Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 - Building Review Board - Annual ReportBUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2008 ANNUAL REPORT BACKGROUND: The Building Review Board consists of seven members. Meetings are held on the last Thursday of each month in the Council Chambers at City Hall. The Board may also meet as needed in order to convene special meetings. Members who served during 2008 included David Carr, Alan Cram, Mike Gust, Jim Packard, Jim Schilling, Michael Smilie, Jeff Schneider and George Smith. Michael Smilie served as Chairperson throughout the year. Board Member Packard served as Vice -Chairperson. Board Member Carr resigned from the Building Review Board mid -year, due to his appointment to another City Board. Board Member Schilling resigned near the end of the year due to work -related issues. Council liaison to the Board was Council Member Kelly Ohlson. Staff support was provided by Felix Lee, Mike Gebo, Paul Eckman, Delynn Coldiron and Melanie Clark. 2008 YEAR IN REVIEW: As the appellate body for building codes and contractor licensing regulations, the Board held numerous hearings: APPEALS: • License Approvals: The Board heard five cases from contractors asking for approval of licenses that had been denied by staff due to incomplete and/or insufficient project experience, due to the specialized nature of the work done by such companies which did not fit well into any of the available Fort Collins contractor license classes, when an exam waiver was being requested, or due to the fact that violations had occurred to the City's licensing regulations. • David Black, d/b/a Pioneer Group — The appellant was seeking an exam waiver in an effort to reinstate his Class C1 license and supervisor certificate that had expired past the 60 day grace period. The Board granted re -issuance of the appellant's license and supervisor certificate with the condition that the certificate holder pass the required exam. Robert Lawton, d/b/a Longs Peak Energy Conservation — The appellant was seeking a limited HVAC license that would enable him to perform all work associated with weatherization retrofits to existing homes. The appellant did not have sufficient experience to qualify for an unrestricted HVAC license. The Board granted approval of a limited HVAC license that would enable the appellant to complete weatherization retrofits and related upgrades, as well as the replacement of existing furnaces, with the caveat that there be no new construction projects allowed as part of this license. Building Review Board — Annual Report January 29, 2009 Page 2 • George Laycock, d/b/a G. Laycock, Inc. — The appellant was seeking a limited C1 license to enable him to perform wood -frame commercial construction for a Primrose School. The appellant successfully passed the City's exam, but did not have sufficient experience with Type I, II and/or III buildings to qualify for an unrestricted C1 license. The Board tabled this request until appellant Laycock could be present to respond to Board questions. Bruce Ogden, d/b/a G. Laycock, Inc. —The appellant was seeking a limited C1 supervisor certificate to enable him to perform wood -frame commercial construction for a Primrose School. The appellant successfully passed the City's exam, but did not have sufficient experience with Type I, II and/or III buildings to qualify for an unrestricted C1 supervisor certificate. The Board granted a Class C1 license and supervisor certificate limited to wood -frame, single story construction. They granted a license due to the fact that appellant Laycock was not in attendance at the meeting and both the license and supervisor certificate were needed to start their project. • Jeff Valloric, d/b/a Fort Collins Housing Authority — The appellant was seeking a Class D1 license and supervisor certificate, but did not have three sufficient projects to qualify. The appellant successfully passed the City's exam. The projects submitted as part of the license packet included one D1 project, a D2 project and various commercial projects. The Board granted a limited D1 licensing authorizing all work allowed under a D1 license, with the exception of new construction. • Exceptions/Upgrades: The Board heard four cases from contractors and/or building owners asking for exceptions that would allow them to build outside of the constraints of their current license or the licensing regulations. Steve Josephs, d/b/a Craftsmen Builders — The appellant was seeking a project exemption to his D1 license that would enable him to perform a non-structural tenant finish project on the third floor of the Armstrong Hotel, as well as a remodel project that included some structural elements in the basement of the Armstrong Hotel. The Board approved the requested exemption for the non-structural tenant finish project on the third floor with the condition that the appellant test for and obtain a City Class E license within 120 days. The basement project was not approved. • Keira Harkin -Brown, d/b/a Old Town Designs, Inc. — The appellant was seeking a project exemption to her D1 license that would enable her to perform a non-structural tenant finish project at 210 E. Oak Street. The Board granted the appellant's request with the condition that should any structural elements arise, a contractor with an appropriate level of license would be required to complete those elements of the job. • Sean Holiman, d/b/a Holiman Homes — The appellant was seeking a project exemption to his D1 license that would enable him to perform a non-structural tenant finish project at 2722 S. College Avenue. The Board granted the appellant's request. • Jeff Ryan, d/b/a