Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 09/29/2005Minutes approved by the Board at the October 27, 2005 Meeting FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting — September 29, 2005 Council Liaison: Kellx Ohlson Staff Liaison: Felix Lee (221-6760) Chairperson: Charles Fielder hone: 484-0117(W), 207-0505(H) A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, September 29, 2005, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: David Carr Charles Fielder Gene Little John McCoy Jim Packard BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: Leslie Jones Michael Smilie STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Building & Zoning Director Delynn Coldiron, Contractor Licensing Administrator Greg Tempel, Deputy City Attorney Angelina Sanchez -Sprague, Staff Support AGENDA: 1. ROLLCALL The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Carr made a motion to approve the minutes from the July 28, 2005 meeting. Packard seconded the motion. The motion passed. 3. Building Permit Appeal, Paul Corey, Case #21-05 Fielder explained the procedure for contractor appeals. Lee introduced the appeal. Appellant obtained a building permit for an addition to his home at 304 Alpert Avenue in 1992 (Permit # 922222.) The permit expired and in 1995 the project was reissued a permit (Permit # 952762.) When the second permit expired, a third and final permit (Permit #B0100280) was issued in 2001. The third permit has also expired and to date the work remains incomplete. i BRB 09/29/2005 Pg. 2 Lee mentioned that on January 1, 2005, the City adopted a new International Residential Code with amendments. One of the amendments, IRC Section R105.5, is retroactive and requires that any work authorized by a permit regulated by this or any other building construction code administered by the building official that involves the construction or alteration of an exterior building component shall be fully finished and completed for permanent outdoor exposure within 24 months of the issuance of such permit regardless of when the permit was issued. Failure to comply with this provision results in the revocation of the permit and subjects the permit holder and property owner to all penalties provided by City Code, including a summons to Municipal Court and fines of up to $1000 per day. Lee stated that re -issuance of a revoked permit and/or the issuance of a new permit for the same project may occur only after the property owner or permit holder has obtained approval from the Building Review Board pursuant to Section R112. Appellant addressed the Board. Corey referred to his request for an extension of his permit for another 180 days that was included in his appeal application materials. He stated that he's not been able to complete the work because his wife left her job very soon after the first permit was issued and was ultimately diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis; his source of income is primarily his rental properties and he's had problems with renters; and he's had trouble being in a positive cash flow position to complete the work. He believed that if a 180 day extension was granted he could complete the exterior work. Board members discussed the information that had been presented in the case. Packard expressed concern about structural integrity given exposure to the elements. Lee stated that in speaking with Building Services staff, he learned that structurally the construction that has been done is adequate (exceeding some criteria.) Little questioned Deputy City Attorney Tempel about the Board's authority in this case (given the thirteen year span and the adoption of the International Residential Code, including Section R105.5.) Tempel stated while this particular situation could be subject to a summons to Municipal Court and fines of up to $1000 per day, those actions have not taken place and the Board has purview to reinstate the permit and grant the requested extension (as referred by Lee earlier -Section R112.) Lee stated it would be in the best interest of the neighborhood and the community if this protracted project could be completed. At the discretion of the Board, Lee recommended that the permit be reinstated at no additional cost for a period of not greater than 180 days. He added that if the exterior was not completed in that timeframe, then the City would proceed with the full force of the law. Carr made a motion to reinstate the permit and grant an extension for 90 days. McCoy seconded the motion and asked for a friendly amendment of 180 days. Carr agreed. Vote: Yeas: Carr, Fielder, McCoy, Packard Nays: Little 6. Public Hearing_Contractor License Violations, Chad Nikkel, d/b/a Omega Roofing & Gutters, Case #22-05 Fielder explained the procedure for the hearing. A public hearing is being held alleging violation of the following Section of the Codes of the City of Fort Collins: Section 15-162 (a), (d)(1), (2) and (6) for the reasons that the license