Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 02/22/2007Minutes approved by the Board at the March 29, 2007 Meeting FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting — February 22, 2007 1:00 m Chairperson- Michael Smilie Phone: (226 4260 ouncil Liaison: Kel!y Ohlson tall Liaison: Felix Lee (221-6760 A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, February 22, 2007 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARDMEMBERSPRESENT: Alan Cram Mike Gust Gene Little Jim Packard Michael Smilie, Chair George Smith David Carr STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Neighborhood & Building Services Director Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Delynn Coldiron, Contractor Licensing & Admin Services Coordinator AGENDA: 1. ROLLCALL The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINMS Little made a motion to approve the minutes from the January 25, 2007 meeting. Packard seconded the motion. The motion passed. 3. Rental Housing Standards Appeal Hearing —Peter Schultz, Appellant —505 Locust Street Lee introduced this appeal. He mentioned that pursuant to the procedures provided in the City Code, See. 5-312, Article V1, Division 2, Rental Housing Standards, the appellant was requesting that the Building Review Board "reverse" the interpretations, actions and decisions of the "Building Offmiar' as stipulated in the appellaWs Notice of Appeal received by the City Clerk on November 9, 2006, relating to the subject property. The following items were the appellant's basis for appeal: BRB February 22, 2007 Pg. 2 1. More than three adult occupants, all of whom are not related, are living in what the appellant believes to be a "single-family dwelling", which is not legally allowed to house more than three un-related adults under current and upcoming City Land Use Code regulations. 2. That even though the Zone District in which his and the subject premises are located, allows "two-family dwellings" (duplexes), neither City building permit records that have been found to date nor the County Assessor records corroborate the subject premises is a duplex dwelling. 3. The "Respondents" erroneously have determined that the subject premises is a "legal" existing duplex without the benefit of requiring a building permit for such conversion and creation of the second dwelling unit, including assessment of current applicable fees. 4. The "Respondents" improperly have allowed certain alterations, such as, installation of a stair rail, installation of smoke alarms and associated electric wiring, and enlargement of basement egress windows without permits. 5. The "Respondents" improperly have not required installation of "fire -rated barriers" and any applicable building permit. Responses from City Building staff were as follows: 1. The Building Official is authorized to adopt administrative rules, procedures, and policies, including the administration of issuing and requiring building permits and determining when a change of use of a building occurs, as described in more detail below. 2. The Rental Housing Standards, pursuant to Sec. 5-256, provide the Building Official with "the authority to adopt and promulgate administrative rules and procedures consistent with the provision of this Article; to interpret and implement the provisions of this .Article; to secure the intent thereof 3. Furthermore, the City Building Code, Sec. R104.1 states, "The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this (Building) code. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in conformance with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code." 4. The purview of the BRB is limited in the following respects when hearing appeals pursuant to the provisions of the City building Code. As noted in the excerpts below, the appellant in this case has no standing to appeal any provisions of the City Building Code to the BRB. Moreover the BRB is not empowered to hear appeals of the City Building Code relating to its "administration," under which, in "Chapter 1 — Administration" is found such functions as: "Organization and Enforcement," 'Modifications:' "Alternate materials, design, and methods of construction," "Permits," "Applications," "Fees,' "Inspections," "Change of Use," and "Certificate of Occupancy." a) "When a building permit applicant or a holder of a building permit desires relief from any decision of the building official related to the enforcement of this code, except as is otherwise limited in Section 105.4, such building permit applicant, building permit holder, or representative thereof may appeal the decision of the BRB February 22, 2007 Pg. 3 building office to the Board stating that such decision by the building official was based on an erroneous interpretation of the building regulations ..." b) "The Building Review Board shall have no authority with respect to any of the following functions: 1. The adritinistration of this code; 2. Waiving requirements of this code, except as provided for. pursuant to this Section 105; 3. Modifying the applicable provisions of, or granting variances to, this code, or approving the use of alternate designs, alternate materials and/or alternate methods of construction except as provided for in this Section 105 and based upon a specific appeal from a determination or decision of the building official on an individual case basis; and 4. Modifying, interpreting, or ruling on the applicability or intent of the zoning and land use regulations or other laws of the city except as expressly empowered otherwise." After thorough research into this case, Lee stated that he had determined that it was reasonable to infer that the Subject Premises was more likely than not used as a duplex by the late 1960s, well before the imposition of City "Capital Improvement Expansion Fees" or "Parkland Fees", based on information found in the "Occuo A Search Report" of November 7 2006 prepared by the City Historic Preservation Office. He noted that the report revealed two separate conventional phone lines listed for the dwelling — one attributed to the widowed owner/occupant, D. Evans, and another line attributed to two CSU students. According to Lee, it was also reasonable to conclude that the lower apartment/dwelling unit could easily have been created to supplement the income of the widowed owner, D. Evans, with or without permits, before such permits were required by the City or even considered by a homeowner. Lee noted that any extant City paper permit records for such work might easily have been lost, given their repositories being relocated many times over the decades. Further, he