Excel Design & Build — The appellant was seeking a project exemption to his D1 license to enable him to perform a small commercial remodel at 204 Walnut Street that included some structural work. The Board granted the appellant's request with the stipulation that a structural engineer provide signed inspection documentation to the City, as well as detailed plans for the project. Building Review Board —Annual Report January 29, 2009 Page 3 2. LICENSE HEARINGS: The Board heard four cases against contractors who had violated the City's licensing regulations. David Houts, d/b/a Construction Management Solutions — This contractor appeared before the Board on two occasions in 2007. The first was to obtain his Class C2 license. The second was due to violations for commencing work prior to obtaining the necessary permits. At that time, the Board imposed a six-month suspension to the respondent's C2 license, but allowed him to continue to complete work on his active multi -family project. In February, 2008, the respondent was found performing demolition work at 5221 Strauss Cabin Road prior to obtaining the necessary permit and without the required asbestos inspection from the State of Colorado. As well, additional Stop Work Orders were issued to the contractor for proceeding with work prior to getting the needed inspections, despite instructions from the Building Inspector not to do so. The Board found that the respondent was in violation of: 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, Section 15-162(d)(6) - Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed, and Section 15-162(d)(7) - Commitment of any act of negligence and competence or misconduct in the performance of the contractor's specific trade which results in posing a threat to public health and safety. 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 convince them that he was qualified and should be authorized to continue working in the City of Fort Collins. Gary Mackey, d/b/a Nebarado Construction — This contractor acted as the general for the construction of a new single family home located at 2132 Sherwood Forest Court in 2001, In November, 2005, the homeowner contacted the City regarding repeated flooding in her basement. A site inspection performed at that time found that: 1) the top of the concrete foundation wall elevation was below the finished grade, and 2) the main Floor framing cantilevers over the foundation wall were below grade. The contractor was ordered by City staff to provide a permanent solution for removing and controlling storm water at this residence. The contractor performed some corrections that did not fully satisfy the issues and then disputed his continued responsibility for the project based on the following: 1) that the corrections were performed through the Homeowners Association, of which the respondent was the acting President, and not through his company, Nebarado Construction, 2) that the complainant was the second owner, and 3) that the City's Storm Water Utility accepted the Grading Certificate Letter and As Built grading plan in order to issue a Certificate of Occupancy on the property. The contractor voluntarily relinquished his City's D1 contractor's license. Mackey did not appear at the BRB meeting. After hearing testimony from the complainant, the Board moved to revoke this contractor's license until such time that the respondent appeared before the Board to present a case stating why his license should be reinstated. Charles Aldridge, d/b/a Specialized Heating & Air Conditioning — This contractor was found working without a City contractor's license or permit. He successfully tested with the City and had submitted a portion of his paperwork; however, the license had not been finalized. Staff granted the respondent a temporary 30-day license to enable him to finish the project that had been started. The Board found 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 a specific construction project the responsibility of the license or certificate holder and Section 15-162(d)(6) - Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed. The Board granted approval for the Building Review Board — Annual Report January 29, 2009 Page 4 respondent to obtain all necessary inspections and sign offs on any existing permits, but directed that no further permits be issued under the temporary license. They also directed that no final license could be issued for a period of 30 days after the date the temporary license expired (July 4, 2008) and only if all necessary inspections and sign offs had been obtained on the outstanding projects. Russell Negaard, d/b/a Buffalo Builders — This contractor was found working without a City contractor's license or permit. He successfully tested with the City, however, paperwork had not been submitted prior to the start of work. Staff granted the respondent a temporary 30- day E license to enable him to continue with the project that had been started. The Board found 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 a specific construction project the responsibility of the license or certificate holder and Section 15-162(d)(6) - Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed. The Board revoked the temporary E license upon completion of the current project and directed that no final license could be issued until 45 days after the Certificate of Occupancy for the current project had been issued. 