Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 07/31/2008Ll Minutes to be approved by the Board at the August 28, 2008 Meeting FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting — July 31, 2008 1:00 P.M. hai erson: Michael Smilie hone: 226-4260 H Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson Staff Liaison: Felix Lee (221-6760) A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, July 31, 2008 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Packard Mike Gust Alan Cram George Smith Michael Smilie Jeff Schneider Jim Schilling BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: • STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Delynn Coldiron, Customer & Admin Services Manager Mike Gebo, Deputy Building Official AGENDA: ROLLCALL The meeting was called to order and rollcall was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Packard made a motion to approve the minutes from June 26, 2008. Smith seconded the motion. Yeas: Cram, Packard, Smilie, Smith, Schilling Nays: None 3. Russell Negaard, d/b/a Buffalo Builders, Inc., Case #10-08 Coldiron introduced the case stating that the property in violation was 2921 Kansas Dr #B. She explained that the respondent was found working without a license or permit and that a stop • work order had been issued. Coldiron stated that the alleged violations, included: • Section 15-154 (a) -Failure to obtain the required contractor license prior to performing the work BRB July 31, 2008 Pg. 2 • • Section 15-162 (d)(1) - 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 • Section 15-162(d)(6) -Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed. Coldiron noted that the respondent applied for a Class C1 license in July, 2008. She explained that the respondent passed the ICC General Contractor A exam that covered the 2000 IBC in 2004. As well, she noted that the respondent took the City's IRC exam in June, 2007 scoring an 89%. She stated that the testing was sufficient for the license as long as the respondent attends and upcoming IBC class or takes the amendments exam prior to his license expiration. Coldiron stated that although the respondent did do the required testing nearly a year ago in Fort Collins, staff did not receive any application paperwork until nearly a year later in July, 2008. The following projects were submitted in support of the respondent's application: • 210 E. Cimarron St., Colorado Springs, CO —Interior finish for a gallery --a Class E Project. • 2647 8a' Ave., Garden City, CO — Interior finish for CarQuest -- a Class E Project. • • 2700 W. 10t' St., Greeley, CO — Interior remodel for Greeley Plaza -- a Class E Project. Coldiron explained that according to the licensing ordinance, in order to receive a class C1 license, an applicant must have built or supervised the construction of three (3) new commercial buildings and that at least one of the buildings has to be Type I, II, or III construction. She stated that based on the level of the projects submitted, staff was not able to authorize a C 1 license. However, Coldiron mentioned that staff did issue a temporary Class E license to enable the appellant to continue to work on the project that was already started. Coldiron added that because of the violations that had occurred, the licensing ordinance requires that the appellant come to the Board to obtain authorization for issuance of a license. Respondent Negaard addressed the Board. He explained that the administrative personnel in his office did not complete the licensing paperwork after he had completed testing since their company had no pending projects for Fort Collins at the time. He stated that his site superintendent had a vague conversation with the framer stating that his company was awarded the job which the framer interpreted as authorization to move forward. He then started framing. Negaard noted that he carries licenses in a lot of different principalities within the State of Colorado and explained that this was the first time anything like this had ever happened. Gust asked for clarification on whether the respondent was seeking an E license or a C 1 license. Respondent stated that he was trying to get an E license. • Smilie questioned the relationship of Mr. Bell, who was in attendance with the respondent at the hearing, and how he was related to this case. Respondent explained that Mr. Bell was the General Manager for the region. BRB July 31, 2008 Pg. 3 Mr. Bell addressed the Board and explained that the responsibility for the violations that • occurred rested with him more than anyone else. He took responsibility for the lack of communication between the site supervisor and framing staff. Smilie asked about the person who would hold the supervisor certificate. Respondent Negaard explained that he was the examinee and would hold the certificate. Coldiron explained the responsibilities of the certificate holder related to on -site supervision. Smilie questioned whether Mr. Bell was qualified to be the certificate holder stating that he was probably going to have to do so. Respondent confirmed this explaining that the business plan included having Mr. Bell as the certificate holder. Packard questioned how much of the work had been completed before the stop work order was issued. Respondent Negaard explained that it was issued on the first day of rough framing. Cram wanted to know what procedures the respondent had since been put in place to ensure that there was not a recurrence of this situation. Respondent explained that there were already procedures in place. He stated that all of his employees have to go through superintendent, project management and organizational training. Findina of Fact: Cram made a motion of finding of fact that the respondent was in violation of: • • Section 15-154 (a) - Failure to obtain the required contractor license prior to performing work • Section 15-162 (d)(1) —Failure to comply with any provision of the code related to the specific construction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or license holder as set forth in this article; and Section 15-162(d)(6) — Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed. Schneider seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Cram, Packard, Gust, Smilie, Smith, Schneider, Schilling Nays: None Smilie made a motion to revoke the temporary E license at the completion of the current project, and to hold issuance of the requested