Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 08/30/2001R • A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday August 30, 2001, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Fielder Thomas Hartmann Allan Hauck Gene Little Bradley Massey John McCoy BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Cameron Ryland • STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Director of Building & Zoning Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Delynn Coldiron, Staff Support to the Board /If1q�l7�i 061_4047:1144 The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Fielder, and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES No action taken. The minutes from the July 26, 2001, Building Review Board meeting will be approved at the September 27, 2001, meeting. 3. LICENSE HEARING -- EVAN METROPOULOS, d/b/a G.C.WEST, INC. Felix Lee provided relevant information to this hearing. He stated that the respondent received a Class C-1 contractor's license in 1995 under the name of the Summit Group. Lee explained that • a previous stop work order was issued on an interior finish project done by respondent at 1220 West Elizabeth in June of 2000 for starting work without a building permit resulting in a warning letter being sent to the respondent informing him that there could be future repercussions, including disciplinary action against his license, if this action were repeated. aRB August 30, 2001 Page 2 Lee noted that the most recent incident occurred on June 19, 2001, when a City inspector found work occurring at 902 West Drake Road, Units 1, 2, and 3 for which no permit had been obtained. According to Lee, as a result the respondent received a stop work order, a notice of hearing, a notice of license suspension and a court summons for the Municipal Court. Lee stated that the violations the board should be concerned with were: (1) knowing and deliberate disregard of the building code or any other code adopted by the City related to a specific construction project under the responsibility under the certificate holder or license holder as set forth in this article; (2) failure to comply with provisions of the code related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or license holder as set forth in the article; and (6) failure to obtain the required permit for work performed or work to be performed. Respondent, Evan Metropoulos, addressed the board. He stated that permits had been applied for in each instance that he received a violation for and that it was his intention to get building permits. Metropoulos explained that his company had performed a job in the past where similar floor plans were used, and that an inspector stated that he could get the job ready for inspection while the permit was under review. Metropoulos reiterated that in each case the permit application was being processed. Lee asked Metropoulos if he had been advised to begin the work without the building permit by a City inspector. Metropoulos stated that his foreman had told him such and that they had done so in the past. Metropoulos admitted that he was not advised by the City Building Department to commence work at 902 West Drake Road without a permit. He mentioned, however, that he had contacted the City Building Department and was told that all items were approved except for some additional information that was needed by Rick Lee, the Commercial Plans Analyst, on the firewall design. Lee asked for clarification on the extent of work that was done prior to receiving the stop work order. Metropoulos replied that the concrete had been cut, and that underground plumbing was placed. Metropoulos stated the project was a new building with an existing core and shell. The application was for tenant finish work. Metropoulos closed by stating that he was under a completion deadline and made a poor decision when he decided to commence work before he had a permit in hand. He assured the board that he took this matter seriously and felt that his company had been impacted by the suspension. Metropoulos mentioned that he had met with a special advocate regarding the situation and that a $500.00 fine has been assessed. He explained that he paid $200.00 of the fine and that the remaining $300.00 was deferred and would be excused if no further violations were received during the next year . Respondent requested leniency from the board and stated that he felt that the fines and suspension were adequate punishments. Lee closed by stating that the respondent breached the regulations and it should be acknowledged as such. He added that the respondent's license suspension was imposed on July 23, 2001. r sxs August 30, 2001 Page 3 • A motion for finding of fact was made, as follows: that respondent operated with knowing or deliberate disregard of the building code; that respondent failed to comply with the provisions of the code; and that the respondent failed to obtain the required permit prior to the commencement of work. A second to the motion was received. A