felt it was easy to surmise that the owner would not necessarily volunteer such conversion to the County Assessor's Office with a consequent increase in taxable value. With respect to concerns expressed by the appellant regarding City Building Code provisions and related permits, the Lee reported that a permit was required and issued on November 30, 2006 for the installation of the new egress windows and handrail. He added that the installation of smoke alarms and associated wiring were considered exempt from a permit, given the minor nature of the work which had been performed by a licensed electrician. Lee stated that the appellant's position on his interpretation that a "Fire -rated barrier should be required as if the lower dwelling unit was created today is neither realistic nor required for the existing use. Lee maintained that the appellant had no standing to appeal to the Building Review Board any of the particular "administrative" matters referenced in the City Building Code and stipulated as "Actions which are the subject of this appeal" which were contained in the Appellant's 'Notice Appeal" dated November 9 2006, He added that the unspecified "appropriate fees", which are located under the "administrative" provisions of the City Building Codes, as such are explicitly precluded from the BRB's purview as referenced in the earlier citations. Lee further contended that the BRB could hear this case, based on the criteria limited to the applicable provisions found in ARTICLE IV, DIVISION 2. RENTAL HOUSING STANDARDS, Subdivision C. Standards and Subdivision D. Substandard Buildings, Sections 5-276 through 5-314. There was significant discussion on the Board's purview and limitations related to the items included in this appeal. Deputy City Attorney, Paul Eckman, provided clarification related to Board purview, as well as other Board questions and comments. The Board heard testimony from appellant, Peter Schultz; attorney Elizabeth Lamb Kearney who was representing the owner; Jeanne Bolton, owner of the subject premises; and Mike Gebo, City BRB February 22, 2007 Pg. 4 Building Code Administrator who had personally performed inspections on the subject premises. They asked questions and obtained clarifications on details as needed throughout the testimony. Following closing statements, the Board had a lengthy and detailed discussion on the various items forwarded in this appeal. Little made a motion to deny the appellant's request that the Board reverse the interpretation/decision of the Building Official based on City's staff's determination that the property now meets the requirements of the Rental Housing Code and based on the fact that this is the only item within the purview of the Board. Smith seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Little, Packard, Smilie, Cram, Smith and Gust Nays: None It was added that this motion included tacit indication that the Board was upholding the previous determinationrnterpretations of the Building Official in this case, as well as the fact that the appellant did understand that the subject property is a duplex. 4. Scott Pierce, d/b/a Complete Basement Systems: Lee introduced this appeal. He noted that the appellant was in the process of applying for a D2 license and supervisor certificate. He explained that, according to the City's licensing requirements, to qualify for a Class D2 license or supervisor certificate, an applicant must have constructed or supervised the construction of three (3) completed projects, each with a construction value of not less than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.) and each of which entailed the significant structural alteration of or the addition to a single-family home or equivalent structure as determined by the Building Official. However, because the appellant's company performs only residential finish work; Lee stated that the appellant was unable to provide documentation on projects that are sufficient to quality for an unrestricted D2 license. Therefore, the appellant was seeking a limited D2 license that would enable him to perform non-structural residential finish work. Lee added that the appellant bad taken the City's D2 exam on January 5, 2007, but did not pass. It was the appellant's position that many of the questions on the test did not pertain to the type of construction his company performs and, therefore, he was also requesting that these questions be waived and that Iris current test be accepted. The Board heard testimony from the appellant, Scott Pierce.. After closing statements, the Board discussed the information that had been presented. Smilie made a motion to grant a 30day temporary D2 license restricted to residential finish work pending the receipt of adequate project verification and successful completion of the D2 exam Once these items are completed, the temporary license can be converted to a D2 license restricted to residential finish work. Little seconded the motion. Vote. Yeas: Little, Smilie, Cram, Smith and Gust Nays: Packard BRB rebruary 22, 2007 Pg. 5 5. a Benjamin Wallace, d/b/a Remodelit Lee introduced this appeal. He stated that the appellant had applied for a D2 license and supervisor certificate. Lee reiterated the City's licensing requirements for a Class D2 license. He noted that the appellant's information shows that he has eleven years' experience working primarily for two general contractors, Remodel One and Baird Builders, Inc. A project list which was included as part of the appellant's submittal outlined the work he had done on the various projects he was involved in during this time. The appellant's dilemma was the fact that, although he participated in all of the projects listed, he did not fully supervise any of the projects. Therefore, the appellant was unable to document three projects that met the D2 licensing requirements. He was requesting that the Board consider his experience adequate for the D2 license requested. L&e also noted that the took and passed the City's D2 exam on February 2, 2007. He scored an 89%. The Board heard testimony from the appellant, Ben Wallace. After closing statements, the Board discussed the information that had been presented. Smilie made a motion to deny appellant's request for a D2 license. Packard seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Little, Packard, Smilie, Cram, Smith and Gust Nays: None Other Business Lee provided an update on IBC and property Maintenance Code efforts currently underway. Meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. -1— Felix Lee, N ' ces orhood & Building SernMike Smilie Board Chair Director