3. BUILDING CODE HEARINGS: The Board heard three cases involving City Codes: Michael Bello, d/b/a Urban Development Partners, LLC — The appellant was seeking an exception to the Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) requirements with respect to meeting accessibility standards. He was requesting this on the basis of undue hardship due to: 1) Flood plain requirements, and 2) Design complications required to meet the complementing details of the neighboring historic structure. Staff denied the appellant's request due to the fact that the appellant could reduce the number of units and modify the site plan and building footprint to accommodate the State standards for accessibility. As well, exterior accessible elements could be designed to be sympathetic with the nearby historic home. The appellant was concerned that the changes suggested by City staff would increase his cost, thereby lessening the affordability of the units. As well, he was concerned that this would eliminate his ability to provide a higher density and better project for the community. The Board heard testimony from the appellant, as well as several members of the public. The Board denied the appellant's request until such time that other alternatives had been explored. Robert Kulikowski, 1701 W. Mulberry Street — This case was a rental housing appeal where the appellant was seeking approval to overturn the Notice to Vacate that had been issued. Upon request of the then current tenants, City staff performed an inspection at the property and found many items that were not in compliance with the rental housing code, including: roof leaks, severe mold in the bathroom, no hot water in the bathroom sink, electrical issues relating to faulty outlets, an electrical panel in a state of considerable disrepair, structural members on the roof over the main bedroom that were severely deflected and a rain gutter that was installed on the interior wall in the bathroom to collect and divert rain water. Due to the number and severity of the items, the City posted the property as unsafe to occupy and uninhabitable. Although the appellant agreed that there were items that needed to be fixed, he believed that the uninhabitable designation was not appropriate and thought that the building should be allowed to be occupied while the repairs were commenced and completed. He hoped that the Board would create a list of those items that had to be repaired prior to re -occupation and then allow the other items to be completed while the premises was occupied. The Board heard testimony from the appellant, as well as from the tenants who last occupied the premises. The Board denied the appellant's request. Building Review Board —Annual Report January 29, 2009 Page 5 � • Sandee Diamond, 525 E. Drake Road #301 B — This case was a rental housing appeal where the appellant was seeking assistance from the Board to address the delay in notification that had occurred in this case, as well as to address a situation where fraudulent notices were being sent to her tenants causing them to circumvent the current building maintenance policies and guidelines for her apartment complex. City staff were notified of issues at this address and were asked to perform an inspection. An inspection was performed, and the following issues were identified: 1) mold growing on the ceiling of the master bedroom, 2) mold growing along the baseboard and 3) a loose electrical outlet in the living room. A violation notice and order to correct was sent to the owner requiring repair within 30 days. This notice was delayed for 30 days due to a request from the tenant that the property manager not be notified until they were able to find other living arrangements. Prior to the Board hearing, the item that remained outstanding from the City's perspective was an inspection of the repairs to close out the case. The Board heard testimony from the appellant, her attorney, and two residents of the apartment complex. Because the Board had no control over the items at issue in this case, the Board recommended that the appellant work with City staff to resolve the issues around delays in notification and ways to help direct tenants back to the property manager when they need to report building maintenance and repair items. They informed the appellant that if the case had issues related to unfair findings as part of the inspection process that would be an example of an item they would be able to address. The Board suggested that the appellant withdraw her case. After instruction from her attorney to do so, the appellant withdrew. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: • Review of the 2006 International Building Code. The Board recommended adoption at their January 31, 2008 meeting. This item ultimately received Council approval and the changes became effective July 1, 2008. Review of the 2006 International Property Maintenance Code and supplemental Rental Housing provisions. The Board spent a lot of time on this item throughout the year, dedicating nearly all of their April, August and September meetings for the purpose of review, as well as portions of their June and July meetings. The board recommended adoption of the International Property Maintenance Code at their August 28, 2008 meeting, once revised based on the Board's discussion during that meeting. The Board recommended adoption of the supplemental Rental Housing provisions at their September 25, 2008 meeting, once revised based on the Board's discussion during that meeting. • Review of proposed Energy Code updates. The Board recommended adoption at their April 24, 2008 meeting. • Review of an update to City Code pertaining to BRB Function. The Board recommended adoption at their June 26, 2008 meeting. • The Board viewed and provided feedback on the newly created Planning, Development and Transportation (PDT) video prepared for the purpose of community outreach for the newly consolidated Service Area.