board member asked for clarification on what occurs when a contractor is subpoenaed for said violations. Deputy City Attorney, Paul Eckman, stated that it was a Municipal Court matter, and that a code violation can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor. He added that the City has the burden of proof to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the violation was committed. He explained that in the respondent's case, a plea arrangement had been made so no trial will be conducted. Vote: Yeas: Hartmann, McCoy, Little, Fielder, Massey and Hauck. Nays: None. The motion passed unanimously. • The board discussed appropriate disciplinary action. A motion was made to lift the suspension on the respondent's license based on the fact that it had been suspended since July 23, 2001, and that a letter of reprimand be placed in his contractor's file noting that if additional violations occur, another suspension would be considered. A second to the motion was received. Vote: Yeas: Hartmann, McCoy, Little, Fielder, Massey, and Hauck. Nays: None. The motion passed unanimously. 4. LICENSE HEARING -- JOHN RIESS, d/b/a R&R HOMES OF NOTHERN COLORADO, LLC Lee provided relevant information concerning this case. He noted that this hearing was continued from last month's meeting based on the fact that respondent and his counsel felt they needed additional time to prepare their case. Lee explained that on July 17, 2001, staff determined that John Riess of R&R Homes of Northern Colorado had commenced construction of foundations at three locations: 2802 Chase Drive, 2781 Canby Way, and 2787 Canby Way. He noted that the respondent had received a Class D-2 license in November, 2000 and, as part of the license packet, was given a iscongratulatory letter that explicitly advised him about the City's permit requirements. Lee referred board members to the copy of that letter which was included in their packets. Lee also noted that the respondent's license had been under suspension since July 17, 2001 and that a court summons had been issued. 13PB August 30, 2001 Page 4 Larry Johnson, representative for Mr. Riess, addressed the board. Johnson felt that this was a case of confusion since foundations do not require a City inspection. However, Johnson stated that it is now apparent that footing and foundation permits do need to be obtained. He stated that his client now understands and regrets his noncompliance. Johnson mentioned that he had stamped letters from professional engineers showing that the design, construction and rebar are in accordance with the building code. Johnson explained that his client's license had been in suspension for approximately 45 days due to their requested continuance and that he had suffered inconvenience as well as a hardship. He noted that the respondent had also received a summons for Municipal Court which had been plea-bargained. Johnson mentioned that a substantial portion of the penalties had been suspended based on the condition that no further violations occur within the next twelve months. Johnson requested that the board recognize the 45 day suspension and the respondent's agreement with the Municipal Court as adequate and reinstate the respondent's license. Lee asked Johnson if his client was informed by City staff that the timing and issuance of the permit was not critical. Johnson said he was not informed of this by City staff. A board member asked for clarification on the progression level of construction on each one of the addresses that were in violation prior to the time the stop work orders were issued. Respondent, John Riess, addressed the board. He answered that the two projects on Canby Way had footings only but no foundation walls, and that the project on Chase Drive had footings and foundation walls. A board member asked if permits had been applied for. Riess confirmed this. Johnson and Lee provided closing statements. Lee emphasized that it is not standard practice for other jurisdictions to start construction without a permit based on an engineer's inspection according to his conversations with those jurisdictions. Lee noted that he was particularly concerned with the violation on Chase Drive due to the fact that the project had not received planning approval for the site plan review. A board member made a motion for finding of fact that all three violations noted in the notice of hearing are correct. There was a second to the motion. Vote: Yeas: Hartmann, McCoy, Little, Fielder, Massey, and Hauck. Nays: None. The motion passed unanimously. The board discussed appropriate disciplinary action. A motion was made to reinstate respondent's licensed based on the fact that the license had been suspended since July, and that a letter of reprimand be placed in his contractor's file. There was a second for the motion. There was some discussion regarding the possibility of having Riess re -test. Due to the fact that the license was less than a year old it was decided that this should not be required. • BRB August 30, 2001 Page 5 • Vote: Yeas: Hartmann, McCoy, Little, Fielder, Massey, and Hauck. Nays: None. The motion passed unanimously. 