Class E license until 45 days after the Certificate of Occupancy for the current project had been issued. Cram seconded the motion. • Vote: Yeas: Cram, Packard, Smilie, Smith, Schneider Nays: Gust, Schilling BRB July 31, 2008 Pg. 4 •. Sean Holiman, d/b/a Holiman Homes, Case 411-08 Coldiron introduced the case stating that the appellant currently holds a Class D1 license with the City of Fort Collins which was approved on March 20, 2008. She explained that this license allows the holder to construct, alter, repair or demolish any buildings or structures in the City classified by the building code as a Group R, Division 3 occupancy housing not more than two (2) dwelling units, or a Group U, Division 1 occupancy, to perform alterations and/or repairs to any building or structure in the City classified by the building code as a Group R, Division 1 occupancy and Type V construction, provided that any such work does not alter the structural frame as defined in the building code, and to perform any work allowed under a miscellaneous and minor structure specialized trade contractor license (to 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. She further explained that 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 noted that the appellant had the opportunity to perform a tenant finish project at 2722 S. College Avenue for Jimmy C's restaurant. She added that, according to the appellant, there are no structural elements to the job. • Coldiron noted the appellant had not performed any work in Fort Collins under his existing license. She stated that the appellant passed the City's D1 exam on December 6, 2007, scoring an 89%. Appellant Holiman addressed the Board. He noted that he has tried at length to attain commercial experience with local contractors without success. He hoped to be able to take advantage of his extensive building experience and further his abilities in the commercial field. He also noted that he was currently in the process of attaining a commercial certification through ICC. Holiman confirmed there were no structural elements required for the proposed tenant finish and added that the project would be completely engineered. Schneider questioned the appellant on his prior work experience. Appellant explained that he started in 2001 with John Bailey in Evans, CO after obtaining a degree from the University of Northern Colorado. He stated that he had completed over 95 homes throughout Greeley, Johnstown and Loveland. He further explained that he currently had a home under construction in Kersey, repair projects for two tornado damaged homes in Windsor, a pair of sumooms in Greeley and potentially two outbuildings on the east side of I-25. He noted that he is certified through ICC, OSHA and is in the process of taking a commercial class at Front Range Community College. . Schneider asked for a more detailed description of work scheduled to be done on the pending project. Appellant explained that portions of the electrical, plumbing and HVAC systems will be renovated, a kitchen will be added, some of the exterior detail will be changed, doors will be BRB July 31, 2008 Pg. 5 added and/or removed, a few interior walls added, and upgrades made to the RTU's, to • accommodate for the new usage. Smilie asked about the prior use of the space. Appellant stated that it was a Gib's NY Bagels. Cram asked whether a list of sub contractors had already been established. Appellant confirmed this. Schilling asked if there was an existing fire suppression system in the building. Appellant stated that he did not believe that there was. James Comer, owner of Jimmy C's, LLC, addressed the Board. He stated that he has an architect working on this project and that the fire suppression system had been addressed. He explained that the architect assured him that because of the nature of the building, the floor plan was significantly below the 5,000 square foot requirement for fire suppression. He noted that the building has a one hour ceiling between the basement and the first floor. Mr. Comber stated that this project was a big deal to him on a personal level, so he was attempting to surround himself with a team of people that he knows and trusts. He explained that he had worked with Appellant Holiman on a residential project and was very delighted with the results. He noted that he would like to have the same team working on this project for him. Gust questioned if there was hood suppression required. Mr. Comber stated that there would be hood suppression and that it had been fully engineered. He explained that there was a grease • interceptor required for the plumbing waste from the building, which also would be fully engineered. Gust asked about the engineer who had been hired. Mr. Comber stated that his architect was W.G. Architect and explained that the team of engineers would be contracted by the architect. Gebo asked the appellant whether he had obtained ICC certification. Appellant explained that he was in the process of taking a class. Gust made a motion to deny appellant's request. Cram seconded the motion. Gebo asked the appellant if he had a back up contractor in place if he were to run into any structural issues. Appellant confirmed this stating that there would be an engineer and structural contractor readily available. Vote: Yeas: Cram, Gust Nays: Packard, Smilie, Smith, Schneider, Schilling There was some discussion around the Board's charge to grant variances only in those cases where an applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board that the applicant possesses other qualifications such as specialized training, education or • additional experience, which the Board has determined qualifies the applicant to perform in a competent manner any construction authorized under the license or certificate sought, and provided that such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the BRB July 31, 2008 Pg. 6 public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purposes of this Article. • There was some feeling that this was not the case in this instance. There was also some discussion around the Board's ability to grant variances where the strict application of any provision of the licensing regulations would result in peculiar or exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional or undue hardship upon the person or applicant regulated. The appellant was asked whether or not being approved