Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 08/30/2007Karla Smith - 8.30 07.minutes.appvd.pdf Page 1 at FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting — August 30, 2007 A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, August 30, 2007 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: David Carr Jim Packard Gene Little Michael Smilie Alan Cram George Smith Mike Gust BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Neighborhood & Building Services Director Delynn Coldiron, Customer & Admin Services Supervisor AGENDA: 1. ROLLCALL The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken. Chairperson Smilie reviewed the procedures that would be used during the meeting. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Carr had some concern with the wording of his motion for the Wattle & Daub case. There was brief discussion. Packard made a motion to table the minutes from the July 26, 2007 meeting pending review of the meeting tape. Cram seconded the motion. 3. David Houts, d4da Construction Management Solutions: Felix Lee reviewed the specifics for this hearing. He noted that Stop Work Orders were issued on August 10, 2007 for: 2002 Raven View Drive, 2008 Raven View Drive, 2014 Raven View Drive, 2020 Raven View Drive, 2026 Raven View Drive and 2032 Raven View Drive due to construction that had been performed by the general contractor, David Hunts, d/b/a Construction Management Solutions, prior to obtaining building permits. Lee explained that these are single- family attached units that make up one six-plex building. Lee also explained that according to ordinance, a permit must be obtained prior to the time any construction work is commenced. Karla Smith - 8.30.07.minutes.appvd.pdf Page 2 BRB August 30, 2007 Pg. 2 According to Lee, Respondent Houts appeared before the Board in June, 2007 to request approval of his C2 license and supervisor certificate. At that time, staff had denied the request since there was some question about whether Respondent Hoots had adequate on -site supervision experience and due to the fact that he did not have a third project to submit that qualified for the C2 license. Lee noted that the Board approved Respondent Houts' request for a C2 license which was issued on July 3, 2007. He stated that Respondent Houts also holds a Class Dl license with the City of Fort Collins which was issued in March, 2007. Lee explained that all departmental reviews for the permits in question were completed by April 05, 2007 that that it was possible for the Respondent to obtain F&F permits on or after July 3, 2007 provided that any outstanding contractor licensing issues were resolved. However, Lee stated that as of August 23, 2007, no permits had been issued. Lee referred the Board to pictures of the structures that had been built. He mentioned that no inspections had been performed to date since no permits had been issued. Lee explained that according to City policy, additional fees would be assessed at the time of permit issuance due to the violations that had occurred. He noted that in this case, the penalty fees totaled $3,826.35. The Board next heard testimony from Respondent Houts and asked questions of the Respondent and staff. After closing statements, the Board discussed the information that was presented. Finding of Fact Packard made a motion for a Finding of Fact that the Respondent was in violation of the following items of Section 15-162 (d) of the City's Contractor Licensing Ordinance: 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 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 this Article; and 6. Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed Cram seconded the motion Vote: Yeas: Carr, Packard, Little, Smihe, Cram, Smith, and Gust Nays: None Disposition Little made a motion that the financial penalty was appropriate in this case and, because this was a first offense, the license should be restored so Respondent Houts could complete the project currently underway. He added that a letter of reprimand should be placed in his file and that any further offenses would be reviewed by the Board resulting in possible revocation of his license. Karla Smith - 8.30.07.minutes.appvd.pdf -Page BRB August 30, 2007 Pg. 3 Gust seconded the motion There was further discussion on the motion and it was suggested that a license suspension should be added. Little accepted a friendly amendment to add a six-month suspension to Respondent Hoots' license that would begin on August 30, 2007 and tan concurrent with the existing project prohibiting him from proceeding with any further projects during completion of the current project, or before the six-month suspension period had ended. Gust provided a second for the friendly amendment. Vote: Yeas: Carr, Packard, Little, Smilie, Cram, Smith, and Gust Nays: None 4. Raja 7airam, d/b/a MBI Corporation Lee introduced this appeal and noted that the Appellant's Class A license expired on May 18, 2006, which is now past the 60-day grace period allowed by the licensing ordinance. Lee explained that according to the Appellant's information, he allowed his license to lapse due to a pending merger of his company; however, this never materialized. Lee stated that once past the 60-day grace period, according to City ordinance, the license holder must reapply for the license and is subject to all current requirements including testing. According to Lee, the Appellant's Class A license was initially approved on May 27, 1982. A waiver of the required exam was granted by the Contractor Licensing Board at that time. Lee noted that the Appellant later applied and was approved for a Class A license on January 28, 1988 and that file records indicate that the license was kept current until it lapsed in February, 2004. Lee stated that according to the Appellant, the lapse