenty permits are in the applied -for status and have not been issued. Dale Hill, President of Schroeder Roofing, addressed the Board. Hill introduced Wes, and stated Wes is a project manager for Schroeder Roofing. Hill responded to the violations of knowing and deliberate disregard of the building code and failure to comply with any provision of the code. Hill stated the company had submitted a request for a permit, but they were erroneous in getting the building permit on time. Hill stated there was intent to get a building permit, but that it was a matter of timing. Hill noted Schroeder Roofing applies for a building permit as soon as a contract is signed. Hill explained the company's process for obtaining building permits. Hill stated that he does not require his employees to contact the shop when the employees are working on a current project. Hill said that calling in for inspections is tricky due to the following reasons: (1) most jobs can be completed in two days or less; (2) half of the roof may be completed after the Building Department's normal business hours; and (3) employees work seven days a week. Hill remarked that Fort Collins is unique in how roof inspections are done. Lee asked Mr. Hill if he was contending that permits were obtained for 818 Rocky Mountain Way, 709 Stover, and 1936 Wallenberg before the work was started. Hill stated he was not, but noted the company had faxed in a request for a building permit. Hill remarked that he had not followed through and obtained the building permits. Lee asked Hill that at the time work began, he knew that permits were not yet issued. Hill said he could not state that for sure, although he • • BRB 08/29/02 Page 3 • probably should have known. Lee asked Hill if he was familiar with the permit form. Hill said yes. Lee asked who was responsible for having a building permit in hand before the work started. Hill stated it was a team approach, and he will have to revamp his procedure. Hill explained the company's processes and procedures for obtaining building permits. Lee asked who gives the okay to start work. Hill stated either he or Wes would do that. Lee asked Hill if it was fair to assume that either he or Wes gave the okay to start on the projects in question. Hill replied yes. Lee asked Hill if he was familiar with the responsibilities of being a license holder. Hill said yes. There was a discussion held regarding the delay in getting the cost of a building permit. Massey asked staff about the license suspension and if Schroeder Roofing was allowed to work on current jobs. Lee stated all jobs were stopped due to the license suspension. Hill stated the company has not done any work since Monday. Massey asked Hill about how many permits he typically pulls in a year. Hill replied approximately fifty-five, and added that the company also does a lot of new construction. Massey asked staff if Schroeder Roofing had applied for a building permit prior to a stop work order being issued on the sites in question. Lee stated he was not able to determine that at this point. There was a discussion held regarding the job list created by staff. Massey agreed with Hill's comments regarding the difficulty of roofing inspections. Massey stated he hoped Mr. Hill would re-evaluate his business processes after today's hearing. Little stated that the Board has a responsibility to make sure that the license holders are complying • with the regulations. Little felt the issue before the Board was a management issue. McCoy asked staff what the turn around time was for a building permit between the application and issuance phases. Lee responded that roofing permits are considered over-the-counter permits, and if an individual came into the office, the permit would be issued at the time of application. McCoy asked if there has been a suspension before this incident. Lee stated no. McCoy stated he felt the problems were occurring with the re -roofing jobs. Hill had no closing statements. Lee made his closing statements and reiterated to the Board that he could not judge intent. Lee referred to the licensing ordinance, and stated the Respondent has received warning about not obtaining building permits prior to the commencement of work. Lee determined that it was a deliberate act. Lee also noted that there appears to be inadequate supervision. Little made a motion for a finding of fact that Dale Hill, as the license holder, doing business as Schroeder Roofing Company, did in fact violate the items listed under the suspension notice concerning the following: (1) knowing or deliberate disregard of the building code or any other code adopted by the City related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or license holder as set forth in this article; (2) failure to comply with any provision of the code related to specific construction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or license holder as set forth in this article; and (6) failure to obtain required for work performed or to be performed. McCoy seconded the motion. The motion passed. BRB 08/29/02 Page 4 Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Little, Fielder, Massey, and Jones. Nays: None. Little stated he did not feel the issue was that of health and safety, but believed it to be an issue of inadequate supervision and the responsibilities of application and retrieval of building permits. Little noted several stop work orders and notices in the contractor's file. Little wanted the Board to consider putting a letter in the contractor's file stating if another violation occurs there will be a suspension of his license. McCoy made a motion that a letter of reprimand be placed in the contractor's file that warns Schroeder Roofing that these are serious violations. Some changes need to take place, or the license will be suspended. McCoy also moved to lift the current suspension. The Board was not agreeable to a suspension term. Massey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Little, Fielder, Massey, and Jones. Nays: None. 4. Contractor Appeal — Steven L. Spanjer, d/b/a Spanjer Construction Corp., License Number C2- 20, Case Number 18-02. Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. Lee stated the Appellant is requesting a one-time exemption to his C2 license (without being required to test) to build a commercial building that would be occupied and owned by Spanjer Construction. The Appellant has been licensed in the City since the early `80s. Lee stated the C2 license allows a contractor to build single and multi- family construction. Lee noted the license holder of a C2 license may also construct an accessory type of building (up to 5,000 square feet) that is part of a multi -family housing project. Lee reviewed Mr. Spanjer's qualifications: (1) he has built over 200,000 square feet of multi- family housing (170 living units, some over four -stories tall, some may have also included residential fire suppression systems); (2) he has constructed large custom homes; and (3) he has built office warehouse buildings in Larimer County and the City of Loveland that involved occupancy separations. Lee said Mr. Spanjer appeared before the Board in February three years ago, and requested an upgrade to a Class B license, and the request was denied. Spanjer was granted an upgrade to his C2 license that would enable him to construct a three-story multi- family unit upon completion of the B exam. At this point, the Appellant has not successfully completed the B exam, and that upgrade has not been implemented. Steven Spanjer addressed the Board. Spanjer stated he is proposing a new office space for his company. Spanjer purchased a piece of property in Spanjer Park approximately three years ago. He has been in the planning process for fifteen months, and has finally received approval. Spanjer stated the building he is proposing is a type five building, 3500 square feet, no area separations, and no fire suppression system. Spanjer listed his qualifications. Lee asked Spanjer about his past testing. Spanjer could not remember exactly which test he had taken. Spanjer did take the Class B exam, and did not pass. Lee verified that Mr. Spanjer did • • BRB 08/29/02 Page 5 • take the Class B exam, and previous to the Class B exam he was tested in 1982 under the 1979 building code. Spanjer noted that his intent is to remain in residential construction. Fielder asked the Appellant questions regarding the multi -family four story units. There was a discussion held regarding what the building code constitutes as a story. There was clarification offered that a basement is not considered a story, so the units would actually be three-story units. Little asked staff if the proposal could fall under the same structure as an individual building his own home. Lee stated no because it would be commercial property, and there needs to be a licensed general contractor responsible for the project. McCoy asked how close Mr. Spanjer was in being able to build the office building under his current license. Lee replied that under the current licensing ordinance there was a provision that would allow Mr. Spanjer (if he were building a multi -unit project) to construct a clubhouse up to 5000 square feet. Lee stated the intent is to allow the same contractor, if they are building the dwelling units, to build an accessory building. Massey made a motion to approve Mr. Spanjer's requdst for a one -rime exception to his current C2 license to allow him to build the proposed office space, not to exceed 5000 square feet, type five construction based on his previous experience. Massey also noted that under the current licensing ordinance Mr. Spanjer would be allowed to construct this type of project if it were tied into a multi -family project. McCoy seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: • Yeas: McCoy, Little, Fielder, Massey, and Jones. Nays: None. Contractor Appeal — Christian Ray, d/b/a Vantage Properties, License Number D-156, Case Number 19-02. Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. Lee stated the license expired and exceeded the allowable 60-day grace period. Lee noted the expiration occurred in February 2002. Staff has a record of the Appellant's advanced notification of a pending expiration. Lee stated office procedure is to mail out the notifications; phone calls are not made. The notification letter was mailed out and returned to the Building Department (the Appellant had moved, and the mail was returned). Lee reiterated that it is a requirement of the license holder to notify the Building Department of any change in address. Lee noted a permit was issued in December of last year, and the address used was the old address. The Appellant never received notice of the renewal, and the Building Department did not trigger a stop work order on the project that he was working on (the December permit) because the Appellant's license had expired. The Appellant eventually learned that his licensed had expired. Christian Ray addressed the Board. Ray stated that he went to obtain a building permit in July. He was told that his license had expired, and he would need to take an exam. Ray requested that his license be reactivated, and stated he would be willing to retro-fit the license back to the • BRB 08/29/02 Page 6 February expiration date. Ray felt the City should not have let him call for any inspections if his license had expired. Ray was actively getting inspections. Lee asked the Appellant if he normally received reminders from the Building Department. Ray stated yes. Little agreed with the Appellant, and stated he relied on notifications as well. Little felt there was not a deliberate intent on the Appellant's part to not renew his license. McCoy asked if the licenses were renewed annually. Lee replied that licenses are renewed bi-annually. Massey asked if there was a formal form