Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 12/20/2007Minutes to be approved by the Board at the January 31, 2008 Meeting • FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting — December 20, 2007 IlCouncil Liaison: Kelly Ohlson IlStaff Liaison: Felix Lee (221-6760) II A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, December 20, 2007 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Packard Gene Little Michael Smilie Alan Cram George Smith Mike Gust BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: David Carr • STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Delynn Coldiron, Customer & Admin Services Manager Mike Gebo, Building Codes & Inspections Administrator AGENDA: ROLLCALL The meeting was called to order and rollcall was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Smith noted a needed correction. Cram made a motion to approve the minutes from the November 29, 2007 meeting as amended. Smith seconded the motion. Yeas: Packard, Little, Smilie, Cram, Smith, Gust Nays: 3. Byron McGough, d/b/a Wattle & Daub Contractors, Case #22-07 Delynn Coldiron introduced the case stating that the appellant currently holds a Class E license • with the City of Fort Collins. She explained that this license allows the holder to perform alterations to any building or structure in the City when such alterations do not include modifications to the structural frame as defined in the building code. She further explained that an E license holder is allowed to construct or alter interior load -bearing assemblies that are not essential to supporting the primary structural members of the building itself. BRB December 20, 2007 Pg. 2 Additionally, Coldiron noted that an E license holder can construct, repair, or demolish (a) • detached structures such as shelters, storage sheds, playhouses, greenhouses and gazebos; and (b) unenclosed structures such as open carports, patio covers. Open porches, and decks. Any such work is further limited to one story buildings or structures not exceeding two hundred (200) square feet in floor area and which contain occupancies limited to those classified by the building code as Group R, Division 3; Group S, Divisions 1 and 2; and Group U other than private garages. Coldiron stated that the appellant had applied for a limited C 1 license to enable him to perform the structural elements associated with his restoration projects in both commercial and residential instances. She explained that in order to qualify for a C1 license, an applicant must have constructed or supervised the construction of three entire building for which a minimum of a Class A, a Class B or a Class C-1 license or supervisor certificate is required and that at least one such building must be classified under the building code as Type I, Type II or Type III construction. Coldiron noted that the appellant does not have the prescribed level of experience necessary to obtain a Class C1 license which was the reason for his appeal. Coldiron reviewed the projects that had been submitted in support of the appellant's request, including: a) Hippodrome Theater Restoration & Art Annex, 217 & 219 Cedar Street, Julesburg, Colorado — restoration construction project that included a new addition; • b) Fort Collins Museum of Contemporary Art, 201 S. College Ave, Fort Collins. Colorado — restoration project; c) Romero House, 425 10`11 Street, Ft. Collins, Colorado — restoration project that included structural work; d) Wyoming State Capitol, 24`h & Capitol, Cheyenne, Wyoming — restoration project that included structural work; e) Jackson County Courthouse, 396 Lafever, Walden, Colorado — restoration project that included structural work; f) Historic Ault High School, 209 W. I't Street, Ault, Colorado — restoration project, included structural elements; and g) OT Jackson House, Weld County, Deerfield, Colorado — restoration project that included structural work. Coldiron noted that the appellant had been to the Board on a couple of occasions seeking exemptions to enable him to perform structural work. The first was the Romero House noted above and, according to Coldiron, was completed without any problems or concerns. Coldiron explained that more recently, the appellant sought approval from the Board to perform structural • alterations to the Armstrong Hotel, which project is currently underway and has not had any problems or concerns. Coldiron added that the appellant had done several jobs within the City of Fort Collins that had been completed without incident. The jobs included commercial alterations and roofing work. BRB December 20, 2007 Pg. 3 Coldiron pointed out that the appellant passed the City's C 1 exam, scoring a 76%. As well, she • noted that he holds licenses in the following jurisdictions: City of Cheyenne (Class B), City of Longmont (Class B), City of Douglas (specialty) and City of Sterling (Class 1 General Contractor). Appellant Byron McGough addressed the Board and explained that his work is primarily historic reconstruction and that most projects, if not all, involve structural improvements to the existing building. Because their work has almost always involved structural elements, Appellant McGough felt that it was a good time to attempt to qualify for a Cl license. McGough stated that all seven of the projects he submitted required structural modifications and improvements as part of the total restoration or rehabilitation. McGough explained that his structural work experience has included: • Installation of new barrel trusses in an existing occupied structure; • Construction of a new, two story, 6,800 square foot, framed commercial building; • Stabilization of brick store fronts while constructing an attached building; • Erection of a screen wall to hide mechanical equipment; • Adobe wall removal, replacement and restoration to an existing structure; • Roof trusses, ridges, beams, sistering, shoring and bracing; • Installation of a new elevator within an existing high school that serviced three levels within the building; • Exterior