Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 11/29/2007Minutes approved by the Board at the December 18, 2007Meeting FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting — November 29, 2007 1.00 .m. erson: Michael Smilie hone: 226-4260 Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson Staff Liaison: Felix Lee 221-6760) A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, November 29, 2007 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Qi MI1135tA7rl940307 ya.�Fii David Carr Jim Packard Gene Little Alan Cram George Smith Michael Smilie BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Gust STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Delynn Coldiron, Contractor Licensing & Admin Services Coordinator Paul, Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Felix Lee, Neighborhood and Building Services Director AGENDA: 1. ROLLCALL The meeting was called to order and rollcall was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES David Carr made a motion to approve the minutes from the October 25, 2007 meeting. George Smith seconded the motion. Yeas: Carr, Packard, Little, Smilie, Cram, Smith Nays: Board Member Carr requested that staff include more detail on Board discussions in future minutes. 3. Ted Bjorlie, d/b/a TNT, Case #19-07 Lee introduced the case stating 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 this license, an applicant must have constructed or supervised the construction of BRB November 29, 2007 Pg. 2 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. Lee noted that the appellant submitted the following projects in support of his license application: • 3598 Cheetah Drive, Loveland, CO —Deck • 1450 New Mexico Street, Loveland, CO —Deck Lee explained that these projects are insufficient to qualify for the D2 license and supervisor certificate that have been requested. Lee informed the Board that the City has a Miscellaneous & Minor Structures license that would authorize the construction of decks up to 200 square feet. He added that although the appellant had built numerous decks, he had only two that were of sufficient size or height to require a building permit. Lee stated that the appellant could provide additional documentation to meet the project verification requirements of the Miscellaneous & Minor Structures license as long as the Board would accept three jobs that did not require permits. However, Lee clarified that this license would not meet the needs of the appellant unless he was able to obtain a square footage exemption allowing him to construct decks in excess of the 200 square feet limitation of the Miscellaneous & Minor Structures license. Lee noted that the appellant passed the City's D2 exam on September 5, 2007, scoring a 96% and that he also holds a Bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering. Appellant Bjorlie addressed the Board. He summarized the two projects completed in Loveland by explaining that the decks were 380 square feet and included a railing and two sets of stairs. Bjorlie explained that he was responsible for designing and building the decks and passed inspections without incident. Lee asked the appellant if he was seeking a license that would allow him to solely build decks up to 1,000 square feet. Appellant confirmed this. Lee then explained that the appellant was really seeking a specialty niche in terns of the deck -only construction and explained that the Miscellaneous & Minor Structures license with and expanded square footage limit might be something to consider. There was some discussion related to multi -story deck construction, as well deck enclosures/ coverings. Bjorlie stated that he would like to build second story decks up to 1,000 square feet. He explained that he had experience building second story decks, but had not built any roofs over them. The Board questioned Lee as to whether or not the Miscellaneous & Minor Structures license would allow the appellant to build covers over the decks and if it would allow him to build commercially. Lee explained that the Miscellaneous & Minor Structures license limits work to structures that are one story buildings that do not exceed 200 square feet and that the license does not necessarily preclude roof structures such as a patio cover or carport system. Lee also noted that BRB November 29, 2007 Pg. 3 the license allows for single family residential (R3), storage, Group S Divisions 1 and 2 and Group U (other than private garages) construction, so there could be some commercial applications allowed. Bjorlie noted that he does not build commercially. Cram made a motion to approve a Miscellaneous & Minor Structures that would enable the appellant to build decks up to 1,000 square feet. Smith suggested a friendly amendment to limit the construction to open decks. Packard seconded the motion as amended. Lee reminded the Board that without modification the license is also limited to one story structures. There was a request for clarification on whether a main level would be considered a second story if the structure had a walk out basement. Lee stated that this would depend on the grading. There was a request for clarification of the inspection requirements for decks. Lee explained that the inspector would be looking at the structural frame and railings. A question was posed as to whether the Building Department would always see drawings for deck permit requests and whether or not an Engineer would be required on a pier foundation, Lee confirmed that the Building Department requires drawings for deck permits and explained that there are standard design criteria for deck construction. He noted that if there was an unusual condition that required engineering on the foundation, the Building Department would defer the design to a licensed professional engineer. Little suggested an amendment to the initial motion to allow for the construction of second story deck structures. Carr seconded the amendment. Vote: Yeas: Carr, Packard, Little, Smilie, Cram, Smith, Nays: 4. Rick Garhart, d/b/a Vision Builders & Design, Case # 20-07 Lee introduced the case explaining that a Stop Work Order was issued on 10/31/2007 for 2631 S. College Avenue due to construction that had