Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 05/30/20024 • Minutes approved by the Board at the June 27, 2002 Meeting FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting — May 30, 2002 1:00 p.m. CCouncil Liaison: Karen Weitkunat IStaff Liaison: Felix Lee (221-6760) Chaff erson: Charles Fielder Phone: 484-0117(W), 207-0505(H) A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday May 30, 2002, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Fielder Allan Hauck Gene Little Bradley Massey John McCoy Jim Packard BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: Cameron Ryland STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Director of Building & Zoning Delynn Coldiron, Contractor Licensing Administrator Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board AGENDA: 1. ROLLCALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Fielder, and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Boardmember Hauck made a motion to approve the minutes from the April 25, 2002, meeting. Boardmember Massey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Little, Fielder, Massey, Hauck, and Packard. Nays: None. BRB 04/25/02 Page 2 3. Contractor Hearing -John Riess, d/b/a R&R Homes of Northern Colorado, License 9D-441, Case 414-02. Fielder explained the procedures for contractor hearings. Lee provided an introduction to the hearing. Lee stated Respondent Riess was the certificate holder of the license. A violation had occurred at 2802 Chase Drive. Construction was being completed on a duplex, and at the final inspection City Inspectors noted that the decks (off the rear of the property) were extended eight to nine feet into the setback. Lee referred boardmembers to the site plan that was included in their packet. Lee stated that as a result of the violation, Respondent Riess was issued a violation notice. A hearing and suspension notice were also sent to the Respondent. The violations include: (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 supervisor or license holder set forth in this Article; and (2) failure to comply with any provision of the Code related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the supervisor certificate holder or license holder as set forth in this Article. Lee stated the contractor of record is responsible for building a project without a substantial departure from the approved drawings and specifications. Lee gave some background information regarding Respondent Riess. Respondent Riess appeared before the Board in July of 2001 for beginning construction on three homes prior to obtaining the proper building permits. Riess' case was heard at the August 30, 2001, Building Review Board meeting. Lee stated the Board decided to lift the suspension (approximately a 45- day suspension) that was imposed by staff and placed a letter of reprimand in the Respondent's file. A court summons was also issued and that was resolved by a plea agreement. Lee stated a staff imposed license suspension began earlier this week. Travis Robson, 2814 Chase Drive, partial owner of R&R Homes, addressed the Board. Robson stated John Riess was unable to attend the hearing due to a prior engagement out of state. Robson stated R&R Homes has been in business for approximately five years. The company originated in Berthoud, and moved to the Loveland/Fort Collins area. Robson felt R&R Homes did not ignore the Code and regulations. Robson stated the buyers of the duplex made several changes to the property (including the deck extensions), and it was an oversight of R&R Homes to obtain a proper permit for the deck extensions. The deck extensions were not brought to Robson's attention until the final building inspection. Robson came to the Building Department, and applied for a zoning variance, and met with the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board of Appeals allowed the deck extensions, but the stairs had to be removed, which Robson has done. Robson asked the Board to reinstate the license because R&R Homes has three current projects, and a suspension would be detrimental to the business. Lee asked Robson what his position and duties were for R&R Homes. Robson replied that he owned half of the company, although John Riess is the license holder. Robson noted he and Mr. Riess work side -by -side, and the on -site supervision was Riess' responsibility. Robson's duties include handling the customers, billing, framing, and maintaining contact with subcontractors. Lee questioned whether Riess or Robson processed the buyer's request to extend the decks. r • • BRB 04/25/02 Page 3 Robson explained that it was a joint venture to process buyer requests. Robson noted a building permit was obtained for the deck extensions, and a letter of completion has been issued. Robson made a closing statement, and apologized for R&R Homes actions. Robson reiterated that a suspension would be detrimental to the business. There was a discussion held regarding the decks extending into the setbacks and the utility easement. McCoy asked if a deck extension were listed as an upgrade. Robson stated R&R Homes did not have a list of upgrades for decks, and the deck extension was specifically asked for by the buyer of the property. Hauck questioned Robson regarding the permitting process for the property. Little asked Robson if the stairways were always intended to be part of the decks. Robson stated yes. Robson stated that on the original plans a set of stairs were shown coming off the backside. There was a discussion held regarding the original approved plans, and if a set of stairs were shown on the approved plans. The Board recessed while staff obtained the original plans. There was a discussion held regarding which situations or items would trigger an amendment to a building permit. Lee stated anything that was not approved on the original plans would trigger such an amendment. Lee entered the approved plans as an exhibit, and stated the stairs were shown on the approved plans. Robson explained to the Board that R&R Homes did not intentionally deviate from the approved plans. Massey told Robson that it was his responsibility to know the