Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 06/26/19974 BUILDING REVIEW BOARD REGULAR MEETING June 26, 1997 1:OOPM II Council Liaison: Ann Azari II Staff Liaison: Felix Lee II Chairperson: Mike Sutton 490-2161(w) 221-5641(h) The regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, June 26, 1997, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building. The following members were present: Brown, Cotterman, Meleski, Sutton, Hansch Members absent: Kreul-Froseth, Fisher Staff members present: Felix Lee, Building & Zoning Administrator Elain Radford, Building & Zoning Admin. Support Leta Payton, Building & Zoning Admin. Support The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Sutton. The minutes of the March 1997 meeting were approved. No meeting was held April 1997. No meeting was held May 1977. APPEALS: A. Bret Larimer - applied for Class B contractor license. Bret took the Class B exam and passed. Bret is requesting approval for the supervisor certificate. His company, Heritage Homes, was approved for the Class B license based upon the qualifications of co-owner Mark Linder. Appeal withdrawn. Chairperson Sutton asked for clarification on this appeal of whether both appellants are requesting the supervisor certificate. Appellants addressed the Board and Bret Larimer stated that both he and Mark Linder are co - owners of Heritage Homes, and both are applying as a corporation for the supervisor certificate. BRB June 26, 1997 Page 2 Sutton explained that the license is held by the business and the supervisor certificate is held by an individual who works specifically for the license holder at the time they are supervising the project. He further explained that a business may hold a license without a supervisor certificate, and an individual may hold a supervisor certificate without holding a license, however, the company must have both in order to conduct its business. Board member Cotterman requested clarification on what this appeal is for. Administrator Lee stated he had spoken with the appellants and Lee explained that Bret and Mark formed a company together. The company was granted the Class B license based upon Mark Linder's project verification references. Bret Larimer has applied for the supervisor certificate but his references do not meet the Class B criteria. Board member Meleski asked if the only issue before the Board is what is being requested for Bret Larimer to be able to hold the Class B supervisor certificate since Mark Linder qualified for the Class B license. Administrator Lee confirmed that the only item under discussion is Bret Larimer's request to hold the Class B supervisor certificate. Cotterman asked why Mark Linder does not hold the Class B supervisor certificate. Administrator Lee responded that Mark Linder did not apply for the supervisor certificate and added that the supervisor certificate requires an exam. He stated that Bret Larimer desires to be the on -site supervisor and he has taken and passed the Class B exam. Linder stated that his understanding was the corporation would hold the license and not an individual. Sutton explained that it is correct the business holds the license but not the supervisor certificate. Larimer stated that he has been in the construction industry since he was 15 years old which calculates into 22 years, has been on multi -million dollar construction sites, and has done about every aspect of commercial construction possible as far as red iron work and all the commercial concrete projects he has worked on. He added that he has owned his own corporation in the building industry, developed neighborhoods, does all his own design work and has designed and built over 100 custom homes in the Fort Collins area with his license, and has a great knowledge of structural design. Bret commented that he passed the Class B exam, which is a fairly difficult test, with only overnight notice and virtually no preparation. He stated that he feels confident 4 BRB June 26, 1997 Page 3 that he has the qualifications to hold the Class B license regardless of Heritage Homes. Larimer further explained that he and Mark Linder planned to do this solely because they would be partners in the ownership of the buildings they are looking at building. The first building they want to build is smaller than the buildings he is currently doing in his own subdivision developments which are in excess of 5,000 sq. ft. and require two hour fire separations between the units, etc. The first building they are looking at doing is a 3,300 sq. ft. wood framed, ranch, small office building. Another building they want to do, and own, is a 6,000 sq ft. office building of similar construction. He added that he has been around construction all his life, that construction is all he knows or plans on doing, and he feels confident in building the buildings they are proposing to do. Meleski stated that of the three references required, four project verification forms were submitted and two were for Bret and two were for Mark. He pointed out that the two references for Bret do not qualify for the Class B license. Linder responded that if a company from Denver comes to Fort Collins to apply for a license, they don't send their president to apply for the license and test, they send the supervisor. He asked if the supervisor or the corporation is the holder of the license. Sutton clarified that the supervisor is the holder of the supervisor certificate only and the corporation applies for and holds the license. The corporation still is required to have a certified supervisor on -site who is responsible for the knowledge of the project and the codes, etc. - as an individual working for that corporation. Sutton further explained that a corporation can have multiple supervisors but only one license. Larimer asked if he had not demonstrated his ability to understand and correctly apply the codes by passing the exam. Sutton explained that the exam is one qualification for