Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012 - Building Review Board - Annual ReportCommunity Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2012 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 2012 included Alan Cram, Andrea Dunlap, Torey Lenoch, Justin Montgomery, Rick Reider, Jeff Schneider and George Smith. Alan Cram served as Chairperson for the year; Jeff Schneider served as Vice-Chairperson for the year. Council liaison to the Board was Council Member Kelly Ohlson. Staff support was provided by Mike Gebo, Paul Eckman, Delynn Coldiron, Melanie Clark and Tara Leman. 2012 YEAR IN REVIEW: As the appellate body for building codes and contractor licensing regulations, the Board hears appeals upon request. 1. APPEALS: • License Approvals: The Board heard two 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. • Steve Slezak, d/b/a Amshel Corporation. The appellant was seeking a waiver of the required exam after his license had expired past the 60-day grace period allowed in the City’s ordinance. The applicant noted his successful contributions to the community as a long-term contractor, as well as a member of various organizations. Based on his nearly 40 years in the City, he was not interested in sitting for the exam, but felt that not having a license would make him feel that he is no longer a vital member of the community. The Board denied the applicant’s request based on no hardships being found. The decision passed, but with two dissenting Board Members and 1 who abstained. • Randy Dionne, d/b/a Work-A-Haulics. The appellant was seeking a waiver of the required exam after his license had expired past the 60-day grace period allowed in the City’s ordinance. The applicant noted that at the time he was granted a license in 1993, he did not pass the exam due to a mix up between the version of code book he used and the exam. He mentioned that at that time, he went to the Board and requested an exam waiver due to the mix up and that the waiver was granted. He was requesting the same waiver now and stated that renewing his license would not pose any risk to the public. The Board denied the applicant’s request based on no hardships being found. The decision passed, but with one dissenting Board Member and 1 who abstained. BRB Annual Report December 31, 2012 Page 2 - 2 - • Exceptions/Upgrades: The Board heard no cases from a contractor asking for exceptions to the licensing regulations. • None. 2. LICENSE HEARINGS: The Board heard one case against contractors who had violated the City’s licensing regulations. • David Houts, d/b/a Houts Construction. The Board considered alleged violations for work being done by the contractor prior to issuance of the required building permit and reviewed the applicant’s previous violation history. Based on their review, the Board made a Finding of Fact confirming the following violations of Section 15-162(d) of the City’s Municipal Code: 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; 2. Failure to comply with a provision of the code related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or license holder; and 3. Failure to obtain required permit for work performed or to be performed. Based on the Board’s findings, as well as the respondent’s prior violations, the Board voted unanimously to revoke all licenses and supervisor certificates held by Mr. Houts. 3. BUILDING OR RENTAL HOUSING CODE HEARINGS: The Board heard two cases involving City Codes: • Kevin Brinkman of Brinkman Partners, LLC applied for a variance requesting an exemption from the Green Code amendments that went into effect on January 1, 2012 for Penny Flats, Building #3. There was discussion on each of the variances requested as noted below: Section 505.8-Energy Distribution Design: Discussion about the practicality of this requirement for a multi-family building with individual dwelling units as it would involve having to install individual panels for outlets, heating, air conditioning and lighting for each unit. Section 5024.3.2-Building Envelope Air Barrier: Discussion about the practicality of this requirement for a multi-family building as this would involve a test that required fairly high pressure differential and this would be difficult since each unit has its own openings and make up air requirements. Section 502.1-Building Envelope Insulation: Discussion about the practicality of this requirement for a multi-family building as this would involve multiple inspections since the entire structure would not be insulated at the same time creating undue burden on the project. Section 3603.3-Acoustical Control: Discussion about the practicality of this requirement as it would involve the installation of windows and systems different from the first two buildings which creates inconsistency and a challenge for long-term maintenance. Section 3604.1-Building Commissioning: Discussion about the practicality of this requirement due to the substantial expense and economic impacts this would have on the project. BRB Annual Report December 31, 2012 Page 3 - 3 - The Board approved all requested variances, with the exception of: Section 502.1-Building Envelope Insulation and Section 3603.3-Acoustical Control. All of the variances approved were unanimous, with the exception of Section 5024.3.2-Building Envelope Air Barrier, which had two dissenting Board Members and Section 3604.1-Building Commissioning, which had one dissenting Board Member. • Tonya Zook, owner of 312 ½ East Pitkin, through her attorney David Zook, filed an appeal to a Notice to Correct that was sent to the referenced rental property. The repair order resulted after a rental inspection was requested by the current tenant in the property. Items found to be in violation of the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) included exposed insulation in kitchen cabinets, electrical issues, bathroom issues and a lack of egress windows. The appellant was arguing that the IPMC code was improperly interpreted with respect to the violations noted. After significant discussion and testimony in this case, the Board determined that the IPMC did apply to this property. After further discussion, the appellant’s attorney agreed to make the repairs if the Board agreed not to take formal action and order the repairs. The Board tabled the item for a month, giving the appellant time to make the necessary repairs. A follow-up inspection of the property by City staff, found all repairs made. No further action was taken on this case. For future hearings, the Board requested additional information from staff such as floor plans, dimensions, more pictures and any additional information that might be helpful to the Board in rendering their decision. 4. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: • Contractor Licensing Ordinance Changes: Board Members Cram, Lenoch and Schneider participated on code committees associated with the Contractor Licensing Ordinance changes. The Board reviewed presented information and provided many comments and suggestions. Items addressed, included: 1) owner exemptions, 2) deconstruction options, 3) fee changes for plumbers, 4) renewal process changes related to code updates, 5) license category changes and 6) insurance changes. The Board unanimously supported the proposed contractor licensing changes. • Student Housing Action Plan: The Board reviewed the proposed Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) as presented by the Neighborhood Services Manager. The purpose of SHAP was to balance the need for student housing with maintaining the compatibility and quality of existing neighborhoods. There were questions on: 1) the sources for incentives, 2) the role of historic preservation criteria in the campus area, 3) whether Front Range Community College had been considered in the plan, 4) whether this program was a means for creating a rental property list or a rental licensing program, 5) the parking program, and 6) the added requirements the program placed on property owners. The Board was encouraged to provide additional feedback throughout the process. • Community Scorecard: The Board viewed and provided feedback on the City’s Community Scorecard. Each Board Member was provided with a copy. • Budgeting for Outcomes: The Board periodically received updates on the budget items throughout the process and was encouraged to provide feedback. • 2012 International Building and Related Codes: A new round of review has begun to update all building and related codes. Board Members Cram and Schneider are involved on the committee.