regulations for each municipality that he may work in. Little struggled with violation number one. Little stated the Respondent chose not to abide by the Code. Little noted somebody had to take the responsibility to go to the municipality to request and apply for a variance, and if there were any proposed building changes to make an amendment to the building permit. Massey felt the Respondent did not commit violation number one, although Massey felt the Respondent did commit violation number two. Lee made his closing statements, and noted this was R&R Homes second failure to comply with the provision of the Code. Lee cited section 15-162 noting the failure to provide adequate personal supervision on the part of the supervisor. Lee felt this was apparent in this case. Hauck made a motion for the finding of fact that violation number two has been committed. McCoy seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Little, Fielder, Massey, Hauck, and Packard. Nays: None. There was a discussion held regarding past suspension time limitations. Hauck asked Robson if he had any ongoing permitted work in Fort Collins. Robson replied that R&R Homes has three current ongoing projects in the Rigden Farms area. Little felt it was appropriate, if the Board decided to suspend R&R Homes license, that the suspension be for only new permits. Hauck noted he was having trouble continuing the current license suspension. Little was concerned that BRB 04/25/02 Page 4 R&R Homes does not have adequate supervision. McCoy made a motion that a letter of reprimand to be placed in R&R Homes' file, and that the staff imposed license suspension be lifted. Hauck seconded the motion. The motion failed. Vote: Yeas: McCoy and Hauck. Nays: Little, Fielder, Massey, and Packard. Massey felt the owners of R&R Homes needed to re-evaluate their business plan and operation and was in favor of a short suspension. There was a discussion held regarding what would be an appropriate suspension time. Massey made a motion to continue the current suspension of R&R Homes license for another seven days. The suspension would include current work. Massey added that a letter of reprimand be placed in R&R Homes' contractor file. Little seconded the motion. McCoy felt Massey's motion was too harsh, and disagreed with the license suspension. There was a discussion held regarding an acceptable suspension. Eckman advised the Board that each situation had to be viewed on a case -by -case basis, and a penalty would have to be determined on each case differently. Packard was in favor of an additional suspension, although he was not in favor of a full week. Massey amended his motion to carry the suspension through until Monday June 3, 2002. Little seconded the amendment to the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: Little, Fielder, Massey, Hauck, and Packard. Nays: McCoy. 4. Contractor Appeal -- Alan Teeters, d/b/a Village Homes, License #D-467, Appeal #11-02 Fielder explained the procedures for contractor appeals. Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. The Appellant is requesting a one-time exemption to his current D-1 license that would allow him to construct a pre -fabricated steel structure as part of the Observatory Village project in Fort Collins. The steel structure is a proposed public structure, and considered an A4 occupancy. The construction of the steel structure is not permitted under Appellant Teeters D-1 license. Appellant Teeters would need a C-1 license to construct the steel structure. Lee noted the Appellant has passed the C-1 licensing exam, but lacks the commercial experience needed for the C-1 license. Peter Benson, President of the Northern Division for Village Homes, addressed the Board. Benson stated Teeters was in charge of all of the construction for the Northern Division of Village Homes. Benson stated that as a part of Observatory Village, Village Homes is constructing a large park that includes a fountain and a trellis structure. A model of the proposed steel structure was shown. Benson stated the steel structure is being fabricated in Denver by a fabricator (a sub -contractor of Village Homes), and is being built on -site at a warehouse. The fabricator will disassemble that structure, which will be reassembled on -site at Observatory Village. Benson noted that several types of engineers would be at Observatory Village • • BRB 04/25/02 Page 5 performing the inspections. The engineers have also been a part of the design team for the steel structure. Teeters had no additional comments. Lee stated the intent of the structure is for public use. Lee asked if the fountain provided seating. Benson responded that the fountain is flush with the ground, so one could walk through it, although benches will exist around the perimeter of the structure. Benson said the park was a private Homeowners Association park, and intended only for the use of the residents. Hauck asked if the fabricator would have to be licensed with the City of Fort Collins. Lee stated he would not. Little asked staff if this project would qualify as one of the Appellant's three commercial project requirements for the C-1 license. Lee responded the project would qualify. Benson had no closing statements. Lee reiterated that the structure was an assembly facility. Massey agreed with Lee. Teeters replied that a structural engineer has been involved in the design process. Massey asked if the structural engineer stamped the plans for the structure. Teeters responded that was correct, and showed the stamped plans to the Board. Little made a motion to approve Appellant Teeters request for a one-time exemption to his current D-1 license, which would allow him to construct the steel structure. He also asked that the structure be accepted as one of his C-1 project requirements. Little also included in his motion that Appellant Teeters has passed the C-1 licensing exam. Fielder seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Little, Fielder, Massey, Hauck, and Packard. Nays: None. 5. Contractor Appeal --Steve Josephs, d/b/a Craftsmen Builders, License #D2-26, Case 413-02 Lee stated the Appellant is requesting two