HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 01/29/2009Minutes to be approved by the Board at the April 30, 2009 Meeting
FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD
Regular Meeting — January 29, 2009
1:00 P.M.
Chai erson: Jim Packard hone: 226-4260(11)
Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson Staff Liaison: Felix Lee (221-6760)
A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, January 29, 2009 in the
Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins,
Colorado.
BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT:
Alan Cram
Mike Gust
George Smith
Jim Packard
Jeff Schneider
Andrea Dunlap
Brice Miller
BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Delynn Coldiron, Customer & Admin Services Manager
Felix Lee, Building Official
AGENDA:
ROLLCALL
The meeting was called to order and rollcall was taken.
0► 09acZ9"Rprol2ult211110
Cram identified two corrections to the draft minutes:
1. Page 10, paragraph 5, the words "conjunction box" should be changed to "junction box".
2. On Page 11, it reflected that Smilie spoke of a number of neutral wires being stuck into
the same breaker. The word neutral should be eliminated.
Gust made a motion to approve the minutes from December 18, 2008 as amended. Schneider
seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Cram, Gust, Smith, Packard, Schneider
Nays: None
BRB January 29, 2009 Pg. 2
4. Election of Officers
Gust nominated Jim Packard for Chairman. Cram seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Cram, Gust. Smith, Packard, Schneider, Dunlap, Miller
Nays: None
Gust nominated Alan Cram for Vice Chairman. Schneider seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Cram, Gust, Smith, Packard, Schneider, Dunlap, Miller
Nays: None
5. Contractor Appeal: John S. Parks, Case #01-09
Lee introduced the case. He stated that the appellant was initially granted a Class A supervisor's
certificate (#118) on 8/16/82. He explained that at some point in time this certificate lapsed and
the appellant then applied for reinstatement in 1999. Lee noted that based on testing and
submitted project forms, the appellant was issued a Class B supervisor's certificate (#1179) on
2/22/99. He stated that City records show that the last test taken by the appellant was a Class A
exam that covered the 1979 UBC. As well, the appellant attended the City of Fort Collins 03 IRC
amendments class given in 2005 and the 2006 IBC amendments class given in December 2008.
Lee explained that the appellant's certificate expired on February 22, 2008 which is now past the
60-day grace period allowed by ordinance. He further explained that once this occurs, a license
or certificate holder is required to submit a new application and is subject to current
requirements, including updated testing.
Packard noted that this case was dealt with through the Building department and, therefore, was
withdrawn from the Agenda.
Lee noted Section 15-157 of the City Code which pertains to his decision to grant the
reinstatement of the appellant's supervisor's certificate and license.
When such code over which the renewing certificate holder passed an
examination has been substantially revised to the time of such renewal. The
certificate holder must pass either a renewal examination administered by the
Building Official for which no fee shall be assessed for such examination or
provide proof of having successfully completed training covering the current
adopted applicable code or the equivalent thereof as approved by the Building
Official.
Lee explained that given the extensive experience of the appellant and the fact that he attended
the 2006 IBC refresher class provided by the Building department, he approved reinstatement of
the requested certificate.
BRB January 29, 2009 Pg. 3
6. Contractor Appeal: David Houts, d/b/a Construction Management Solutions, Case #02-09
Lee introduced the case. He stated that Respondent Houts appeared before the Board in June,
2007 to request approval for his C2 license and supervisor certificate. He explained that staff had
denied the request since there was some question about whether the respondent 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. He further explained that the Board approved Respondent Houts'
request for a C2 license which was issued on July 3, 2007. Lee noted that Respondent Houts also
holds a Class D1 license with the City of Fort Collins which was issued in March, 2007.
Lee stated that Respondent Houts appeared before the Board again on August 30, 2007 for Stop
Work Orders that were issued on August 10, 2007 at 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 prior to obtaining building
permits. He explained that at that meeting, the Board imposed a six-month suspension to the
respondent's C2 license, but allowed him to continue with the Raven View projects only. Lee
noted that the suspension took effect on August 30, 2007.