steel stair extension and work platform erection on the Wyoming State Capital; • • Restoration of the east portico structural columns on the Jackson County Courthouse; • Selective sandstone block and brick removal and replacement on bulging exterior vertical structural walls at 252 Linden St, Fort Collins and on the Jackson County Courthouse; and • Stabilization restoration and resetting of a 1,200 square foot frame structure on new footer and foundation. Appellant McGough noted that the work on the afore -mentioned projects was conducted in cooperation with structural engineers, civil engineers and architects. He explained that he followed their directives and decisions precisely and, when he encountered an unanticipated problem, he solicited professional directives and guidance before proceeding. McGough noted that seven separate engineers, architects and building experts have testified positively regarding his capability to safely engage, manage and eliminate structural damage and risk. He added that each project was done under a permit by a City, County, Town or State Building official. Mike Gebo, Building Code Administrator for the City of Fort Collins, asked the appellant to explain the overall size of the largest project he had restored and whether or not he was altering primary structural elements or secondary structural elements. Appellant McGough answered that the Wyoming State Capitol was the largest restoration project he had been involved in. McGough explained that the project lasted about two years, cost approximately $2,000,000 and involved the restoration of the dome structure which included some secondary structural work for shoring and bracing of an approximately 120,000 pound scaffold system that could not bear •' any weight on the dome structure. McGough explained that they started at the top of the dome, restored it, replaced the original roofing on the structure, installed a lightning protection system, installed two separate grounding fields, replaced windows within the dome structure and restored the stained glass ceilings in the House and Senate chambers. BRB December 20, 2007 Pg. 4 • Coldiron asked the appellant if he was seeking a license specifically for historic restoration projects. McGough explained that he has not restored anything outside of a historic structure and did not anticipate doing so. He noted that historic restoration is his area of specialty. Packard asked the appellant if his relationships with the various engineering firms were still in place. McGough confirmed this and explained that the primary preservation engineer he works with is Richard S. Beardmore of A.E. Design Associates located in Fort Collins. Smilie asked if there was a way to ensure that when the appellant was doing structural work, there would be proper qualifications from an engineering firm to handle the more difficult scope. Gebo noted that at the time of permit, the City would require stamped engineer or architect design drawings. Smilie stated that he wanted to make sure that an engineer was involved in these projects throughout the entire process and not just during submission or at review. Gebo noted that the license applied for would allow the person to construct certain structural elements such as wood framing, wood beams and the installation of such. He explained that work involving any bolting or welding of structural steel components would require an engineer's letter of completion prior to issuing a CO. Smilie referred to a past case on the Armstrong Hotel where an engineer was required to be on - site and noted that the Board felt that, regardless of the qualifications of the license holder, there were some components of that job the Board felt more at ease knowing there was an engineer • present on the job site. Packard asked the appellant if he was the supervisor on all of the projects submitted. McGough confirmed this. The Board discussed letting the City make the determination as to whether or not an engineer should be present on -site on certain jobs. The Board then discussed limiting the license so that the appellant was not allowed to construct new buildings but would allow restoration work for existing commercial and residential structures. Little informed the appellant that he could work towards getting a C 1 license without limitation by coming to the Board on a case by case basis until the three required structures had been completed. Little made a motion to approve a limited C 1 license that would enable the appellant to perform the structural elements involved in commercial and residential restoration projects and that required oversight by a qualified engineering company be required, as determined by City staff, on a case by case basis. Cram seconded the motion Vote: • Yeas: Packard, Little, Smilie, Cram, Smith Nays: Gust BRB December 20, 2007 Pg. 5 4. Edmund Secor, d/b/a Wattle & Daub Contractors, Case # 23-07 • Coldiron introduced the case stating that the appellant is an employee of Wattle & Daub Contractors and that he had applied for a limited C 1 supervisor's certificate to enable him to supervise restoration project job sites. Coldiron explained that to qualify for a C1 supervisor certificate, an applicant must have constructed or supervised the construction of three entire buildings for which a minimum of a Class A, a Class B or a Class C-1 license or supervisor certificate is required, and that at least one building must be classified under the building code as Type I, Type II or Type III construction. Coldiron noted that the appellant does not have the prescribed level of experience necessary to obtain a Class C1 license which was the reason for his appeal. She reviewed the following projects that were submitted in support of the appellant's supervisor certificate application: a) Hippodrome Theater Restoration & Art Annex, 217 & 219 Cedar Street, Julesburg, Colorado — restoration construction project that included a new addition; b) Historic Ault High School, 209 W. I" Street, Ault, Colorado — restoration