for this project would provide exceptional financial hardship for him. The appellant responded that it would not. Schneider made a motion to grant a one time exemption to the appellant's Class D1 license to enable him to complete the tenant finish project at 2722 S. College Ave. Smith seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Packard, Smilie, Smith, Schneider, Schilling Nays: Cram, Gust 5. Jeff Valloric, d/b/a Fort Collins Housing Authority, Case #12-08 Coldiron introduced the case stating that the appellant had applied for a Class D1 general contractor's license in early June, 2008. She noted that he passed the City's IRC exam on May 6, • 2008, scoring an 88%. The following projects were submitted in support of Respondent's application: • 2209-2217 W. Elizabeth — Carports (steel). • 2209-2217 W. Elizabeth — Clubhouse — Class C 1 Project. • 927 Glenmoore — Relocation of a building. • 2925 Adobe Drive —Single Family Home— Class D1 Project. • 2925 Adobe Drive —Single Family Home Addition— Class D2 Project. Coldiron noted that some deck and framing projects had also been submitted. Coldiron explained that according to the licensing ordinance, to qualify for a Class D1 license, an applicant must have constructed or supervised the construction of three (3) new single-family homes or the equivalent thereof as determined by the Building Review Board. Coldiron stated that because only one of the projects submitted meets the prescribed requirements for the D 1 license, staff could not approve the license requested. • Appellant Valloric addressed the Board stating that he operates as project manager for the Fort Collins Housing Authority, specializing in multi -family rehabilitation. He noted that he has a degree in Fine Arts and worked as a frame carpenter from 1976 to 1980. Valloric explained that BRB July 31, 2008 Pg. 7 • he has worked as a lead carpenter on 50-60 projects and mentioned that when any structural work needed to be done, he worked under a C 1 general contractor. Valloric provided the Board with information on some upcoming projects. Gebo asked Valloric whether there were structural elements involved in any of the projects that were planned. Appellant Valloric explained that there are structural elements in some of the projects. There was some discussion around the frequency structural contractors would be necessary to supervise work being done by the appellant. Smilie made a motion to authorize the issuance of a limited Class D1 license enabling the appellant to perform all construction authorized by the Class D1 license with the exception of new construction. Schneider seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Cram, Packard, Gust, Smilie, Smith, Schneider, Schilling Nays: None 6. IPMC and Rental Housing Codes — Presentation/Discussion Gebo reviewed some of the revisions that had been made to the IPMC and Rental Housing codes. • Gebo stated that the Board had concerns of substandard being listed as dangerous. He explained the definition of substandard as a potential hazard, not being imminent, but if left unattended could become a hazard. Schneider stated that he could not find a definition of substandard anywhere in the IRC or the IPMC. He questioned if it was now going to be created. Gebo confirmed this. Gebo stated in the work session Cram noted some errors in the filing date. Gebo explained that those errors had been corrected. Gebo explained that staff was asked to look at the definition of infestation and that now this was being defined as overrun or inhabited in large numbers, usually so as to be harmful. Gebo stated that the definition of substandard can be worked on. He explained that conditions through neglect, deterioration or damage, no longer meet the minimum requirements of the currently adopted Property Maintenance Code as it relates to the specific condition identified. He further explained that substandard conditions may develop into dangerous conditions if left uncorrected. Gebo noted that it is possible the definition may be changed somewhat to reflect that it no longer meets the minimum requirement of the code in place at the time of construction. Gebo noted the Board's concerns with enforcing substandard conditions on owner occupied homes. He noted that in Section 304.1 the wording has changed so that for substandard conditions, depending on the degree of concern, the Building Official would be able to determine • corrections within a certain amount of time, depending on what he was seeing. He stated that the exception was owner -occupied, single-family, detached dwellings where no rooms are leased or rented. Gebo explained that the wordage was brought into exterior substandard conditions, interior substandard conditions and component serviceability. BRB July 31, 2008 Pg. 8 • Gebo addressed the Board's concern related to the list of substandard conditions. He explained that the list came from the International Property Maintenance Code supplement listed as unsafe. He explained that he had taken the list and called them substandard. Gebo reviewed with the Board some of the interior substandards that had been softened. Board Chair Smilie invited public comment. Michelle Jacobs, Government Affairs Director for the Fort Collins Board of Realtors, addressed the Board. She stated that she was glad to see that substandard conditions will not apply to owner occupied single family dwelling units. Jacobs explained that the Board of Realtors firmly believes that the dangerous conditions section is necessary for City staff and Council to be able to deal with the handful of properties in the community that threaten the occupant's or neighbor's lives. She stated that she knows the Board of Realtors would support something with the dangerous conditions included, but they would like to see the substandard and unfit for occupancy eliminated from owner occupied units. Jacobs explained that the Board of Realtors would like to see a document presented to Council that they can support. Gebo recommended that • prior to the next meeting all Board Members to b 2008. Other Business the Board forward to him any further questions or concerns they have He added that staff would then forward the questions and answers to e discussed at the next Building Review Board meeting on August 28, Meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m. Mike Gebo, B ' ding & Zoning Director 0 Michael Smilie, Chairperson