Lee stated that Respondent Houts appeared before the Board yet again on March 27, 2008 for
Stop Work Orders that were issued on January 18, 2008 for 2002 Raven View Drive and 2008
Raven View Drive for proceeding with work prior to getting needed inspections, despite
instructions from the Building Inspector not to do so.. As well, Lee added that he received a Stop
Work Order on February 26, 2008 for performing demolition work at 5221 Strauss Cabin Road
without a valid demo permit and without the required asbestos inspection required by the State of
Colorado. He explained that at that meeting, the Board granted approval for the respondent to
complete the work on both the Strauss Cabin demolition and the active multi -family project but
revoked both the Respondent's D1 and C2 licenses until such time that the respondent completed
the projects and then appeared before the Board to continue working in the City of Fort Collins.
Lee noted that the permit for 2002 Raven View Drive had been completed. He further noted that
the permits for 2008, 2014, 2020, 2026, and 2032 Raven View Drive had all passed final
building inspection, but showed outstanding issues for Engineering and Water Meter
verification. The permit for 5221 Strauss Cabin Road had been completed.
Lee explained that after fulfilling the requirements set by the Board, the respondent was now
coming back to respectfully request reinstatement of both of his_City contractor licenses.
Respondent Houts addressed the Board. He noted that the projects in question were substantially
complete and that the building finals were completed in October. He explained that he was
working on some last minute administrative items, but felt that all requirements would be
finalized within a day or two and the Raven View projects would be complete.
The respondent stated that he has tried to work in cooperation with the City and the Building
department to complete the work. He explained that the complexities on the Raven View
building seemed to be the beginning of his difficulties. He explained that one logistical challenge
was that he was required to obtain six different permits for one building. He further explained
that some of the documentation he submitted was for the entire building and some was for the
BRB January 29, 2009 Pg. 4
individual six permits. He noted that he was working with City staff to get this clarified and
would submit any additional information that was required.
The respondent stated that he was disappointed with having been before the Board on two of the
three times. He noted that some of the reasons for the breach in protocol could be debated and
that he wanted to assure the Board that there was never any selfish intent on his part, only a need
to move forward on the projects. He explained that he compromised protocol for the sake of
progress.
The respondent stated that he chose to appear before the Board to apologize and not to defend his
actions. He further stated that the goal was not to make excuses for the breach of protocol. He
explained that he understood that the Board was here to protect the Community of Fort Collins
and to make sure that the services they pay for are being provided professionally and thoroughly.
He stated that he was present for the same reason. The respondent stated that although there was
evidence of him breaching protocol, there had never been evidence of him breaching customer
service. He noted that he had completed over 700 projects and guessed he had a 99.9% success
rate when it came to customer satisfaction.
The respondent stated that he was not there to justify his decisions but for the Board to receive
his'apology, assess his abilities and to choose whether or not he could continue to do business in
Fort Collins.
The respondent asked if Lee had any reservations about the Board considering his request. Lee
stated that he did not have any reservation about this. He explained that he was present to hear
what the respondent had to say.
Schneider asked if there had been any discussion with the inspectors regarding the completion of
the projects and the follow through. Lee stated that there had not been any since the respondent's
last appearance.
Schneider asked if everything had been signed off for the Raven View project. Coldiron stated
there were a couple of departmental approvals that had not yet been finalized. She explained
that, based on her conversation with Houts, it sounded like this may have been an oversight. She
noted that 2002 Raven View Drive was the one permit out of all of them that had been
completed. She explained that the rest needed the submittal of final disclosure documents and
approval of any remaining departmental sign -offs.
Schneider asked if the respondent had done anything to implement protocol and procedures in
his business since appearing before the Board the last couple of times. The respondent stated that
the Board had made it clear that protocol needs to be a priority so he has made it his first priority
despite the need for progress. He noted that he has also hired a superintendent who is in training
and who acts as an assistant.
Cram asked if the respondent had completed the third project to complete his C2 license. The
respondent explained that the Raven View project was going to be his third project. Lee
confirmed that the Building department would be willing to consider that as the third project.
Gust stated that if the Board reinstated the respondent's licenses, they wouldn't really be
reinstating the C2 license since it still needed final approval by the Building department. Lee
BRB January 29, 2009 Pg. 5
stated that the projects are substantially complete and that the City was only waiting on some
paperwork.
Schneider asked if Lee had discussed with staff, or could issue a recommendation from staff, that
would give the Board some level of comfort that the respondent should be allowed to continue
doing business in the City. Lee stated that he could certainly do that as a condition if the Board
was interested in that.
