Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 10/29/1987BUILDING REVIEW BOARD MINUTES October 29, 1987 MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Trampe Dick Conard Doug Johnson Raju Jairam Ron Baker Chris Allison Bill McCaffrey Dennis Sinnett MEMBERS ABSENT: Harry Cornell STAFF PRESENT: Felix Lee Debbie Zeigler Paul Eckman Dan Young The minutes of the September 24, 1987 meeting were unanimously approved. Tom Irlbeck and McDevitt and Street were approved for a Class A license/ certificate. Debbie explained to the Board that she had received Thomas E. Makris of Claredon Construction's application for a Class A license/certificate just one week prior. He had included reference letters so she went ahead and brought it to the Board for their review. The Board felt that the refer— ence letters submitted did not include any of the information that was needed. Boardmember Conard made a motion to deny the application until further references are received. The motion was seconded and passed unani— mously. Class B applicant Mark Shadowen, Professional Builders S Remodeling, was denied a Class B license/certificate. All of Mr. Shadowen's references showed residential experience. The Board therefore approved him for a Class D license/certificate. Arrowstone Construction Corp. was denied the Class B license they applied for. Four of the five references submitted were from the same person and were all on smaller commercial projects. The Board felt that the Class C-01 license would better fit the experience shown. Michael Parsons was approved to test for the Class C-02 certificate holder for Bronco Construction. The following special applicants were approved: Gerald R. Ashback, Gracon Corp., Fuel Tank; Wayne Petts, Life —Safety Fire Systems, Inc., Fire Sprink— lers; Randy G.Jones, Roof Doctor, Roofing; Edward H. Schubert, Fireplace Conversions, Inc. — Fuel Gas. OTHER BUSINESS — The Board discussed changes Debbie had made to the appli— BRB Minutes • October 29, 1 7 Page 2 cation form and the reference form and made motion to approve them with slight modifications. Case 02-87 ISSUE: Appeal of ordered electrical repairs in mobile home park AFFECTED PROPERTY: Sunset Mobile Home Park, 114 S. Bryan Ave. OWNER: Herb Carlson APPELLANT: Same BACKGROUND: The appellant is requesting relief from completing repairs to mobile home lot electrical services within the 60-day time limit specified in the Cor- rection Notice issued by Felix Lee, Permits and Inspections Division Admin- istrator. As the appellant's response to the notice indicates, the immedi- ate hazards identified for Units 1, 11, and 12 have been eliminated with appropriate repairs. The appellant has indicated that he can make the remaining repairs over an unspecified time period subject to available funds. ISSUES FOR DECISION: The appellant was served as required by law on August 20, 1987, at which time the compliance "clock" started. A written request for appeal was received in this office on September 2, 1987, which acts as a stay pending an administrative hearing on the matter by the Board, in accordance with the City Electrical Code and Dangerous Building Code administrative proce- dures. The board must decide and make findings of fact as to whether the action of the City and the official involved was appropriate or not and whether that action should be overturned, upheld, or modified based on mitigating fac- tors and evidence submitted by the appellant and the City. Staff believes that the owner has had ample time to make the corrections specified, given the fact that the initial contact with the appellant by a member of this office regarding electrical problems occurred last April. Meeting Minutes Felix Lee explained to the Building Review Board that notice to commence electrical repairs had been served to the petitioner on August 20, 1987. Inspections made on October 28, 1987 by Felix Lee and Dan Young confirmed that no additional repairs have been made. At this time Mr. Lee introduced the petitioner, Herb Carlson. Mr. Carlson explained that with the financial backing that he has, he tries to upgrade the park a little at a time. He is not in a financial position to put much into the park. Mr. Carlson said that he had upgraded the electrical services for three lots done when the units were replaced. Carlson stated that most of the lots had 30 amp services except one lot which has 25 amp service. He also stated that he is working with the City BRB Minutes • • October 29, 1987 Page 3 (Housing Authority) regarding purchasing this property and would not be doing any of these repairs because the Housing Authority would likely con- vert the park into a different use. Mr. Carlson said that after touring the park with Mr. Lee on Wednesday he believes much of the repair work on the park can be done by his maintenance men not requiring the expense of an electrician. The emergency items in the letter of August 13, 1987 were complied with