the supervisor certificate and the other one is the written evidence of the required number of projects as a supervisor for a Class B license. Sutton stated that the required project experience is what Bret Larimer is lacking. Mark Linder stated that between the two of them, he and Bret have the qualifications. Sutton clarified that the experience cannot be from the combination of two individuals. He reiterated that the supervisor certificate is for one person only. Sutton requested Administrator Lee explain what the City expects a project supervisor to do, the amount of time required on a job site, and the supervisor's role in a project. BRB June 26, 1997 Page 4 Lee stated that the supervisor is expected to maintain adequate attendance on the job to provide supervision, though there is not a specific minimal amount of time required. Sutton stated that it is not the role of BRB to provide alternatives, however, Mark Linder does qualify for the Class B supervisor certificate. He explained that their business could build projects with Bret doing on -site supervision as long as there is an adequate amount of supervisory oversight from Mark, and, if their plan is to do enough of this work, in a short period of time Bret would have the experience to obtain the Class B supervisor certificate. Sutton asked Lee if it is correct that if Mark is holding the supervisor certificate and providing adequate oversight, and Bret is the on -site supervisor daily, would these projects qualify Bret for the supervisor certificate. Lee confirmed this would be acceptable. Larimer responded that this is a moot point then, because obviously he will be on -site supervising and half owner of the buildings. Sutton replied that the standards the City has adopted allow for Bret's being supervised by one who has the required qualifications until Bret has projects that can be documented to qualify for the supervisor certificate. Sutton further stated that the point has to do with established procedure for licensing and that he has suggested a way that their problem can be solved since Bret is lacking the project verifications that the City ordinances require. Sutton asked Bret Larimer which classification of license he currently holds and what type buildings is he currently building that exceeds 5,000 sq. ft. Larimer replied that he holds the Class C2 license and is currently constructing a 5,600 sq. ft. four-plex residential type buildings, and these new buildings we want to build are commercial which are not covered under the C2 license. Meleski read from the City's rules and regulations Class B supervisor certificate: "authorizes the construction of any building or structure up to and including five stories and authorizes non- structural alterations on any building with no limitations for size and storage. The applicant must have supervised the construction of two buildings that would have required a Fort Collins Class B license and supervisor certificate, and one building that would have required a Class C license and supervisor certificate." Meleski commented that this qualification is what he is looking for in the application forms but is not there. BRB June 26, 1997 Page 5 Meleski asked if Mark Linder would qualify for the supervisor certificate without taking the exam. Lee responded that Mark Linder would not qualify based on the project verifications submitted because five Class B level project verifications documenting five years experience are required for the exam waiver. Meleski pointed out that Sutton's recommended solution would not work unless Mark Linder qualifies for the supervisor certificate by either taking the exam or submitting the required project verification forms. Linder stated that he has the required experience but only turned in three because that is the amount the contractor packet asked for. He further stated that in his resume he listed five but did not know he needed to submit five project verification forms. Sutton commented that if Linder submits five project verification forms that qualify, an exam waiver may be granted and Linder could obtain the supervisor certificate. Cotterman commented that the contractor license application packet was developed over several years and clearly states the requirements. Cotterman further commented that applicants are responsible for reading the information in this packet rather than the Board reiterating this information. Sutton asked appellants if they found the license application packet difficult to follow. Linder responded that he did not find the packet difficult, however, his confusion is that between the two of them they meet all qualifications and since they jointly own Heritage Homes, they want to see if their needs could fit into our system. Meleski pointed out that if Linder were to die, Larimer would still need to qualify for the supervisor certificate. Board member Brown commented that the City's goal is to have every supervisor on every job certified and capable of running the job. Linder asked if their problem would be solved, by him submitting two more Class B project verification forms. Meleski stated that if five qualified project verifications are submitted, then the supervisor BRB { June 26, 1997 Page 6 certificate is granted automatically and they do not have to come before the Board. Sutton clarified that the corporation would be the license holder and Linder would hold the supervisor certificate. Meleski reiterated that after Larimer supervises three projects he would qualify for the supervisor certificate. Meleski reminded Larimer that the applicant cannot sign the project verification forms. Linder remarked that he would like to submit two more project verification forms to qualify for the supervisor certificate. Sutton stated that this action does not require action from the Board. Appellants withdrew their appeal to the Board so no vote from the Board was required. B. Wagner Kelly - applied for Class DI contractor license