project, included structural elements; and c) 252 Linden St. Fort Collins, Colorado — stabilization and repair work. Coldiron noted that the appellant took the City's C 1 exam on December 201" and that he currently holds a framing license with the City of Fort Collins. Coldiron explained that as a • framing license holder, the appellant is authorized to perform any structural construction or alterations limited to wood frame construction. Appellant Secor addressed the Board and stated that he had been in business for 23 years, mostly as a residential construction carpenter. Secor explained that for five years he was a superintendent and project manager for residential construction. Prior to obtaining his framing license with the City of Fort Collins, Secor noted that he spent a couple of years as a self employed framing contractor before going to work for Wattle & Daub. Secor reviewed his involvement in the projects he had submitted, including: • Hippodrome Arts Complex in Julesburg -- lead framer and on -site superintendent, performing and supervising the framing and truss work on the existing building as well as on -site supervision for the erection of a new building; • Ault High School -- lead carpenter and on -site superintendent for the installation of an elevator shaft through the building that cut through two floors; and • Linden Street -- performed stabilization work and oversaw the masonry subcontractor. Gebo asked the appellant to elaborate on how he would handle overseeing projects in relation to other trades and in what capacity was he able to supervise or control the projects in relation to • electrical and plumbing. Secor answered that the Hippodrome Theatre involved all trades such as concrete — foundation and flatwork, as well as plumbing and electrical. He explained that his experience and general BRB December 20, 2007 Pg. 6 knowledge of building is quite thorough and that he is familiar with most of the trades. Secor • noted that he doesn't know some of the specific details of plumbing and electrical codes but he knows a lot about what the codes require. Secor stated that he knows the right questions to ask when things don't look like they are going the right direction and explained that he often references plans for the information he needs. Mike asked the appellant if he was mainly the framing project coordinator or if he coordinated the entire Hippodrome Theatre project in relation to scheduling, knowing who was supposed to be on the project and when, etc. Appellant stated that he facilitated the scheduling of all contractors. Gust asked about whom was actually overseeing the projects submitted. Appellant stated that he was the site superintendent and Byron was the manager and over all planning supervisor. Coldiron explained that according to the licensing ordinance, a license must have a qualified supervisor attached to it and that the supervisor is required to provide regular on -site supervision. Coldiron added that often times you will have the license/certificate holder coming and going on a regular basis, and also have a site supervisor who stays on -site and maintains project oversight at all times during the project. Coldiron noted that should the Board grant the appellant a supervisor certificate, it would allow him to provide all of the site supervision and McGough would no longer be required to make site visits to the same projects. At this point, according to Coldiron, McGough must visit all job sites • on a regular basis since he is currently the only qualified supervisor under Wattle & Daub. Packard asked appellant how many of his years in business involved commercial work. Secor answered that he has been involved in commercial work for the last three years. Packard stated that one of his concerns is that in the restoration business by nature can be a lot more difficult than just putting up a new building. Packard questioned the appellant regarding his experience in relation to restoration and rehab work. Appellant explained that as part of his residential experience he had done a number of remodels of older houses. He added that he lives in a 100 year old house and has done extensive work on it. Packard explained that his concern is that with restoration there may be disassembling of the structure and too many times he has seen a contractor go in without a lot of experience and do a lot of damage in a short period of time. Packard was concerned that the appellant's experience to this point may not be sufficient to guarantee there won't be any issues with disassembly as it pertains to safety. Packard suggested that additional oversight for a period of time as a requirement of any supervisor certificate granted to the appellant might be appropriate. Appellant Secor stated that he did not specifically mention the roof reconstruction on the Hippodrome Theatre when he was previously discussing his projects. Secor explained that part of this project included replacing approximately 2/3 of the roof structure of the building which meant removing 14 foot sections of roof, putting in new trusses adjacent to existing trusses that • were damaged and rebuilding the roof. BRB December 20, 2007 Pg. 7 Secor noted that on the Ault High School project he had to understand the structure and how it • was built, safely install shoring prior to cutting through floors, install appropriate headers and bearing walls, etc., as part of the elevator project. Packard questioned McGough about his level of comfort with the appellant being the on -site supervisor. McGough stated that he was very comfortable with the appellant's presence on the job site and noted that the appellant was meticulous, extremely careful and the very first to call if he were to encounter a situation he did not comprehend or was in any way apprehensive about. McGough explained that the appellant had never put any of their work in jeopardy because of negligence or proceeding too hastily. Little questioned how long the appellant had been with Wattle & Daub and whether or not the