within the time specified by a licensed electrician. Board - member Baker asked what the emergency items were. Mr. Carlson said that unit number 1 had a service improperly supported by phone cable and it had a problem with a neutral leg open and Merit Electric corrected that prob- lem. Boardmember Baker questioned whether the problems with unit number 1 were taken care of except for the service size which is still 30 amp. Mr. Carlson said that he checked with the owner of Frontier Mobile Home Park and that many of his lots did not have 50 amp service. Mr. Carlson felt that his park was getting more publicity than other parks. Carlson felt that when a unit has only a furnace motor, television and a 110 volt water heater, it is not necessary to increase the service size. Carlson said unit number 1 has been there for at least twenty five years. Carlson stated the other corrections included space number 11 -meter mount was not properly attached and had no over -current fusing. Apparently someone had by-passed fuses prior to Carlson's ownership of the park, but he had that corrected. In unit number 12 live parts on the line side of the meter were exposed and that was corrected by Merit Electric also. Mr. Carlson told the Board that emergency repairs had been taken care of and that there were no unsafe conditions at this time. Boardmember Baker asked if Felix Lee and his office were in agreement on that statement. Mr. Lee said, not entirely and that all of the items do need attention, otherwise they wouldn't have been written up. The immedi- ate hazards have been corrected but over time the other problems cited are considered hazards and need correction to meet minimum safety requirements. Boardmember Sinnett asked whether the hazards are just a matter of fuses blowing or is there a possibility of a fire. He asked how serious are these matters in Mr. Lee's opinion. Mr. Lee said that everything had a degree to it. Lee said that if a child were playing around one of the boxes that had wires that weren't properly secured into the box and some of the insulation on the wire was damaged by the rough edge on the metal box, that this could very possibly be a hazard. He felt it was difficult to say what is not an immediate hazard. Lee cited the three immediate hazards and those were corrected. Lee noted he looked at the park on LaPorte (Frontier Mobile Home Park) and while their services are not all 50 amp services, they are all intact and safe. Boardmember Conard asked when these services were put in, did they comply with code. He asked that if in this particu- lar case, were we trying to upgrade that park to current code when the ser- vices were put in under an earlier code. Mr. Lee said the 30 amp services installed some years ago were in compliance at the time. Boardmember Conard asked if the 30 amp service was a hazard in and of itself. Mr. Lee answered no, not necessarily. Boardmember Conard asked if on unit number 6 the 25 amp service was a hazard by itself. Mr. Lee felt that it was, after looking at the inspection notes of yesterday when he inspected the park for compliance. Lee said that unit number 6 has undersized conductors for the over -current protection (number 12 conductors for a 25 amp service) Mr. Conard said that what he was really asking is the "undersized service" a hazard in and of itself. Mr. Lee answered no. Boardmember McCaffrey BRB Minutes • October 29, 1 7 Page 4 said that he assumed that everyone was talking about the specific items in the August 13, 1987 letter to Mr. Carlson. Mr. Lee affirmed this. Board - member McCaffrey said that unit number 1 was already taken care of except for undersized current, unit number 5 needs work, unit number 6 is just five amps less that the problem everywhere else. . . correct? Mr. Lee stated again that the service conductors for unit number 6 are sized for 20 amp service and the over -current protection is for 25 amp service. Mr. McCaffrey went on, confirming that unit number 10 has 50 amp service but the wiring is for 30 amp service; unit number 11 is corrected; unit number 12 is corrected; unit number 13 has the same problem as unit number 6; unit number 14 is a problem in itself; and unit number 16 is a problem in itself. Mr. Lee confirmed this. Mr. Carlson said that the meter cover was supposed to have been replaced on unit number 16. Mr. Lee said that the glass cover had been replaced but the metal socket box is broken. Mr. Lee said that unit number 21 has been corrected. Mr. Carlson said that when he removed three of these homes the service was upgraded. These included unit number 18, number 2 and number 3. Mr. Carlson did this on his own, he was not ordered to by the Building Inspection office. Boardmember McCaffrey asked about the managers office. He wondered if the meter disconnect on the outside of the building was common in older build- ings. Mr. Lee said yes, but usually there is access to the disconnects. This one is inside