Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/26/2012 - Building Review Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingCommunity Development & Neighborhood Services 281 N. College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.416.2740 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com BUILDING REVIEW BOARD July 26, 2012 1:00 pm – 3:00 pm City Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Avenue AGENDA 1. Approve minutes from the January 26, 2012 and February 23, 2012 Meetings 2. Code Appeal: 312 E. Pitkin; Tonya Zook 3. Contractor Appeal: Randy Dionne d/b/a Work-A-Haulics 4. Follow-Up Reports: 5. Other Business  Contractor Licensing Committee Update  Budget Update Minutes to be approved by the Board at the May 31, 2012 Meeting FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting – January 26, 2012 1:00 p.m. Chairperson: Alan Cram Phone: 472-1752(H) Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson Staff Liaison: Mike Gebo (416-2618) A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, January 26, 2012 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Alan Cram Andrea Dunlap Torey Lenoch Justin Montgomery Rick Reider Jeff Schneider George Smith BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Delynn Coldiron, Customer & Admin. Services Manager Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official AGENDA: 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by board member Smith to approve the October 27, 2011 minutes as written. The motion was seconded by board member Reider. 3. CODE APPEAL: BRINKMAN PARTNERS, LLC. A board member disclosed that he has had previous professional involvements with Kevin Brinkman, a principal in Brinkman Partners, LLC to determine whether there was any concern regarding a conflict of interest. He stated that Mr. Brinkman was not a personal friend. Gebo stated that as long as there is not a financial or other conflict of interest, he would not question the affiliation. The board member stated he has no financial arrangement with Mr. Brinkman and did not feel there was any conflict of interest. A board member questioned whether it was appropriate for David Derbes and Dan Rotner to be speaking on behalf of the appellant, Paul Brinkman, or whether the appellant needed to be present. Gebo stated the gentlemen represent Brinkman Partners and are empowered to speak on the appellant’s behalf. BRB January 26, 2011, Pg. 2 Mr. Derbes introduced himself and stated that he is the real estate development manager for Brinkman Partners and that he is authorized to represent Brinkman Partners at this hearing. Mr. Rotner introduced himself and stated that he is with Coburn Development and is the architect working for Brinkman Partners on this project. He stated he has been working on the Penny Flats project since its inception. Gebo provided background on the Code Appeal, Case No. 01-2012. He stated that he received a variance submittal on December 15, 2011 requesting an exemption from the Green Code amendments that went into effect on January 1, 2012 for Penny Flats, Building #3. Gebo noted that the basis of the appeal was hardship due to the arson fire which caused a significant delay in document/plan preparation as well as a delayed submittal after the January 1, 2012 Green Code implementation date. Gebo stated that he denied the request. He explained that Penny Flats Building #3 is a four story multi-family building (no mixed uses), over 16,500 square feet, located on the corner of Maple and Mason Streets. The initial request, according to Gebo, noted that Brinkman Properties fell behind as they were focusing on the fire, removal of debris from the first building, and restoration. There is an event timeline in the appeal which indicates they had every intention of submitting Building #3 prior to January 1, 2012. Had this occurred, the appellant would have been allowed to build under the old codes and not subject to the green codes which went into effect January 1, 2012. Gebo stated that his initial denial of the variance was based on the fact that it seemed to be a request for a blanket waiver of all green elements. He explained that Mr. Derbes provided supplemental information in which Brinkman Properties identified five specific green code amendments from which they were requesting a variance. Gebo stated that he now believes it is no longer a blanket variance for all green amendments, but rather just for the five specific items listed. Gebo referenced Attachment No. 2 provided to the Board which is the actual code language for the five specific items. Gebo reviewed the five specific green code amendments for which a variance is requested: (1) Section 505.8, Energy Distribution Design. Commercial buildings over 15,000 square feet are now required to have electric service that is subdivided into separate panels for outlets, heating load, and lighting load. (2) Section 5024.3.2, Building Envelope Air Barrier. Commercial buildings are now required to be air tested much like a blower door test on a single family home, and must comply with a certain air leakage rate. (3) Section 502.1, Building Envelope Insulation Standard. Insulation is now required to be installed to a standard called Resnet Grade 1. (4) Section 3603.3, Acoustical Control. In this type of commercial building, a sound transmission rating of a certain number based on location needs to be proved. (5) Section 3604.1, Building Commissioning. A specific entity or third party is now required to review the entire system to ensure all functions and systems are working properly. Mr. Rotner stated that as he prepared the specific response for the variance request, he approached it from the context of his firm’s current experience working with green codes with the City of Boulder and with Crested Butte. With regard to energy distribution design, Rotner stated that it seemed impractical to install individual panels for outlets, heating and air conditioning and lighting for each of the 18 units in the building. He believed that this requirement is practical for an office building or warehouse, but not for a multi-family building with individual dwelling