Packard explained that he moved away from the normal sequence of routine because he wanted
the respondent to have the advantage of knowing what the Board's concerns were. He stated that
there was nothing inside of him that felt good about reinstating the license. He further explained
that what troubled him was that he did not understand how the respondent could complete 700
projects and not understand that he should not move forward without getting the required permits
or proper inspections.
The respondent stated that there was a moment of frustration in July when he had gone through
every possible scenario to get a stock plan released so that he could be official. He added that
although there were subsequent violations, he felt that he would not have been brought before the
Board had he not had a major violation on the first building. He explained that there seemed to
be a number of items that would indicate to the Board that he had a disregard for protocol, but he
argued that the violations were not as significant as has been presented.
The respondent explained that he had not built in the City of Fort Collins for almost ten years
and when he came back, he was surprised at the totality of the protocol change. He further
explained that the Raven View project was simply a more difficult project in its protocol because
of the six permits required within one building.
The respondent stated that the Board had a myriad of responsibilities to the Community. He
understood that first and foremost was to make sure building processes were safe and performed
responsibly. He noted that although there were references provided to the Board that show that
there may have been a time or two when protocol was breached, his customers were serviced to
the fullest extent of his abilities.
Schneider asked if the respondent had any desire or intent to build another six-plex. The
respondent stated that he would like to.
The respondent stated that he understood and recognized Packard's reservation. He added that he
was not sure if Packard's position was common amongst the Board members. Houts stated that
he was offering the Board a full and wholly felt commitment to protocol that the City of Fort
Collins had established. He added that he didn't believe that his ability or competence had ever
been an issue and hoped that it would not be an issue now. Houts mentioned that this was about
respecting the authority and protocol that is in place to fulfill his obligation to the Community
and that he recognized that fully. He added that he had no misunderstanding of this.
The respondent explained that there were a number of events that led to his moment of
frustration. He stated that he was misinformed by the front desk people several times on what he
needed to do to obtain his licensing. A myriad of things, according to Houts, occurred that
caused frustration. He added that he was standing before the Board today in the midst of very
difficult economical conditions trying to carve out a living for himself and his family. Houts
BRB January 29, 2009 Pg. 6
continued by saying that he believed he was very competent and qualified and that he thought
this was evident from a lay person's view based on his customer references. Houts asked for the
opportunity to continue to contribute to the Community like he had in the past and for approval
to move forward with projects he had planned. Houts stated that his upcoming project, Sunrise
Ridge, is a wonderful project and that he had already done a lot of work on this. He added that
he currently has a plan submitted for plan check, pending re -approval of his license. He noted
that the project could be completed with his D1 license:
Eckman asked what the term protocol meant to the respondent. Houts explained that generically
it meant that a body of authority established a set of rules by which the masses were expected to
follow so that they could trust that a process was valid.
Eckman asked if protocol was optional to the respondent. Houts stated that it was not. In fact, he
stated that he was so committed to abiding by City processes that he was willing to offer up his
licenses if any further violations occurred; a one more strike and your out approach.
Lee stated that the respondent implied that the City did not have anything in writing. He noted
that the City's processes are clearly defined on the website, including all related paperwork, etc.
The respondent stated that he did not want to put blame of responsibility on the City. He
explained that when he first accepted the job, he received conflicting information from the
Building department on whether or not his D1 license would qualify and that after starting the
process he received notification that he needed a C2 license to continue. He explained that as a
customer needing service, he was frustrated by not getting accurate information when he asked.
He noted that the confusion occurred due to the fact that he was building single-family attached
units.
Cram stated that the Board could request a list of projects completed by the respondent in 2009
with the appropriate attached permits, so that the Board could track and see that the respondent
had continued to work in the City and had obtained the appropriate permits and licenses. He
suggested that the C2 license could be reinstated upon completion of the Raven View project.
Schneider stated that he personally liked the approach of one more strike and the respondent
would not be allowed to do work in the City of Fort Collins.
Cram stated that his suggestion would be to keep records of what had occurred and impose a
significant consequence should any further violations occur. He explained that adding some
"teeth" to this issue would be a good self reminder to the respondent that he needed to follow
City policies and procedures. Schneider concurred with this.