a locked managers office. It is located inside a sto- rage closet that is locked. There are four units in that building. Board - member Allison asked if any of the mobile homes required more than 30 amps. Mr. Carlson said that unit number 1 wouldn't need more than a 25 amp-30 amp service. It was probably put into the park in 1948. It has not been upgraded but did meet code at that time. Boardmember Allison said that the newer mobile homes would require a 50 amp service. Mr. Carlson said that he understood that and would gladly upgrade the services when a newer home was brought onto a lot. Mr. Carlson said that he also has houses east of the park that are three bedrooms and they have 40 amp services and appar- ently they were up to code when built in the late '40s. Boardmember Conard asked what Mr. Carlson's plans for the park were. Mr. Carlson responded that he didn't really know. He had plans to meet with the City today to discuss that. Carlson stated that the current rental market makes it extremely difficult to continuously borrow money and put in this project. Carlson said that he is providing housing to a very low income group in Fort Collins and many of those people can not even afford a $200 rent and tenants are scraping for $100 to $150. His lowest rent is $50 per month. Boardmember Jairam asked when the property was acquired and if at that time Mr. Carlson was aware of the electrical problems. Mr. Carlson said he acquired the park in 1978 and had not been aware of the problems. There are 21 spaces at the park and a four-plex. Carlson stated that one of the units is vacant and number 12 has not been rented because it needs to be upgraded. It's now being used for storage and is boarded up. Chairman Larry Trampe asked if anyone in the audience had input for the Board. Peggy Rolfes of 1535 W. Mountain Avenue read the attached letter to the Board from the City Park Homeowners Association. The Association is comprised of 33% of the households living within one square mile of the park boundered by Shields Street, Tafthill, LaPorte Avenue and Mulberry. Mr. Lee said the July 18th letter referred to in the letter is the same as the August 13th letter. There were no other people to speak for or against the variance. BRB Minutes • October 29, 1 87 Page 5 Boardmember Sinnett made a motion to deny the appeal (Case number 2-87). The motion was seconded by Boardmember Jairam. Mr. Sinnett asked to be put on record that he does realize that there is a need for low cost housing and that he does sympathize with the financial problems of Mr. Carlson but life safety does not have a price. One death or one accident or one person hurt should not be a financial consideration. Therefore he plans to vote to deny this appeal. Boardmember Baker asked if it would be possible to separate the items on the correction notice to those that are health and life safety or fire related and those items that are strictly code related. Mr. Lee said the 50 amp service requirement is not a health safety issue but simply current minimum standard for mobile homes under the original order. The other issue are all life safety and no way to separate those out, according to Lee. Boardmember Baker said that as he looks at the list about half of them are health and life safety and one approach that we might take as a compromise is to require that all of the health and life safety and fire issues are dealt with immediately and the issues that are not in and of themselves a health and life safety issue such as the fact that the service is undersized according to the code could then be delayed. He asked Mr. Lee if this could be a possibility. Mr. Lee confirmed that this could be done. Boardmember Allison questioned the service to number 6. He asked if everything went the way Boardmember Baker had said, shouldn't unit number 6 be left out to upgrade it. Also if newer mobile homes are moved shouldn't the services be upgraded at that time. Mr. Lee said he would characterize that again, the service sizes themselves are not life safety issues, but the condition of the equipment and the way connections are made are patently unsafe on the items cited, other than the size of the service themselves. Boardmember Allison asked if a deadline should be given for the service upgrades. Boardmember McCaffrey felt that position is sup- ported by code. He noted that unless certain percentages of the building are remodeled, the building does not have to meet current code. Felix Lee said that was correct, but enforcement is at a threshold because the new mobile home ordinance is technically not in effect and the 1967 ordinance currently on the books does require 50 amp services which was enacted after many of these mobile homes were in place. Boardmember Baker asked if the old ordinance required updating mobile homes or does it have a grandfather clause in it. Mr. Lee responded that it does not have a grandfather provi- sion in it allowing existing