occurred because the renewal forms were inadvertently overlooked. Lee stated that the Appellant reapplied for his license in 2004 and explained that staff reviewed the project verification forms that were submitted as part of the Appellant's initial license application and found that, due to changes that had been made to the contractor licensing ordinance through the years, the projects were sufficient for the Class B license, but not the Class A. Lee stated that one additional Class A project (new commercial building over 5 stories) would be required for the Appellant to qualify for the Class A license under the current ordinance. Lee noted the Appellant appeared before the Board in May, 2004 requesting reinstatement of his Class A license as well as approval of an exam waiver, and that the Board granted both at that time. Lee explained that the Appellant was again applying for reinstatement of his Class A license and for approval of another exam waiver. He added that under the current ordinance, the projects forms on file are still sufficient only for the Class B license and that one additional Class A project form was needed to fully meet the requirements specified for authorizing a Class A license. Lee noted that because the Appellant had a pending project, he granted a temporary Class B license on 08/04/2007. Karla Smith - 8.30 07.minutes.appvd,pdf Page 4 BRB August 30, 2007 Pg. 4 Next, Lee reviewed with the Board an alleged violation that occurred at 1120 S. College Avenue. He explained that a Stop Work Order was issued on August 23, 2007, for demolition work being performed at that address prior to obtaining a permit and that the project was the Appellant's. Lee noted that this work was part of a pending permit and that the work constituted a violation to City Code, Section 15-162(d)(6). The Board heard testimony from the Appellant Raja Jairam and asked questions of the Appellant and staff. After closing statements, the Board discussed the information that was presented. Little made a motion to approve the request for reinstatement of Appellant's Class A license and supervisor certificate with the condition that the Appellant pass the City's Class A license exam within 90 days. Carr seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Carr, Packard, Little, Smilie, Cram, Smith, and Gust Nays: None 5. Henry Schilling, d/b/a Service Master of Fort Collins: Lee introduced this appeal noting that the Appellant had applied for a Class D2 license and supervisor certificate. Lee 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) projects with a construction value of not less than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000), and each of which entails the significant structural alteration of or the addition to a single-family home or equivalent structure as determined by the Building Official. Lee referred to the following projects that the appellant submitted in support of his license application: • 3608 Meining Road— Fire damage repair • 2339 E. Fox Acres Dr —Water damage repair Lee explained that these projects were insufficient to qualify for the Class D2 license that had been requested. The Board heard testimony from the Appellant Henry Schilling and asked questions of the Appellant and staff. After closing statements, the Board discussed the information that was presented Packard made a motion to approve a limited D2 license with the condition that the work performed cannot involve structural alterations or remodeling of any kind. Carr seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Can, Packard, Little, Smilie, Cram, Smith, and Gust Nays: None Karla Smith - 8.30.07.minutes.appvd.pdf Page 5 "I BRB August 30, 2007 Pg. 5 6. Brian Cass, d/b/a B & S Colorado: Lee introduced this appeal and noted that the Appellant had applied for a Class DI license and supervisor certificate. Lee explained that according to the City's licensing requirements, to qualify for a Class D 1 license or supervisor certificate, an applicant must have constructed or supervised the construction of three (3) complete single family homes or the equivalent thereof as determined by the Building Official. Lee noted that according to the Appellant's information, he had spent the last ten years in commercial construction, with a heavy emphasis on design/build work. It was also noted that he constructed his personal residence and is familiar with current codes and field supervision. Lee referred to the following projects submitted by the Appellant in support of his license Application: • 2150 Centre Avenue, Building B — Class B project • 2150 Centre Avenue, Building D— Class B project • 120 Blanca Avenue —Class B project Lee explained that the projects submitted were all commercial jobs and, therefore, did not qualify for the DI license that had been requested. Lee also explained that, although the appellant attempted the Class Cl exam, he did not pass. The appellant did pass the Dl exam with a score of 75%. Additionally, Lee noted that the Appellant has a degree in Construction Management. The Board heard testimony from the Appellant Brian Cass and asked questions of the Appellant and staff. After closing statements, the Board discussed the information that was presented. Cram made a motion to approve the Appellant's request for a Dl license and supervisor certificate based on his experience and education. Smith seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Carr, Packard, Little, Smilie, Cram, Smith, Gust Nays: None 7. Other Business: Lee mentioned that the review committee looking at the Intemational Building Code had been reconvened and were continuing with their review. Updates will be provided as they continue through this process. Meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m. Felix Lee, Bujodg & Zoning Director Michael Smilie, Chairperson