5. LICENSE HEARING -- DOUG DOHN, d/b/a DOHN CONSTRUCTION, INC. Lee provided relevant information for the hearing. He explained that staff determined on July 2, 2001, that the respondent commenced construction without first obtaining a permit at 2335 South Shields Street (a commercial building) and a stop work order was issued. He stated that the foundation was found to be in place and that forming had started on the footing that had been previously placed on July 2, 2001. He added that the license holder was given a notice of hearing informing him of his license suspension, as well as a Municipal Court summons. Lee mentioned that the respondent had maintained a Class B contractor's license and supervisor certificate since 1992. He reviewed the City's position that in this case there was knowing and deliberate disregard of the building code or 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 the article; that there was a failure to comply with a provision of the code related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or license holder; and that there was a failure to obtain the required permit for the work performed or to be performed. • Allen Massey, representative for Doug Dohn, addressed the board. He stated that the permit for this project was applied for on May 16, 2001, although the planning process actually started two years ago. He explained that on May 30, 2001, Dohn responded to Rick Lee's need for additional information. He added that Dohn also met with Lance Newlin of the City's Engineering Department who determined that a development construction permit was not needed for this project and received approval to proceed with his project by obtaining an excavation permit, which was obtained on June 15, 2001. Massey stated that Dohn continued contacting various other City departments to get them to enter their fees and release his building permit. According to Massey, on June 17, 2001, Dohn was successful in getting all the required holds released and he requested a fee schedule so funds could be arranged. Massey stated that when Dohn received the fee schedule, he was surprised to see that the street oversizing fee was four times the estimated cost at nearly $40,000.00 (the estimated fee was approximately $9,000.00). Massey stated that Dohn tried for four days to reach Matt Baker and, when he did, was successful at arranging a street oversizing fee reduction to $17,123.00. According to Massey, Dohn requested another fee printout on June 20, 2001; however, the street oversizing fee remained at $37,000+. Massey explained that Dohn talked with Baker on four additional occasions, and was promised that the fees had been changed. However, according to Massey, each time this was verified with the Building Department, the fees remained unchanged at the higher amount. Massey said that Dohn finally spoke with Mike Gebo on July 2, 2001 who, according to Massey, personally talked with Baker and assured that the fees had been reduced. is A permit was obtained later that day. Massey delivered Exhibits A through G to Eckman, who informed the board chair that the items had been received. BRB August 30, 2001 Page 6 There was additional discussion regarding the sequence of events. Massey stated that because all of the holds had been released on June 17, 2001, except for the issue with the street oversizing fees, his client assumed that he could begin construction. Construction of the building began July 1, 2001. Massey added that there was no deliberate intent on the part of his client to violate building or other City codes. Lee stated that the respondent's file did not contain any previous disciplinary actions. Lee was concerned that Dohn had reached a level of frustration where he decided that he could go ahead and start the project without having a permit in place, and felt that there showed evidence of intent. Lee added that the City takes swift and aggressive action with such violations. Board member Hauck notified the board of a potential conflict of interest and excused himself from the discussion. There was some discussion regarding the difference between a building permit and an excavation permit. Massey stated that Dohn is planning on meeting with the City Manager regarding the difficulty in obtaining permits and his frustration. He added that Dohn lost money due to the double permit fee, and also received a summons which has not yet been pleaded. According to Massey, his client is considering going to trial because he feels that he has been dealt with harshly by the City. There was some discussion that the statement, "knowing and deliberate disregard" was too strong a statement for this case. A motion for finding of fact was made that the respondent was in violation of only item 6 of Section 15-162. There was a second to the motion. Vote: Yeas: Little and Massey. Nays: Hartmann, McCoy, and Fielder. The motion failed. There