conditions to continue. Boardmember Baker asked how it was being enforced. Mr. Lee said that it hasn't been broadly enforced. In fact, he said, for comparison, that Frontier Park, a few years ago, when it was under previous ownership, required electrical repairs and many of those services are not 50 amp but were brought into a safe condition. Boardmember Trampe felt the Board's concerns were entirely life safety. He went on to say that apparently when the services were put in they complied with code and it would seem that if Carlson was given a reasonable amount of time to bring the services up to the applicable code it would be acceptable. Boardmember Jairam asked if an alternative to bringing the service up would be to reduce the fuse size. Mr. Lee said that safety is all based on the capacity of the service cord to the unit itself. If the capacity of the cord is 30 amps, a 50 amp service would need 30 amp over -current protection regardless of the service itself. The 50 amp or 30 amp service doesn't have any bearing on the safety of the mobile home necessarily. BRB Minutes • October 29, 1987 Page 6 Boardmember Johnson said that one thing he would like to address is Board - member Bakers suggestion that the service be upgraded over a twelve month period. Boardmember Johnson felt that the only way we could require that is to have all services in the City of Fort Collins and all mobile home parks be upgraded within that period of time. Unless everyone is willing to do that, Mr. Johnson doesn't feel that one mobile home park owner can be required to update his services unless it is required through the City. In the new ordinance, Mr. Lee said, that it does specify for all mobile homes to have a 50 amp service. Again, that was the minimum standard for new units when it was written and Mr. Lee assumed that most parks had at least a 50 amp service. That has not been the case however in older parks. Mr. Lee felt that a fair compromise would be when units are moved in that require a larger service, they would have to be upgraded at that time. He felt that anything less than a 30 amp service is unacceptable. Boardmember Allison asked if there are any inspections being done now when people move mobile homes in and how do we know that there are 50 amp services in mobile home parks without physically going out and inspecting? Mr. Lee stated the ordinance officially takes affect Saturday and after that there will be inspections on any mobile homes moved or re -installed. Boardmember McCaffrey asked if Boardmember Sinnett accepted certain modifi- cations to his motion. Mr. Sinnett said he had no problems with suggested changes. After discussion Boardmember Sinnett withdrew his motion. Mr. Lee reiterated to the Board that in making a decision they would have to make findings of fact and make those findings clear. Boardmember McCaffrey asked Mr. Lee if the finding of fact couldn't be that the way it is being enforced in the City right now and after the new mobile home ordinance goes into effect has to do with the fact that when things are new and upgraded they will be required to change. Boardmember Baker said that is not what the statute says. Baker stated this case was brought here as a Building Review Board appeal and the Board is going to find fact that there are health and life safety hazards that do not comply with the code. Baker further went on to ask how the Board could say that Carlson doesn't have to comply with the code when the statute says he does. Board - member Trampe said the ordinance basically says that although it is a pre- existing condition they have to be upgraded. Boardmember McCaffrey pointed out the purpose of the Building Review Board is to give variances to the code, making concessions because of hardships or extenuating circumstances. Boardmember Trampe asked if putting a time period on the variance would be within their realm. Boardmember Baker made a motion that the finding of fact is that there are in fact health and life safety and imminent fire hazards associated with this correction notice and that there are in fact code violations of exist- ing law and the law that is to be implemented shortly. As a compromise to this order, he proposed that the City and Mr. Carlson get together and decide which of these issues are strictly health and life safety issues and those issues have to be dealt with immediately. In consideration of the financial hardship and also the fact that Mr. Carlson is not really quite sure of the future of the affected property in the immediate future, that Carlson be given twelve (12) months to correct the remainder of the prob- lems. City Attorney Paul Eckman expressed concerns that the motion left it to the BRB Minutes . October 29, 1 7 Page 7 City and Mr. Carlson to decide which are life safety issues and which are not. They may never reach an agreement on the issue which will render the Board's decision moot. It would be much more helpful if