Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 02/28/2008Minutes to be approved by the Board at the March 27, 2008 Meeting FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting — February 28, 2008 1.00 p.m. Chai erson: Michael Smilie hone: 226-4260 H ouncil Liaison: Kell Ohlson Staff Liaison: Felix Lee 221-6760 A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, February 28, 2008 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Packard Alan Cram Michael Smilie George Smith Mike Gust Jeff Schneider BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: David Carr STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Delynn Coldiron, Contractor Licensing & Admin Services Coordinator Felix Lee, Neighborhood and Building Services Director AGENDA: ROLLCALL The meeting was called to order and rollcall was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Cram made a motion to approve the minutes from January 31, 2008 meeting. Smith seconded the motion. Yeas: Packard, Cram, Smilie, Smith, Gust, Schneider Nays: Robert Lawton, d/b/a Longs Peak Energy Conservation, Case # 03-08 Lee introduced this case stating that Longs Peak Energy Conservation currently has an HVAC license with the City of Fort Collins (H-1422) which was issued in March, 1998. He noted that Charlie Richardson holds both the license and supervisor certificate and that based on the testing and experience documentation provided at that time, the applicant was given an unrestricted HVAC license. Lee explained that Charlie intended on moving to part-time status with the BRB February 28, 2008 Pg. 2 company and has mentioned leaving altogether on occasion, which was the impetus for obtaining a new license and supervisor certificate holder for the company. According to Lee, the appellant has applied for a limited license that would enable him to perform the HVAC work required as part of weatherization retrofits to existing homes. Lee explained that to qualify for an HVAC license, an applicant must provide written verification of five completed projects demonstrating that the applicant possesses at least three years of supervisory experience. Additionally, for an HVAC license, two of the projects submitted must entail new system installs. Lee stated that the appellant had submitted five projects; however, did not have the prescribed level of experience necessary to obtain an unrestricted HVAC license since he had no projects that included new construction. Lee noted that, according to the appellant's information, his company exclusively provides weatherization retrofits to existing home as a part of the State Weatherization program (Energy Saving Partners ESP) and the City of Fort Collins REACH program. As well, because the organization is grant funded, DOE guidelines prohibit the appellant from working on new construction projects. Lee explained that the appellant passed the City's HVAC exam which covered the 2003 IMC and IFGC. As well, he noted that the appellant had completed training with the Salina Area Vocational Technical School for refrigeration and air conditioning and holds a mechanical license with the City of Loveland. Dave Atwood, site manager for Longs Peak Energy Conservation, appeared on appellant Lawton's behalf. Smith suggested the Board table the case until appellant Lawton could be present. He stated that he was not comfortable asking questions of somebody who was not going to be the license holder and did not feel that it was appropriate to grant a license to somebody in absentia. Schneider made a motion to table the case until appellant Lawton could appear before the Board. Cram seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Packard, Cram, Smilie, Smith, Gust, Schneider Nays: 4. George Laycock, d/b/a G. Laycock, Inc., Case # 04-08 Lee introduced the case stating that the appellant had applied for a limited C1 license to enable him to perform wood -frame commercial construction for a Primrose School. He explained that in order to qualify for a Class C1 license an applicant must have constructed or supervised the construction of three entire buildings for which a minimum of a Class A, Class B, or Class C-1 license or supervisor certificate was required. He further explained that at least one such building must have been classified under the building code as Type I, Type II or Type III construction. Because they primarily build wood -frame, single -story, child care centers, Lee stated that the appellant was unable to meet the Type I, II or III licensing criteria. BRB February 28, 2008 Pg. 3 Lee noted that according to the appellant's information, the project forms submitted covered projects that are essentially the same as what is being proposed for Fort Collins -- a wood - framed, single -story, child care center. Lee added that the appellant was seeking a license only and that their supervisor, who has passed the City's exam, would be seeking the same type of approval in the next case before the Board. Bruce Ogden, superintendent for G. Laycock appeared on appellant Laycock's behalf. He stated that for the past few years the only thing their company has built has been the Primrose Schools. He confirmed that this is what they intend to build in Fort Collins as well. Schneider made a motion to table the case on the Cl license until appellant Laycock could appear before the Board. Gust seconded the motion. Smith stated that he believed that this case was a little bit different in that the applicant was not actually applying for anything other than the license. Schneider explained that his concern was that Bruce Ogden would not be able to answer the questions that he would like to ask and was not comfortable granting a license without the appellant being present. Smith asked Lee if there would be any issue if the Board granted both the license and supervisor certificate to Ogden. Lee confirmed that this would not be an issue. Lee added that it is common in cases where the owner is not the hands on builder or supervisor to apply for the license and then have a separate qualified