holder or supervisor certificate holder has committed one or more of the specific violations of the Fort Collins contractor licensee ordinance listed below: i BRB 09/29/2005 Pg. 3 a. Failing to provide adequate personal supervision on the work site; 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 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 any required permit for the work performed or to be performed. The properties in violation there were reviewed are: 8/17/05 1024 Montview Road, working without a permit and insufficient supervision 9/19/05 2407 Hollingbourne Drive, working without a permit and insufficient supervision on 2 occasions. Contractor Chad Nikkei addressed the Board. Nikkei apologized for the infractions. He stated that it was never his intention to operate without pulling permits and supervising jobs. He purchased Omega in February, 2005 and had suspended Northern Colorado operations but with the hail storm had received a number of calls for roofing work and decided to reinstate this portion of his company's operations. Nikkei mentioned that overall, the process has been a learning experience for him and as the license holder he took full responsibility for the issues that had occurred. Nikkei mentioned that Omega is not a large operation and they are trying to operate it efficiently —he noted the supervisory requirements for Fort Collins can be a bit of financial struggle for a small company. He stated that he is trying to hire more supervisory staff. He added that he would like to continue doing business and that he would make every effort not be in the same situation again. There was some discussion on the number of open permits Omega currently had. Nikkei thought the number was 8-10. Lee said records show that 24 permits are open. Lee invited any party -of - interest to provide testimony. Andre Kuzmenko of 4436 Craig Drive came forward to share his experience as a customer of Omega Roofing & Gutters. Kuzmenko's primary complaints were: they recommended he replace his shake shingle roof when in fact it still had useful life remaining; the work was delayed as they waited for a "clerical error" correction for contractor licensing; they did not show up as agreed; and when a crew did arrive —it consisted of unsupervised, inexperienced laborers. At one point, Kuzmenko stated that he elected to void their agreement because they had not delivered as agreed. His conclusion was that Omega practices unethical and inappropriate business practices and he recommended they not be allowed to operate in Fort Collins to save other community members the same problems. Nikkei addressed the Board relative to Mr. Kuzmenko's comments. He stated that he wants all customers to be happy with the service Omega provides. He mentioned that when Mr. Kuzmenko's complaints became known to him, he made sure that he received a full refund minus the cost of the permit. That concession was, according to Nikkei, "over and above" the BRB 09/29/2005 Pg. 4 standard practice of retaining 15% for cancelled agreements. If there was miscommunication he apologized for that. Nikkel believed he took the necessary steps to make Mr. Kuzmenko whole again. Lee asked Nikkel if he reviewed the congratulatory contractor's letter that outlined City licensing and code requirements. Nikkel answered "Yes." Lee asked Nikkel if he had met inspectors on the job site. Nikkel answered "No, he'd stepped away to get more materials." Lee asked Nikkel if he understood that he could not step away without another licensed supervisor being present? Nikkel stated that he now understood this and that that he planned to hire someone so that they're available when he's not. Little moved for a finding of fact. He recommended Omega be cited for failing to provide adequate supervision (item a.), for disregarding building codes (items 1 and 2) as demonstrated by his actions, and for failing to obtain the required building permit (item 6). Little noted that all these violations occurred within 45 days of obtaining his license. Packard seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Carr, Fielder, Little, McCoy, Packard Nays: Little moved that a letter of reprimand be issued in this case outlining the violations that occurred and stating that further violations could result in revocation of respondent's license. He also stated that the letter of reprimand should outline the City's supervision requirements and that the respondent be required to sign said letter indicating that he is aware of the violations that have been committed, that he's received specific warning, and that he agrees to have a certified supervisor present full time on all building projects. Little added that once the letter is signed by the respondent, his license could be reinstated. Carr seconded. Vote: Yeas: Carr, Jones, McCoy, Smilie Nays: Packard 5. Other Business None. Meeting adjourned at 2:40 pm. Felix Lee, Buildi6d& Zoning Director 4hle;" Fielder, C airperson