Gust stated that he did not necessarily agree that any type of restriction or consequence should be
put on the license since any further violations would result in the respondent coming back before
the Board. The Board would have opportunity to impose consequences at that time. He noted
that he called the customer references provided in packets and that everyone seemed to be really
happy.
Packard stated that he was concerned that when a project goes wrong, as these have, there are
additional costs to the City that are certainly not needed in these economic times. He explained
that he was concerned about the financial impact on the City. He noted that he wanted to know
BRB January 29, 2009 Pg. 7
that the respondent's efforts were going to very strongly lean toward compliance with the
building codes.
Lee stated that he was not in favor of putting any restriction on a new license. He explained that
the licensing process is self regulating. He further explained that if the respondent were to do
something egregious enough to be brought back before the Board, City staff would keep and
make available all background history as part of the case.
Eckman stated that the Board ought to have liberty to hear the facts and circumstances of the
next infraction. He explained that he thought the Board would want to preserve their liberty to
listen to all of the facts prior to making a decision. He noted that the Board would have the
deliberations of this meeting in the record to use as further evidence.
Gust made a motion to reinstate the respondent's D1 license and suggested that the City grant the
C2 license after completion of the Raven View project and submittal of all final project
verifications. Smith seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yays: Gust, Smith, Packard, Schneider, Dunlap, Miller
Nays: Cram
7. Unrecorded Dwelling Unit Discussion
Lee stated that the materials sent in Board packets were based on the latest proposal that is going
to City Council. He explained that this item is scheduled for a work session on February 24,
2009. He noted that there have been several meetings with members of the Board of Realtors, as
well as the Colorado Apartment Association.
Lee stated that there are still some things being investigated as other possibilities. He explained
that the materials presented to the Board are a work in progress but document the history of the
meetings and show where the concept is headed. He further explained that the goal is to
encourage owners to come forth to get their units inspected for minimum health and safety
purposes.
Dunlap asked what sort of impact this kind of a project would have on City staff. Lee stated that
he believed there was currently enough staff to be responsive. He based his response, in part, on
the declining levels of new construction activity that is currently being experienced.
Schneider noted that he appreciated staff seeking out professionals or people that this would
substantially impact. He stated that he was confused as to why staff was offering Option 1 as the
best option, since this would prove the most strenuous on staff and the most cost egregious to the
consumer. Lee stated that this was not final, but a place to start. He explained that it was a work
in progress that was headed to a work session where the whole thing may change.
Schneider stated that he would prefer Option 4 because it essentially gives people 2 years to
comply. He explained that he was concerned as a Board Member that they are going to see a line
of people stating they missed the deadline by a month or two and that his compassion would be
substantially less for people who waited past the two year deadline. He further explained that he
BRB January 29, 2009 Pg. 8
understood there would be challenges trying to inform the public about this within a twelve
month period.
Schneider stated that he liked the provision that enabled people to prove when the property really
became a rental house as a basis to calculate fees, instead of basing fees on current rates. He
explained that he believed the fees should be based on the fee schedule in place at the time the
property became a rental instead of the fees in effect at the time of application, provided that the
owner can provide documentation of when the property became a rental.
Lee asked for reasons on why someone would not come forward within a year. Schneider stated
that they might not have known about it. He explained that in the draft, it mentioned tying
notification to tax levees. He further explained that in some cases a mortgage company pays the
tax levee and the owner may or may not be notified. He stated that he was concerned about the
twelve month window for something as substantial as this.
Cram stated that he would prefer a two year amnesty period. He explained that somebody may
purchase a property after that window under the impression that it was a legitimate rental and
then would not get the amnesty. He was concerned that this scenario did not appear to be
addressed in any of the documentation. He suggested that a possible safeguard would be for the
City to put on their website, in a very prominent location, a button where someone could go to
check a property to see if it had been put on an approved list, so that a real estate agent or a
person looking for some property could do a search of properties to see whether a rental was
legal.
Smith stated that the City.would then be getting into a list of rentals which Council has already
voted in strong opposition to.
Cram stated that he thought it would be reasonable for someone to have the ability to look up a
property to enable them to do a search and find out if the property was approved as a rental. He
explained that right now there is no way for someone to do that. Schneider asked if there was a
way that the City could do that. Lee explained that it would not be an easy task. He added that
although County Assessor records might be of some help in this regard, just because a property
was listed as a duplex did not mean that it had been approved or was located in a zone that
allows for rentals.