supervisor. Lee explained that the only reason this case had come before the Board was because they were seeking a conditional license. Otherwise, according to Lee, the license would have been granted as requested. Smith stated that he did not have any issue with granting a license to appellant Laycock without him being present. Schneider stated his preference for approving Ogden as both the license holder and supervisor. Appellant Ogden stated that he had discussed this issue with George Laycock and it was just a matter of personal preference to appellant Laycock that he hold the license, but that it didn't have to be that way. Ogden preferred that the Board grant him both if that would facilitate approval of their request. Smilie reiterated that the Board has the right to grant Ogden both the license as well as the supervisor certificate and asked for clarification on what else might be needed to do this. Lee answered that this could be accomplished by getting a new application or amending the current application on file. Schneider made a motion to table the C1 license request for appellant Laycock until such time that he could appear before the Board and for the Board to move on to the second case involving appellant Ogden. Gust seconded the motion. Schneider asked whether appellant Laycock had taken the City's test or a similar test. Lee stated that as a license holder only, appellant Laycock would not be required to take the test. Lee explained that the ordinance has two parts. It requires that there be a license holder and a supervisor certificate holder. They can be one in the same, but they don't have to be. Lee noted that a license holder can be a corporation and not a person at all, but that a certificate holder must be a person and the one who is on -site directly supervising the construction of a project. BRB February 28, 2008 Pg. 4 Gust was unsure why the Board would require appellant Laycock to be present for approval of his license request if he generally would not have been required to be there. Lee reiterated that there was not necessarily a purpose to have the owner of the company and potential license holder present. He added that this was not required by City code and that his philosophy has been that City staff wants to deal with the person who is supervising the project, not necessarily the owner who may not be on the project site at all. Schneider asked about the project verification required of a license holder. Lee clarified that a license holder does have to demonstrate that they have experience. Schneider explained that this is why he was concerned and that he was unsure whether Ogden would be able to provide answers on behalf of Laycock. Smilie agreed that the Board should not question Ogden on behalf of Laycock but thought that if the Board could qualify Ogden as both the license and supervisor certificate holder and grant a variance to build the proposed project, the licensing of Laycock could be determined at a later time. Schneider asked for clarification on the three projects that had been submitted for Ogden. Lee and Ogden provided clarification. Packard asked whether the Board could issue a supervisor certificate without tying it to a license. Smilie explained that the Board could grant the supervisor certificate, but that a license would have to be granted to either Ogden or Laycock before the supervisor certificate could be used. Packard asked for clarification on whether the case for appellant Laycock was tabled. Smilie stated that because the appellant was not present and able to answer questions, he thought it was appropriate to table the case and move on to the second case involving Ogden. Schneider asked if the Board could approve a one-time exemption limiting the appellant to wood frame construction. Lee confirmed this. Ogden stated that it is possible that the company may build another Primrose School in Fort Collins but that it might be a couple years from now. Packard asked for clarification on whether the application information from appellant Laycock was complete, including insurance. Coldiron stated that all related paperwork had been submitted and clarified that the City does not typically require someone to provide insurance until the permit is issued. Schneider stated that for the project in Holly Springs, Georgia, there was a TCO submitted in place of a CO. He asked why a TCO was submitted as verification and whether or not City staff followed up to verify whether or not there were any issues or violations. Ogden stated that if there was a TCO issued, it was probably to enable them to get started with stocking school equipment and supplies. Coldiron clarified that City staff reviews the verification forms and confirms completion of the projects through final building inspections that have been completed or CO's. She added that BRB February 28, 2008 Pg. 5 unless the TCO stated that something related to final building inspections were outstanding or did not pass, the City would typically accept a TCO as proper verification that the project had been completed. Schneider asked for clarification on how staff deals with applications from out of state applicants and on the amount of follow up that is done on the documentation that is submitted. Lee explained that it would be extremely time consuming for City staff to make phone calls on every CO or document that was submitted. He stated that staff spot checks these items, and provides additional follow up on items that seem out of the ordinary or when there is something missing. Smilie stated that the reference information provided on the verification forms would probably denote something had the project not passed inspections or had there been other problems with the project. Schneider referred to reference information on one of the projects that had been submitted stating that the person was not happy because although G. Laycock had been the lowest bidder, they ended up being the highest priced at the end of the job due to change orders. Smilie stated that the Board has no way to tell who