and is requesting an exam waiver. Appeal denied. Appellant was not present for this meeting. Sutton asked if Administrator Lee knows the grounds for this appellant asking for the exam waiver. Lee commented that this appellant does not have the five years of project experience though he has a construction management degree and numerous projects built within the past three years. Cotterman questioned the appellant's request to waiver the exam since the appellant has the degree and background to pass the exam. Meleski stated the exam waiver would reduce the appellant's fees by $75.00. Meleski commented that the appellants qualifications include three years supervisory experience and two years assistant supervisory experience. Board member Hansch stated that he feels an assistant supervisor may be equivalent to a full supervisor because in a large development the assistant supervisor may supervise an entire house. Meleski ask if other Board members agree with this. E BRB June 26, 1997 Page 7 Brown commented that it depends upon the day to day on -site responsibilities of the assistant supervisor. Lee stated that the City ordinance, included in the contractor application packet, defines supervisor requirements as "documents verifying that the applicant has acted in the principal role of general contractor, project supervisor, or other primary supervisory role." Cotterman stated that if the appellant cannot submit the required qualifications, why is he appealing to the Board. Lee explained that the City ordinance does allow the Board to make those decisions when applicant demonstrates other qualifications not specifically listed to the satisfaction of the Board. Cotterman commented that if an applicant does not have the minimal experience and is not present to present his case before the Board, what would the applicant expect from the Board. Sutton stated that all the project verifications are from 1995 and his graduation date from college is 1994 so the applicant does not have even close to five years of experience. Sutton added that having a master's in construction management and having two C.M. students working under him would not be considered significant enough to qualify. He commented that the applicant has a good foundation for running a business but not for building a house. Brown agreed and stated that the actual building experience is required in order to understand and apply the codes. Cotteman motioned this appeal be denied. Meleski seconded this motion. Vote: Yeas: Brown, Cotterman, Meleski, Sutton, Hansch Nays: none Sutton confirmed that the motion carved and this appeal was denied. BRB June 26, 1997 Page 8 OTHER BUSINESS: A. Regional Building Code Review - Administrator facilitated discussion of this handout. Meleski asked about the old reading of the code regarding area of vent space. Does it require 10 square feet of vent, one square foot for each 150 square feet of house? Lee confirmed this is correct and stated that it may be reduced as the published code allows. It can be reduced to 10 percent. Meleski added that to go down to 10 percent means that, instead of needing 10 square feet of vent for 1500 square feet of house, only 1 square foot is needed. Lee confirmed this is correct. Meleski asked regarding the Model Energy Code, if one elects to put one square foot of louver into a crawl space, is it then considered an unheated space and would the party have to insulate the floor above? Lee confirmed this is correct. Meleski stated that the heat loss through the vent is very minimal, therefore, with this interpretation of the Model Energy Code the 1500 square feet of first floor area has to be insulated, if you want to put in a vent. He commented this is his objection becaue it is a significant amount of money versus the possible heat loss through the vent. Cotterman asked how does combustion air get to the furnace, if a vent is not installed? Meleski explained that a separate duct is run for that. BRB June 26, 1997 Page 9 B. Introduction of new administrative support staff, Leta Payton. Michael Sutton, Chairperson Felix e�` ilding & Zoning Director SIX MONTH PLANNING CALENDAR April - September 1997 MEETING DATE MEETING TYPE AGENDA ITEMS April 22 Adjourned Election of Mayor Pro Tem Study Poudre River Storm Drainage Master Plan April 29 5th Tuesday Continuation of Council Policy Agenda Discussion May 6 Regular Fort Fund Guidelines Building Permit Fee Reduction Boards & Commissions Council Liaison Assignments & Committee Appts May 13 Adjourned Scenic Views Appeal Study Budget Study Session May 20 Regular Impact Fees for Libraries and Community Parks Dry Creek Appeal Resolutions re: Enclave Annexations, BN @ McClelland, W. Drake Rd., K-2, Link'n Greens May 22 Thursday Joint Meeting City Council/Larimer County Commissioners May 27 Study CDBG Study Session Policy Agenda Follow-up Water Treatment Master Plan June 3 Regular CDBG Program June 10 Study Budget Study Session Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan June 17 Regular Policy Agenda Adoption Street Oversizing Modifications Annual B&C Appointments June 24 Study July 1 Regular First Reading of Enclave Annexations, BN @ McClelland, W. Drake Rd., K-2, Link 'n Greens Street Oversizing Modifications July 8 Study Mid -year evaluations - City Manager, City Attorney, Municipal Judge July 15 Regular City Plan/Land Use Code Clean-up Ordinance July 17 Thursday Northern Colorado Regional Cities Meeting July 22 Study Human Rights Ordinance July 29 5th Tuesday August 5 Regular National Night Out August 12 Study August 19 Regular August 26 Study Citizen Review Process for Police Activities August 28 Thursday Joint Meeting City Council/Larimer County Commissioners September 2 Regular September 9 Study September 16 Regular September 23 Study September 30 5th Tuesday Revised: April 17, 1997 CC: ELT Department/Division Heads UNSCHEDULED ITEMS: STUDY SESSION: REGULAR Districted Trash Collection I Model Telecommunications Ordinance