been performed prior to obtaining a building permit and for construction that was beyond the scope of the respondent's general contractor's license. Lee explained that this was a remodel project for a new restaurant and that the general contractor of record for the project was Rick Garhart, d/b/a Vision Builders & Design. Lee stated that since the time the Stop Work Order was issued, a different qualified contractor, Terry Heyne, obtained the appropriate permit for this project and has continued construction. Lee explained that Respondent Garhart holds a Class E license and supervisor certificate with the City that were issued in 2003, as well as a Class Dl license and supervisor certificate that were issued in 1990. He noted that there were no other violations on file for either of these licenses. BRB November 29, 2007 Pg. 4 Lee stated that the respondent's Class E license allows for non-structural commercial or residential finish work, but does not include any alterations or modifications to the building's structural frame as defined by the building code. He added that at the time that the Stop Work Order was issued for the project, significant structural alterations had occurred, including the dismantling of a large portion of the building's roof to accommodate the construction of a second -story. According to Lee, this was the basis for alleged violation #7 "Commitment of any act of negligence, incompetence or misconduct in the performance of the contractor's specific trade which results in posing a threat to public health and safety." Respondent Garhart addressed the Board. He stated that the original job he was contracted to do was a resurface of the interior of the old Hooter's building. The respondent stated that the Building Department initially told him that the project didn't qualify for a tenant finish permit since they weren't moving any walls, or doing any electrical or plumbing work. According to Garhart, as work progressed, the owner decided to do extra things which prompted the need for a building permit. Respondent Garhart explained that he was unaware that he had gone beyond the scope of his license based on a previous project he had completed that included the construction of a second story mezzanine within a restaurant which the City allowed him to do under his Class E license. He stated that he now knows that he exceeded the scope of his license due to the modifications made to the structural frame of the building in this case, and acknowledged that he knowingly pulled off the roof without having a permit. In his defense, he stated that he knew at that time that everything had been appropriately engineered and submitted to the City for permits and that the only outstanding review was the Health department. Lee explained that the Building department would not have issued this permit to a contractor who held less than a Class Cl license. He also noted that any project over $500 requires a building permit. Garhart closed by acknowledging again that he started the work without a permit and paid a fine for doing so. He explained that there was a demo permit in place at the site and all of the drawings were submitted to the City. He added that the drawings had been with the City for 22 days at that point, and that the job was engineered, and had been resurveyed and re -staked. He hoped that the Board would consider this information. Lee closed by stating that the respondent had been around for a while and was familiar with pennitting requirements. He added that the respondent not getting a permit prior to commencement of the work, regardless of whether or not there was a misunderstanding of the scope of his license, remains a clear violation. Board Member Little commented that once the scope of a project changes, it is like starting over. Little stated that the respondent began the project fully licensed and capable to perform the work; however, once the project changed he was no longer qualified. Little pointed out that this is where it becomes the contractor's responsibility to come to the City to see what can be done. Little added that the fact that the respondent started the project without a permit is cause for concern. BRB November 29, 2007 Pg. 5 Finding of Fact Little 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 constriction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or license holder as set forth in this Article; 6. Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed; and 7. Commitment of any act of negligence, incompetence or misconduct in the performance of the contractor's specific trade which results in posing a threat to public health and safety. Little explained that he did not feel that the issue of incompetence applied in this case but that the issues of negligence and misconduct did. Cram seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Carr, Packard, Little, Smilie, Cram, Smith Nays: Disposition: Little made a motion to lift the existing license suspension to enable the Respondent to continue to work in the City of Fort Collins and to place a letter of reprimand in his file. Smith seconded the motion. Yeas: Carr, Packard, Little, Smilie, Smith, Nays: Cram Darrin Hunt, d/b/a United Construction, Case # 21-07 Chairperson Smilie asked for clarification on whether the Board should proceed without the Respondent. Lee responded that the Board could decide this. Lee noted that in the past the Board has maintained a suspension until such time that the respondent comes back to the Board in an effort to regain their licensing status. Smilie stated that he wouldn't feel comfortable with the Board making a decision to not continue the suspension. He was concerned with the number of witnesses the Board would impose on should they decide to reschedule at a later date. BRB November 29, 2007 Pg. 6 Attorney Eckman stated that he presumed the respondent was notified of the hearing so if he chose not to attend, the Board may hold the hearing and take action, including revocation of his license, if the Board wished to do so. He added that the Board could also choose to continue the suspension and wait until the respondent shows up, delaying the hearing until that time and ask the witnesses to