initiated the change orders. Ogden asked whether it would simplify the process if the Board dismissed appellant Laycock's application and approved him as both the license and certificate holder. Smilie stated that City staff might have some requirements in order to be able to do that, but that this was essentially what the Board was looking at now. He explained that the motion before them was to table the case for appellant Laycock and skip directly to Ogden's application. Schneider asked for additional clarification on whether it was just an administrative issue for Ogden to be granted a license in addition to the supervisor certificate should the Board approve this request. Smilie and Lee provided clarification. Vote: Yeas: Packard, Cram, Smilie, Smith, Gust, Schneider Nays: 5. Bruce Ogden, d/b/a G. Laycock, Inc., Case #05-08 Lee introduced the case stating that the appellant had applied for a limited C1 supervisor certificate to enable him to supervise a wood -frame commercial construction project for a proposed Primrose School. He explained that in order to qualify for a Class Cl supervisor certificate, an applicant must have constructed or supervised the construction of three entire buildings for which a minimum of a Class A, Class B or Class Cl license or supervisor certificate was required and must have passed the City's exam. At least one such building must have been classified under the building code as Type I, Type II or Type III construction. Because they primarily build wood -frame, single -story, child care centers, according to Lee, the appellant was unable to meet the Type I, II or III licensing criteria. Lee noted that according to the appellant's information, the project forms submitted covered projects that are essentially the same as the project that is being proposed for Fort Collins. He added that the appellant passed the City's C 1 exam on January 3, 2008 with a score of 84%. BRB February 28, 2008 Pg. 6 Appellant Ogden addressed the Board and stated that he has built four other Primrose Schools with essentially identical floor plans to the one that is being proposed for Fort Collins. He stated that these were all wood -frame buildings. Lee asked whether appellant Ogden was the site manager on the project in Denver. Appellant Ogden confirmed this. Lee asked for clarification on how many Primrose Schools appellant Ogden had built. Ogden stated that he had built four schools, two of which he took over mid - project due to issues with the initial on -site superintendent. Ogden noted that the proposed Primrose School in Fort Collins will be the second one he has built from ground up, but added that he has been in the construction industry for over 30 years. Schneider asked Ogden for further clarification on the projects he had listed as supervising 50%. Ogden provided clarification. Smilie asked about the type of foundation used for these buildings and about whether the work would be done in conjunction with a local engineer. Appellant Ogden stated that the foundation type is slab on grade. He explained that the structural plans were drawn up by an architect, but then sent out to a structural engineer for review and approval. Schneider asked whether having a national engineers stamp on the plans would cause any issues with the City. Lee explained that any engineer used would have to be licensed in the State of Colorado. Schneider asked Ogden for further clarification on this. Ogden was unsure whether the engineer they used was licensed in Colorado. He explained that the project manager handled all of this. Lee clarified that if the plans were not stamped by a state licensed engineer, the City would not review them. Smilie stated that his only concern was to make sure that the plans were being designed for the soils in Fort Collins. Appellant Ogden stated that all of the soil testing was done by Keith Engineering who is a local engineering firm. He explained that Keith Engineering would also be doing the inspections on the foundation, slabs, concrete testing, etc. Gust asked appellant Ogden to elaborate on his past experience before the Primrose Schools, as well as his education. Appellant Ogden noted that he started doing construction in 1979, working as a carpenter for about 25 years. He explained that most of that time he built custom homes from the ground up. He added that he did a little bit of track work and a lot of high end additions and remodels. He further explained that when he started doing superintendent work he did some remodeling for a company in California and also built a Golds Gym. He noted that most of his experience has been with wood -frame construction. Schneider asked whether Ogden holds any other licenses or certificates. Ogden confirmed that he held a Class B license in Denver. Smilie asked for clarification on the square footage of the proposed Primrose School. Appellant Ogden stated that it was around 10,000 square feet. BRB February 28, 2008 Pg. 7 Schneider asked about the type of paperwork appellant Ogden would need to submit in order to be both the license and supervisor certificate holder. Lee stated that it looked like the appellant had, in fact, already applied as both. He explained that he is listed as the license and supervisor certificate holder. Appellant Ogden stated that he has filled out the application twice since when he originally started he was intending to be both. Lee stated in his closing statements that he had no reservations about approving appellant Ogden's request. Cram made a motion to approve a limited C1 license for wood -frame, single story construction of projects similar to what have been provided in the packet. Schneider made a friendly amendment to also approve a limited C1 supervisor's certificate and seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Packard, Cram, Smilie, Smith, Gust, Schneider Nays: 6. Other Business • IBC Update Lee noted that they are looking at an adoption first reading date of April 1, 2008. Meeting adjourned at 2:00 p.m. Felix Lee, BuildindX Zoning Director Michael Smilie, Chairperson