Schneider stated that he did not necessarily want to have to listen to cases where the County had
listed a property as a duplex that had not been approved by the City. He asked how to clean up
the gray area and if there were any systems or procedures that could be put into place to do that.
Schneider stated that this issue reinforces to him that there really needs to be a two year amnesty
period.
Smith stated that he sees this as an opportunity for people to skirt the time period and get away
with it for as long as they can, which is in opposition to the goal of making sure there are egress
windows and proper heating. He explained that he believed there needed to be a process that was
more focused on getting properties legal and approved. He added that he felt that zoning issues
should be completely taken out of the picture. He further explained that he was afraid that the
requirement would go the opposite direction and the City would end up with a bunch of illegal
duplexes that nobody would be willing to fix.
BRB January 29, 2009 Pg. 9
Lee stated that there will always be some illegal duplexes. He stated that from an equity point of
view, he does not have a lot of sympathy for duplexes that are located in zones that never
allowed for it. He added that if a rental was allowed in a specific zone at one time and was later
changed to a lower density, that the rental unit approved for as long as the use continues at that
location.
Smith stated that with Fort Collins being a college town, rentals have been encouraged as a good
investment and the zoning issues have not been enforced. He explained that now the City is
bringing up the issue that rentals are not allowed within specific zones, but the neighborhoods
have already changed into areas were rentals are common. Smith was concerned that the City
had no process in place to approve a change in the zoning.
Schneider asked if an individual in this situation could request a zoning variance. Lee stated that
rezoning through a variance was not allowed. He explained that the Zoning Board of Appeals is
not authorized to do any rezoning.
Dunlap asked when the City of Fort Collins started zoning. Lee stated that he believed it started
in 1925.
Schneider stated that he was hearing that if a property was not zoned properly today, but perhaps
was zoned properly some years ago and it could be proven, then the City would allow for it. Lee
confirmed this. He explained that the use would essentially be grandfathered in.
Smith stated that this still would not protect somebody who may have made a bad investment.
He explained that the City is turning the purchase into a bad investment for the buyer because of
something that hasn't been enforced for 20 or 30 years. He stated that if people are willing to go
through the hoops, and it is possible to rezone, then he thought there should be a process for that.
Smith stated that there should be a process where the property could be made legal instead of
requiring the use to stop and uprooting people. Lee stated that he was on the other side of this
issue, representing the public at large and not an individual. He added that making changes to
zoning is very difficult to do.
On Attachment 3, under Item #16, Schneider asked if there was a fee associated with the
inspection when a property had to be converted back to a single family dwelling. Lee stated that
there would not be an inspection fee.
Schneider asked what the City would be looking for when they do the inspection. Lee stated that
the City would need to find out if the property was owner occupied or if it was a rental. He
explained that if it was owner occupied then the minimum rental housing standards would not
apply since this only applies to rental housing. Schneider stated that he wanted to clarify that so
people would not be afraid to come forward and go through the process if all of a sudden they
were going to be called on other violations.
Felix stated that there would be a lot of opportunity for further discussion on this item. He added
that the Board would be kept informed of upcoming meetings and related activities.
BRB January 29, 2009 Pg. 10
8. Other Business
a. 2008 Annual Report
Schneider made a motion to accept the 2008 Annual Report as is. Packard seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Cram, Gust, Smith, Packard, Schneider, Dunlap, Miller
Nays: None
b. Boards & Commissions Involvement in 2010/2011 BFO Process
Lee explained that BFO referred to the City's Budgeting for Outcomes process. He mentioned
that the City was getting ready to kick off another BFO cycle -,and that there would be various
opportunities to get involved and provide feedback.
Schneider stated that it was not very clear on what was expected from the Board. He asked if it
was an open invitation that the citizens were invited to or if it was task specific and something
that the Board needed to take formal action on and move forward with.
Cram stated that he believed that each of the Boards were being asked to look at the seven
criteria to see which of them applied to a specific Board and what the needs might be in terms of
funding. He stated that this Board doesn't really have any funding needs except for the snacks
that are provided.
Cram asked for clarification on drilling platforms. Lee provided clarification.