was some discussion that both items two and six had been violated. A motion for finding of fact was made that the respondent was in violation of items 2 and 6 of Section 15-162, and that Exhibits A-G had been submitted to the board. There was a second to the motion. Vote: Yeas: Fielder and Massey. Nays: Hartmann, McCoy, and Little. The motion failed. There was some discussion regarding the fact that Dohn had appeared to have given his best effort to try to obtain a building permit and that circumstances made it impossible to do so. There was also some discussion regarding the fact that a board member could not support violations to items 1 or 2 due to the fact that Dohn received a stop work order on the same day that he obtained the permit, July 2, 2001. r BRB August 30, 2001 Page 7 • Discussion continued on the importance of having consistency in board findings and also on the fact that it would be difficult to have a finding for item 6, without also including a finding for item 2. A motion for finding of fact was made that the respondent was in violation of item 6 of Section 15-162 and that Exhibits A-G had been received by the board. A second to the motion was received. Vote: Yeas: Little, Fielder, and Massey. Nays: Hartmann and McCoy. The motion passed. Discussion was held regarding appropriate disciplinary action. A motion was made that any license suspensions in place should be lifted and a copy of the meeting minutes be placed in respondent's file along with a letter stating that there was a failure to obtain a building permit and place it on the site prior to beginning work. A second to the motion was received. Vote: Yeas: Little, Fielder and Massey. Nays: Hartmann and McCoy. • The motion passed. 6. LICENSE HEARING -- JOHN B. DUESING, d/b/a YETI MECHANICAL It was noted that Duesing was not in attendance at the meeting. A motion was made to place Duesing's license on suspension until such time that he appears before the board. A second was made. Vote: Yeas: Hartmann, McCoy, Little, Fielder, Massey and Hauck. Nays: None. The motion passed unanimously. 7. CONTRACTOR APPEAL -- RUSSELL LARSON, d/b/a R&R CARPENTRY Chairperson Fielder explained the procedures for appeals. Lee provided relevant information for the appeal. Lee stated that the appellant was Russell Larson of R&R Carpentry and that he currently holds a Class D-1 license with the City. Lee explained that the Class D1 license allows for the construction of single and two family dwelling units, as well as some special limited work relating to projects no larger than two -hundred square feet, with occupancies • including S-1 and S-2, which are storage occupancies. Lee noted that Larson was seeking a temporary upgrade to allow him to do a tenant finish for an insurance office. BBB August 30, 2001 Page 8 Appellant, Russell Larson, addressed the board. He provided board members with copies of the plans for his proposed tenant finish project. Larson stated that he had already met with the agent and owner of the company that want him to do this project. He added that the project cost estimate was $59,0000.00. There was a question as to whether Larson was seeking a one-time exemption. Larson stated that if this project well, he might consider doing additional projects. He added that if he were able to do three projects this way, he would apply for a Class E license. Larson was asked if he had any opposition to taking the Class E test. Larson answered that he did not. He added that he took and passed the Class C exam, but did not have experience in multi -family supervision to maintain the license, which is why he has a Class D. Discussion was held regarding the existing building and the type of construction Larson would be doing. Larson clarified that the project did not contain any structural modifications, and consisted mostly of non -load bearing interior framing. Larson added that he is currently working on another commercial project in the County. Larson closed by stating that he appreciated the board's consideration in this matter. Lee closed by stating that the project appeared to be relatively minor in scope and suggested that an exemption to the appellant's current D-1 license might be appropriate in this case. A motion was made to grant a one-time exemption for Larson to complete the proposed tenant finish project under his existing D-1 license. A second was made. Vote: Yeas: Hartmann, McCoy, Little, Fielder, Massey and Hauck. Nays: None. The motion passed unanimously. 8. OTHER BUSINESS There was some discussion regarding license suspensions. Lee stated that the ordinance allowed him to impose up to a fifteen day suspension, although it depended on the circumstances of the case and date of the next board hearing. Lee added that he tries very hard not to be arbitrary about issuing suspensions. He clarified that for a first violation the maximum suspension he can impose is fifteen days. He added that there is no limitation on subsequent violations. Felix Lee, Building & Zoning Director