projects submitted were the only projects that he had been involved in. Appellant Secor explained that he had been with the company for about 2 '/2 years and stated that he had also been involved with the Romero House, the Logan County Courthouse in Sterling, and a homestead cabin in Allen's Park. Little made a motion to approve a limited C 1 supervisor's certificate that would enable the appellant to perform on -site supervision of the structural elements involved in commercial and residential restoration projects, to include required oversight by a qualified engineering company, as determined by the City staff, on a case by case basis. Smilie suggested a friendly amendment that the C 1 test must be passed by the appellant. Little • accepted the friendly amendment. Smith seconded the motion Vote: Yeas: Packard, Little, Smilie, Cram, Smith, Gust Nays: 5. Bryan Martin, d/b/a Co-Cat/MHS, Case # 24-07 Coldiron introduced the case stating that the appellant had applied for a limited C1 license to enable him to perform structural restoration projects related to water and/or fire damage in both commercial and residential instances. Coldiron explained that in order to qualify for a CI license, an applicant must have constructed or supervised the construction of three entire buildings for which a minimum of a Class A, a Class B or a Class CI license or supervisor certificate is required and that at least one such building must be classified under the building code as Type I, Type II or Type III construction. Coldiron noted that the appellant does not have the prescribed level of experience necessary to obtain a Class C 1 license which was the reason for his appeal. She reviewed the projects that were submitted in support of appellant's license application, including: 1) 1600 N. Clinton St, Aurora, Colorado — water and fire repair on an apartment • building; 2) 129 S. 2"d, LaSalle, Colorado — fire damage repair for single family residence; and BRB December 20, 2007 Pg. 8 3) 8740-8741 Corona St, Thornton, Colorado — fire damage on condominium building. • Coldiron noted that the appellant had passed the ICC general contractor's exam covering the 97 UBC, as well as the City's refresher exam covering the 2003 IRC. Coldiron also noted that the appellant holds licenses in Denver, Aurora, Boulder and Arvada. Appellant Martin addressed the Board and explained that the packet given to the Board included licensing referrals and a list of commercial customers. He stated that his company does a lot of fire and water restoration work. On the 8740-8741 Corona St project, Martin explained that this was a ground up restoration job which is not usual construction for them. He added that his company uses engineers from demolition to shoring, framing, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical, through the whole process. Martin noted that he is a certified restorer and he first obtained a general contractor license in 1991 in the state of Florida where he did hurricane recovery. He added that Florida required a 2 million dollar bond, testing on their codes and amendments, etc. Martin explained that as part of his jobs in Florida, they tested for things such as asbestos and methamphetamines. If there were any hazardous materials on a project they were required to perform abatements prior to reconstruction. According to Martin, his company, Co -Cat, has a training academy where he has trained other employees in hazardous materials and where they hold weekly OSHA meetings. Martin noted • that his company serves as an example to other construction and restoration companies for being proactive. Martin explained that he supervises all of the project managers, provides construction oversight for all of their jobs, and is responsible for working with the engineers and the insurance companies. Martin stated that they are a preferred vendor for insurance companies and for a lot of fire stations. Gebo questioned the appellant as to local site supervision should he get called out of state, but have a permitted project already underway here in Fort Collins. Martin explained that they only service Denver and the surrounding areas and that he is required to provide on -site supervision on all jobs due to insurance reasons. Coldiron asked the appellant about whether or not most of the work performed by his company was residential. Appellant Martin explained that apartments are common, but that they also perform some commercial work. Martin noted that restaurants are common, as well as schools. Little informed the appellant that if he were to be granted the limited C 1 license, he would need to be present on all jobs until an additional supervisor was licensed to represent the company. Smilie asked appellant about the reason he wanted to get licensed in Fort Collins. Appellant explained that he had already tamed down several jobs in Fort Collins because he was not licensed. • Packard made a motion to approve a C1 license limiting the work to restorations, up to and including building replacements, but not allowing new buildings or new additions. Cram seconded the motion. BRB December 20, 2007 Pg. 9 • G� • 40 Vote: Yeas: Packard, Little, Smilie, Cram, Smith, Gust Nays: Other Business 1) IBC Review: Gebo reported that the IBC committee had finished their review of the 2006 IBC along with the 2007 supplement package. He noted that the committee had also looked at the 2006 IECC for commercial buildings. Gebo stated that the next step is to bring this item forward to City Council. He stated that he would be presenting this information to the Board at their next meeting. 2) Board Training: Coldiron mentioned that in the January/February timeframe there will be a training session scheduled for the Board. Lunch will be provided at the training and it will be an opportunity to discuss Board roles and responsibilities. 3) It was noted that this was Board Member Little's last meeting. Meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m. Felix Lee, Buildi�oning Director Michael Smilie, Chairperson