come back. Eckman explained that there is no legal impediment to the Board for doing it either way. Smilie suggested that the Board continue with the hearing in absence of the respondent. Lee introduced the case stating that a Stop Work Order was issued on 11/01/2007 for 3711 JFK Parkway #340 due to construction that had been performed prior to obtaining a building permit. Lee noted that this was a tenant finish project for the Avicenna office. Lee stated that the general contractor of record for this project was Darrin Hunt, d/b/a United Construction. Lee explained that the plans for this project were not submitted to City offices until November 2, 2007, a day after the Stop Work Order was issued and clarified that no permit had been issued for this project to date. Lee stated that Respondent Hunt appeared before the Board in June 2007 to request approval for his E license and supervisor certificate. Lee explained that he was required to come to the Board since he was found working at 3711 JFK Parkway (on a separate job from the one referenced above) on June 21, 2007 without a valid license or permit. Lee explained that according to the licensing ordinance, when a contractor works without a license or has committed any other violations found in Section 15-162, he/she must go before the Building Review Board for a determination on his/her fitness to be granted a license or supervisors certificate. He also explained that the fine for working without a license is equal to the license fee or $200. Lee explained that at the June meeting, the Board approved the E license that was requested with the stipulation that a letter or reprimand be placed in the appellant's contractor file outlining the violations that had occurred, as well as noting that any violations occurring in the next twelve months would result in an immediate suspension of the license. The Board also required the payment of all outstanding fines and fees. Lee referred the Board to a copy of the referenced letter of reprimand, as well as a copy of a letter received from Justin Crowley related to this project, and a letter from Richard Evans related to a tenant finish project for space #230. Lee added that the tenant finish project at space #230 was the fast project, for which Respondent Hunt received a Stop Work Order due to working without a permit in June, 2007. Lee informed the Board that the check received from Respondent Hunt in the amount of $211.26 covering the plan check fee for the project in this case was returned to City staff on 11/21/07 due to insufficient funds. Lee pointed out that another letter was received from Albert Y. Lee, Chief Financial Officer of Avicenna and mentioned that the letter was received after Board packets were distributed. Appellant was absent from the hearing. Board members heard testimony from various witnesses. BRB November 29, 2007 Pg. 7 Richard Evans, Division President for Stewart Title of Colorado, first addressed the Board. He stated that his company went under contrast with Mr. Hunt and United Construction for a tenant finish at their new space located at 3711 JFK Pkwy. He noted that his company has determined that the respondent mismanaged funds in their project and that approximately $103,000, out of the $161,000 budget, is unaccounted for. Evans stated that the company believes Mr. Hunt has converted the funds to his own use and that they plan on opening a criminal investigation of fraud with the appropriate authorities in an effort to seek remedies. Evans was here to help ensure that this does not happen to someone else. Evans mentioned that all of the subcontractors are now coming forward asking for payments that should have been given to them out of the funds previously distributed to the respondent. According to Evans, getting Mr. Hunt's license revoked is a first step for them in the process. He added that the company will take their own actions criminally and civilly against Mr. Hunt. Board Member Packard asked whether Evans had heard from Nh-. Hunt. He answered that he had not. Packard asked if the respondent had hired legal counsel to represent him. Evans answered that he thought he had consulted with an attorney, but was unaware of whether he had actually hired one to represent him. Justin Crowley, Branch Manager for Affiliated Financial Group, d/b/a Community Banks of Colorado, next addressed the Board. He stated that his company has had a very similar experience with Mr. Hunt. Crowley stated that his company was the fast space to undergo construction in the building and that from the very beginning there were issues with Mr. Hunt missing deadlines and failing to comply with whatever rules and regulations he was supposed to. Crowley explained that the reasons and excuses for delays never checked out and that Mr. Hunt claimed that he had submitted for permits several weeks before they were actually submitted. Crowley noted that Mr. Hunt also claimed to have submitted drawings long before they were requested. Crowley added that when their situation was finally remedied, they immediately started hearing from subcontractors who had concerns about getting paid. He also stated that Mr. Hunt's employees would complain about him not being at the job site and that all of Mr. Hunt's employees had left his company; no one works for him anymore. Crowley added that one of Mr. Hunt's employees said that during the entire construction period which was about five months, they felt that at best Mr. Hunt was there maybe 10 days of that process. Crowley explained that his company paid Mr. Hunt somewhere in the approximate range of $140,000 of which they have close to $80,000 in unpaid invoices and subcontractor bills and a few more tasks that have yet to be completed. Crowley said they are making every effort to allow Mr. Hunt to complete the work and provide additional funds to help cover some of the additional subcontractor expenses. Crowley mentioned that, similar to Evan's experience, his company also gave Mr. Hunt a few informal deadlines to solve some of the issues and that every deadline was met with either an excuse or a lack of response whatsoever. He added that his company also feels that Mr. Hunt shouldn't be allowed to