project exemptions to his current D2 license. Lee noted the Appellant has the opportunity to build a single-family home. If approved by the Board, this would be Appellant Josephs last project requirement for a D-1 license. Lee noted the Appellant also has the opportunity to remodel a commercial office space. The remodel of the office space project involves microlam construction in the ceiling of a second story office building. Lee stated the building is a type five construction, and is similar to residential work the Appellant has completed. The Board found in April 2001 that the Appellant had excess experience for what is required for a D-2 license, but insufficient for a D-1 license. The Board decided that the Appellant was able to build with his D-2 license not exceeding 1,000 square feet and also agreed upon providing a third Class D-1 project, the Appellant's license could be converted to a Class D-1 with a waiver of related fees. The variance was approved through the current renewal period only and that expires in April 13, 2003. Steve Josephs, Craftsmen Builders, addressed the Board. Josephs stated that he found a D-1 project to try upgrade his license. Josephs explained the commercial project, and noted that a glass wall is going to be installed that hangs from the ceiling and microlams will need to be placed. Lee asked if the glass wall were strictly a partition. Josephs confirmed this and stated that other partition walls would be torn down and need to be reconfigured. Lee asked if the BRB 04/25/02 Page 6 microlam system would only carry the load of the glass wall system. Josephs stated that was correct. Lee asked if the microlam system were prefabricated, or designed by an engineer. Joseph replied the door system is prefabricated, and a structural engineer is working on the microlam detail. Massey asked about the construction of the microlams. Joseph stated a beam pocket would need to be cut in the brick wall, and slipped through the outside, along the ceiling joists, over to She other wall. It spans brick wall to brick wall. Josephs stated he did have the plans. Lee stated a C-1 license would be needed for the commercial project. There was a discussion held regarding Appellant Josephs existing project requirements. Massey made a motion that based on the fact that the Appellant has passed the D exam, and has completed two D-1 jobs that he be granted a one-time exemption to build a 1700 square foot single family home that would then give him the third project needed to complete the D-1 licensing requirements. Hauck seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Little, Fielder, Massey, Hauck, and Packard. Nays: None. Massey asked the Appellant for clarification on other projects he had done for EDAW. Josephs responded that he did some cosmetic work on their phase last year --nothing structural. Hauck stated that none of the microlams are supporting the existing structure or replacing any of the existing structure supporting roof loads or anything like that. Josephs stated that was correct. Massey asked if the structural engineer would stamp the plans that Josephs intends on submitting. Josephs said yes. Hauck made a motion to approve Appellant Josephs' request for a one-time exemption to the current D-2 license to allow him the opportunity to remodel the commercial space as described specifically with no modifications to the existing structure. Massey seconded the motion. The motion passed. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Little, Fielder, Massey, Hauck, and Packard. Nays. None. 6. Contractor Appeal --Joseph Varley, d/b/a Varley Construction, Inc., Case #12-02 Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. Appellant Varley has requested that the Board proceed without his presence. Lee stated the Appellant has applied for a Class B license and is requesting an exam waiver based on his 25 years of experience. The Appellant holds a Class C-1 license with the City of Loveland and is also a residential contractor with the State of Minnesota. Appellant Varley passed the ICBO exam. Fielder asked what the ICBO exam covered. Lee responded that the ICBO exam is not specific to the City of Fort Collins license structure, and is not acknowledged by the City of Fort Collins. At the time Appellant Varley took the ICBO exam, it was a general contractor exam, not specific to a scope or category. It was mentioned that the Appellant had also taken the Experior exam, but the specifics of that exam were • • BRB 04/25/02 Page 7 unknown. The documents submitted by the Appellant were not beyond the scope of a C-1 license. Massey stated the reason Appellant Varley needed the Class B license in Fort Collins was for a license in Longmont, Colorado, due to Longmont being unable to administer an exam. The Appellant was seeking a Fort Collins license to reciprocate with Longmont. There was a discussion held regarding the reciprocation process. Hauck felt that the Appellant was asking for a Class B exam, and required project experience waivers. Coldiron clarified that the Appellant was seeking a B license in Longmont, and that the license categories may not be equivalent. Coldiron stated the Appellant needed some form of a license with the City of Fort Collins, so that he can reciprocate and receive a license in Longmont. The Appellant would need to figure out which City of Fort Collins license category is equivalent to Longmont's B license. Massey made a motion that after reviewing Appellant Varley's request and documentation and based on the fact that Varley has made no application showing work experience required for a B license and unwillingness to take the test that the Board deny his request for a B license. Hauck seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Little, Fielder, Massey, Hauck, and Packard. Nays: None. Other Business Lee gave the Board an update on the International Residential Code. Lee is currently working with other regional officials and peers on amendments. Lee has not convened a local committee yet, but plans to do so. Meeting adjourned at 3:04 p.m. Felix Lee, Building & Zoning Director ACharlesielder, Chai erson