for an address change. Coldiron responded that typically a contractor will notify the building department of an address change, but the contractor's address is not verified at the time of a permit submittal. Coldiron noted the computer system does not check contractor license expirations except when a contractor is applying for a new building permit. Massey stated that it was the contractor's responsibility to notify the Building Department of an address change. Ray did not have any closing statements. Lee made his closing statements, and reiterated that it is the license holder's responsibility to notify the Building Department of an address change. Lee stated that according to the licensing regulations Appellant Ray does not meet the current requirements. The last exam he took is obsolete. Little asked staff what the Building Department's procedure was for following -up on returned letters. Little felt in such a situation that it would be appropriate for staff to call the contractor. Lee replied that the suggestion would require an endless amount of time due to the volume of licensed contractors. Coldiron explained the renewal process. Fielder made a motion that the Board reactive Mr. Ray's D-1 license. Fielder requested that a letter be placed in the contractor's file stating that Mr. Ray did indeed not fulfill his responsibility of the licensing ordinance. Massey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Little, Fielder, Massey, and Jones. Nays: None. 6. Contractor Appeal — Arlan Bartling, d/b/a KB Homes; License Number C2-87 (temp license), Case Number 20-02. Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. Lee stated Appellant Bartling was seeking a waiver to the C2 license experience criteria, specifically the requirement of a project having to be three or more stories and contain 16 or more units. Mr. Bartling is the regional manager for KB Homes, and provides overall supervision. Lee said KB Home had come before the Board in the past on a similar case. Under the previous licensing ordinance it was not explicitly clear that a C2 license was required for attached single family homes. Lee noted the Appellant has taken the C2 exam, and has passed the exam. • • BRB 08/29/02 Page 7 • Appellant Bartling addressed the Board. Bartling noted the information Coldiron compiled explained his request. Bartling stated a similar waiver has been granted in the past for an employee of KB Home who resigned. Bartling has taken the C2 exam, and stated he has experience in the multi -family projects, but has not completed any three-story projects. Bartling stated his function at KB Home. Bartling said KB Home does not build three-story complexes or 16 unit complexes. He stated KB Home does not have any intent of doing so. Lee asked Bartling if he was building anything different or larger than what he previously has done. Bartling stated no. Bartling said the biggest unit KB Home has to build is seven-plexes, although an eight-plex may be part of an occasional plan. Massey asked Bartling if he was agreeable to a restriction of up to an eight-plex and two -stories. Bartling stated that he was. Neither Lee nor Bartling had any closing statements. Massey asked Bartling if he had submitted all the required proof of experience, except for the one he is requesting a waiver for. Lee stated that Bartling has submitted said information. Massey made a motion to approve Appellant Bartling's request for a C2 license with an exception of the requirement for the three-story or 16 unit building. Bartling's C2 license will be restricted to a maximum of an eight-plex and two -stories. Little seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Little, Fielder, Massey, and Jones. Nays: None. •7. Contractor Appeal — Kraig Kemp, d/b/a KB Homes, License Number D-373, Case Number 21- 02. Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. Lee stated Kemp is requesting an identical request to that of Mr. Bartling. Mr. Kemp has passed the C2 exam. Kraig Kemp addressed the Board. He is the area construction manager for KB Home for Fort Collins. Kemp requested a waiver on the three-story, sixteen unit experience requirement for a C2 supervisor's certificate. Lee asked Kemp if he was seeking a supervisor's certificate only. Kemp stated that was correct. Massey asked the Appellant if he had any other experience or verification. Lee noted for the record the Appellant Kemp submitted a project verification form signature page signed by Scott Johnson, President of SJ Electric, Inc. Lee read the form to the Board. Lee stated the form would constitute an adequate verification. Bartling explained Mr. Kemp's role for KB Home which is basically to provide more local and on -site supervision. Massey made a motion to grant the waiver of the requirement of a three-story or 16 unit building for Mr. Kemp's supervisor certificate under KB Homes license with the restriction of a maximum of an eight-plex and two -stories based on Mr. Kemp's previous experience and successful completion of the C2 exam. Little seconded the motion. The motion passed. • BRB 08/29/02 Page 8 Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Little, Fielder, Massey, and Jones. Nays: None. 8. Other Business Lee said the Board should have received a notebook. The notebook is a Boards and Commissions Manual for the service area of Community Planning and Environmental Services. Lee reviewed the contents and noted the notebook was prompted by members from other boards that wanted to know more about the rest of the boards in the service area. Lee gave an update on the IRC Task Group. Lee stated the group has had two meetings, and Lee felt the meetings were going well. Lee stated staff is working on a brochure to reacquaint the community regarding the Rental Housing Code. Lee expects a good response with the outreach effort. Meeting adjourned at 3:02 p.m. Felix Lee, Building & Zoning Director Charles Fielder, Chauper n