continue to do this to people, companies and subcontractors. Board Member Packard asked Crowley if it was actually said by Mr. Hunt that he had no intention of paying the funds as stated in his letter to the Board. BRB November 29, 2007 Pg. 8 Crowley answered that it would be difficult for him to repeat verbatim what Mr. Hunt said, but that his explanation was that the job cost more than what he had actually bid it for and that he didn't have any more money. Crowley explained that they offered to work with him and the subcontractors and delay any legal action on their part if Mr. Hunt could at least provide them with $20,000, and that he was given 15 days to do so. Crowley stated that it was a combination of what Mr. Hunt said and did that made it clear that he had no intention of paying. As a side note, Crowley added that Mr. Hunt would show up to the job with new parts for his car, a new telephone, laptops, stacks of cash, always taking his crew to lunch, so they knew he had money, he just wasn't giving any of it to them or the subcontractors. Little asked Evans and Crowley for clarification on how they made their payments to United Construction. Stephanie Cline, Division Vice President for Stewart Title, addressed the Board and replied that as part of their contract there were certain time periods or phases of construction that were identified as times that Mr. Hunt would request money. Cline explained that the initial phase required 50% down and that Stewart Title released funds that had been given to them from Palmer Properties to Mr. Hunt. Cline stated that at no time was there any step by step accounting from Mr. Hunt on where the money was going. Cline stated that it was obvious to Stewart Title that the money was disappearing faster than the work was being performed. Packard asked for clarification on required lien waivers. Cline explained that a 10% retainer was held until most of the lien waivers were produced and that the expectation was that the remaining lien waivers would come. Carr asked for clarification on whether Mr. Hunt's contract was with each of the tenants. Cline confirmed this There was some discussion on whether there were any concerns for building safety and whether additional funds would be required to bring the building to code. Lee stated that he would need to see the inspection records before he could comment on whether the building currently met all code requirements. Jimmy Palmer with Palmer Properties addressed the Board and stated that as soon as a red flag arose they did correspond with Vaught Frye architects who designed the building itself, as well as a general contractor on the building, Dohn Construction, asking them to come in and walk through to provide tenants Affiliated Financial, as well as Stewart Title, with a final punch list walk through. He mentioned that as far as he knew, the building was up to code and that the projects Mr. Hunt did get permits for were designed to code. A check of permitting system records showed that the permit for the Stewart Title tenant finish was still open and that the only inspections done so far were the roughs, which had passed. The permit under Dohn Construction was complete and closed out. The final mechanical inspection for Affiliated Lending passed on September 14a', but a final building inspection had not yet been completed. Packard asked if there were any criminal avenues that could be pursued by the Building Department. Lee responded that only in the sense that the contractor did not obtain permits; there was not a greater criminal offense. Carr commented that the issue the Board was deciding on was whether the respondent's license should remain suspended. He added that the Board is not a judicial body and has no decision making authority with respect to the claims made for returns of money. BRB November 29, 2007 Pg. 9 ding of Fact: Little 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. Carr seconded the finding of facts. Vote: Yeas: Can, Packard, Little, Smilie, Cram, Smith Nays: Packard stated that if past behavior is any indicator of future behavior, he doesn't want the man building in Fort Collins. Disposition: Little made a motion that the license and supervisor certificate for Darin Hunt, d/b/a United Construction be revoked. Carr seconded the motion. There was some discussion on how the Board could be sure that the respondent is not able to obtain any more licenses with the City of Fort Collins. Lee explained that once the license is revoked, the applicant has to reappear before the Board to obtain another license. Little asked whether the Board could add a provision as a part of the judgment, or as an additional action, that restitution be made to the previous people that the contractor had committed fraud against or failed to perform adequately. Attorney Eckman stated that, without researching the code, it was his opinion that this would be beyond the scope of the duties of the Board. He clarified that the Board could include in the motion that neither Mr. Hunt nor United Construction in partnership or as a general partner in, any other business, or as a manager of a limited liability company or as an officer of a corporation could obtain a license. Eckman stated that if the respondent is merely a shareholder in some corporation, this would probably not be an issue. However, Eckman stated that if he were to hold an office or position of control such as an officer or a general partner, then the Board would have a legitimate cause for concern as to how that business is going to be run and could include that in its motion. BRB November 29, 2007 Pg. 10 Little stated that he wanted to add an amendment to his motion as the Board's counsel had prescribed Smilie stated that this is a default judgment since the defendant is not available, but it is going to stick. Vote: Yeas: Carr, Packard, Little, Smilie, Cram, Smith Nays: 6. Other Business • 2008 Workplan Carr made a motion to accept the 2008 workplan as submitted. Cram seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Carr, Packard, Little, Smilie, Cram, Smith Nays: Meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m. ��" Felix Lee, Building ng Director Michael Smilie, Chairperson