9. Discussion items
Lee stated that staff had some concern about the added workload that may be coming to the
Board. He explained that the Board had primarily been hearing cases regarding contractor
appeals, discipline and code appeals. Lee explained that now cases related to housing conditions
will be coming to the Board as well, which are very different from the other types of cases
normally heard. -
Lee mentioned that a couple of ways this situation could be dealt with include:
1. Having two separate types of hearings. Lee noted that one would be focused on housing
issues and the other would focus on the more traditional issues currently heard by the
Board.
2. Creating a new Housing Board that would focus on the new housing related issues.
Lee asked for Board Members' thoughts and ideas, especially since it seemed that the cases
regarding housing conditions seem to take a long time to complete.
Schneider stated that his preference in the case of holding two types of hearings would be that
the hearings would be held back to back so it did not require an additional meeting day. He asked
BRB January 29, 2009 Pg. 11
for clarification on how much work load was anticipated to increase. Lee stated that if the non
approved dwelling process was enacted, he felt quite sure that there would be a number of
appeals related to this item.
Schneider asked if there might be a way to establish a more concise protocol for the hearings.
Lee stated that the housing cases are different, almost like a trial, but that the Board could
construct rules to do things such as limit speaking time.
Cram stated that the information presented or submitted needed to be pertinent to the appeal and
that the Board should have the ability to impose time limits. Lee stated that his concern would be
ensuring an appellant received due process.
Miller asked if other jurisdictions had a separate Board to look at housing issues. Lee provided
clarification and stated that this would be his preferred direction if housing items become a
significant load and start becoming too time consuming.
Smith noted that there would be a lot of cross over with the codes and that it made sense for the
Board' to hear these cases. Cram stated that he felt there would be a short term rush in the
beginning and then things would settle. He felt that setting up a new board could be a
monumental task.
Coldiron stated that structuring the agenda will be difficult until the timing is figured out. She
stated that she was looking for clarification on how the Board wanted to limit the time, how the
Board wanted to structure their agenda and whether there was a need to start extending the
meetings past 3:00 pm. She explained that there was some concern that rental housing cases may
have some timing provisions in the ordinance that require them to be heard soon after they have
been appealed. She stated that this might make it difficult for the contractors who were already
on the Agenda if this timing issue required that they be moved to a future meeting due to a high
number of submitted appeals, etc. Coldiron mentioned that this could create a hardship if a
contractor was required to wait an additional month before their case could be heard.
Dunlap asked if the rental issues would be using a different set of codes. Schneider stated that
related requirements were all found in the Property Maintenance Code, which is now part of the
Building Review Board'sresponsibility.
Schneider stated that cases would not have to take too long as long as' there was proper
documentation of the new processes. He explained that he did not think that there were going to
be very many appeals if everything was well documented.
Cram stated that the Chairman should be enabled to make a ruling to stop someone who is
presenting something that is not germane to the case. He felt that implementing time constraints
would help satisfy some of these issues. He added that he thought it might be problematic to say
that only certain types of cases would be heard at certain times.
Schneider stated that he thought the Board could limit presentations to about 10 minutes with a 5
minute rebuttal. Smith suggested that things could be limited similar to the public comments
presented at City Council meetings. Schneider felt that this was a protocol that needed to be
established so that the Board could follow a guideline.
BRB January 29, 2009 Pg. 12
Cram stated that if several meetings go past the scheduled time, he would be willing to commit
the additional time needed.
Miller asked if staff could bring back some recommendations for the Board. Coldiron stated that
staff could do that.
Coldiron asked if the Board wanted to keep the meeting time from 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm.
Schneider stated that he felt the Board should do something similar to what City Council does.
He explained that if the meeting runs past the allotted time, then the Board could take a vote on
whether or not they wanted to extend the meeting. He noted that if there was a schedule full of
applicants, he would rather hear all of the cases than make them come back.
Cram stated that guidelines need to be established for the appellants as to what is appropriate to
submit to the Board in terms of the presentation.
Coldiron stated that staff had also discussed changing the timing of packet distribution. She
explained that staff was going to cut off submittals on the last day of the month for people who
wanted to get on the agenda for the following month. She further explained that this would allow
the agenda packets. to be distributed a week earlier giving Board Members more time for review.
There was agreement from the Board that this would be a good change.
Staff agreed to move forward with the change in packet distribution dates and will bring draft
meeting protocol recommendations to the next meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 3:04 p.m.
Felix Lee, N S rector