the Board could decide those today so that point will not have to be negotiated or argued about. Boardmember Baker amended the motion to say the safety issues noting that the City will decide which of these issues are health and life safety and fire code related and that Mr. Carlson will comply with those immediately. Boardmember Allison asked if the Board could stipulate to exclude the ser- vice sizes. Boardmember Baker felt that he had made a motion and it should be seconded or dropped because he didn't want to change it. At this point Mr. Carlson said that he would like to have his electrician consulted because he is the one that is going to be performing the work. Felix Lee said that the reason the order was issued was not simply because of service size but because it was determined that there were hazards there because of equipment not properly secured to poles and to the other items specified and those need to be corrected. Lee stated the Board has the right to say within a reasonable time period as to when the corrections are made. He agreed that the service size issue might be a technical code issue not necessarily health safety. Boardmember Baker said that the order has the service sizes in it. He felt Mr. Lee should take that out of the order and put it in a separate order that will be enforced in twelve months and that the health, life safety and fire issues be addresses immediately. The motion died for lack of a second. City Attorney Paul Eckman asked the Board if the intention was to deny Mr. Carlson's appeal except with respect to service size and, that with respect to service size, give him twelve months to come into compliance. Boardmember Conard made a motion that the Board found the conditions are as stated in the letter from the Building department and that they are a hazard to health and fire safety and that the Board deny the appeal on all items except those relating to service entrance size only, and allow twelve months to correct that problem. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Baker. Yeas: McCaffrey, Trampe, Sin - nett, Johnson, Jairam, Baker, Allison, Conard. Nays: None. OTHER BUSINESS Thanksgiving falls on the last Thursday of the month and the meeting date was changed to Tuesday, November 24th in the Council Chambers at 9:15 a.m.. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Larry Trampe, Chairman Felix L aff Support r October 26, 1987 Building Board of Appeals 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Dear Commissioners: This letter is sent by the undersigned directors on behalf of the City Park Neighborhood Association (CPNA). It is our understanding that Mr. Herb Carlson, owner of the Sunset Trailer Park, 114 South Bryan, is requesting a hearing before your board to protest the improvements required under a Correction Notice dated July 28, 1987 sent by the administrator of the Division of inspections and Permits. The Correction Notice was sent to Mr. Carlson because, "no recent work has been performed [on the premises] as evidenced by the number of serious problems still needing attention." The notice went on to detail these problems by individual unit. In Mr. Carlson's written response to the Correction Notice he stated the reasons for his appeal.. Among his reasons were 1) '...Corrections do not warrant the costly repairs necessary to comply with 1987 Electrical Code"; and 2) "The cash flow of the rental market in Fort Collins is very poor." Members of the Board of Directors of CPNA and concerned neighbors have been working to have problems at 1.14 South Bryan corrected for over three years. The City Council's recent adoption of a mobile home park ordinance was due in part to recognition that, without regulation, mobile home parks such as the Sunset Trailer Park are permitted to exist in substandard and unsafe conditions, causing a threat to the safety and well being of its inhabitants and nearby residents. The CPNA Board is of the opinion that a "poor rental market" and "costliness of repairs" are insufficient grounds for waiver of requirements which have been .implemented by the community to protect all of its citizens. Whether or not the property owner has the capital necessary to provide the required upgrades is not the issue. Similarly, the ability of the owner to rent his l Building Board of Appeals October 26, 1987 Page Two rental units is not the issue. These factors are controlled by business decisions which must be resolved in the course of operation of the business; not at the expense of the health and safety of innocent third parties. The CPNA Board urges the Building Board of Appeals to support the City staff position as originally set forth in the Correction Notice dated July 28, 1987. We thank you for your consideration of this request. By: PR/csh Appeals dl/c/k CITY PAJW,-ULIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION e, Xres m Miller, Vice President Ed Spa ing, Dire �-- Peggy Rolfes, Director