units. Mr. Rotner then discussed the building envelope air barrier. He noted that he talked with Energy Logic about the logistics of this test and found that it requires a fairly high pressure differential. He mentioned that this is difficult for multi-family buildings since each individual unit has its own openings and make up air requirements related to the mechanical systems. He stated that it is different from a large BRB January 26, 2011, Pg. 3 warehouse or office building where the systems tend to be more centralized. He noted concerns about finding an agency who could accomplish this testing for this building type. Regarding building envelope insulation standards, Mr. Rotner stated they are familiar with the Resnet standards and have seen results of Resnet inspections. He noted that multiple inspections would most likely be required since it is rare that an entire building would be insulated at one time. He felt this requirement would be burdensome for this type of structure. Rotner explained that individuals who perform this kind of rating are typically geared to small residential projects. He was concerned that it would be some time before these installers work their way up the learning curve to deal with a larger commercial structure. Mr. Rotner stated that there are two parts to the acoustical control. One is the exterior wall requirement, and the other is the interior sound level requirement. He cited the different windows and systems that would be required as a result of the exterior wall requirements. He was concerned about project consistency amongst the three buildings and the challenges this would create for long term maintenance. Mr. Rotner stated that the requirement for building commissioning is a substantial expense and will have a big impact on the economics of the project. He also noted that there is an opportunity for the project to be built out in one phase benefiting Brinkman Partners and the displaced residents of 204 Maple Street provided that the construction can get back on track. A board member asked whether the building would have been approved by City staff as proposed if the submittal had been made prior to December 31, 2011. Gebo confirmed this. A board member asked if there were any health and safety concerns that would affect the future residents of the building if any of these codes were waived. Gebo replied that there were none. A board member asked about the energy distribution design. Gebo stated that the specific requirement about electric distribution is really geared towards the full commercial building where there is rooftop equipment serving the entire building; perhaps an office building where there are various systems in the building where there is a desire to monitor loads. A board member asked if Gebo anticipated there would be future requests for a variance for other multi-family projects. Gebo stated that he would expect there would be other variance requests. He added that the particular code section pertaining to energy distribution design comes from the International Energy Conservation Code. Chapter 5 is commercial and multi-family buildings of four stories and more. This is a four story building, so it falls under Chapter 5. Gebo stated that it is really not the City’s intent to apply this panel distribution to a three story multi-family building. A board member asked if the building envelope air barrier is also unique for this type of structure. Gebo stated that it could be. He explained that most residential buildings are already fairly air tight. They are also attempting to make commercial buildings air tight. He felt that blower door testing on a multi-family residential building, per unit, could be problematic since common walls would also have to be as tight as the exterior walls. A board member asked for clarification on the requirements for acoustical control. The appellants discussed proposed HVAC components. They noted that a complete acoustical study had not been done and that they would probably need an acoustical consultant to help select the appropriate system if they were required to comply with the new codes. The board member also questioned sound problems as they dealt with the trains that move along Mason Street. Gebo stated there are three criteria to satisfy the acoustical control. They are exterior sound transmission, interior sound transmission, and background sound. BRB January 26, 2011, Pg. 4 A board member asked if this building was the last building that was planned for Penny Flats. The appellants stated that this was the last building in this phase of construction. They added that the original plan contained three phases; however economic conditions have changed the picture in terms of how the project is anticipated to be built out. They were unsure of the time frame for the remaining phases of the work. A board member asked if the appellant will return in the future for the same kind of variance for Phase 2 and Phase 3 because of the desire to keep the continuity and consistency of all the buildings and structures. The appellants stated that they did not anticipate seeking any similar variances except to the electrical distribution and air barrier testing if these requirements had not been changed. A board member stated that he was concerned that a precedent could be set. He stated he understood the appellants’ concerns regarding electrical distribution and thought that the City and staff should look at future multi-family projects to get the code cleaned up for this particular use. A board member stated he did not have an issue with items 1 and 2. The board member stated that he did have an issue with the third item. It was his feeling that the acoustical sound transmission needs to stay in place because, with the railroad being as close as it is, the exterior noise is a major concern from the life, health, safety standpoint. As to item 4, he thought there were enough HVAC systems available that it would not be hard to find a unit that would work. While the board member understood the philosophy of trying to keep the block or complex consistent, he did not feel it was necessary to allow this variance to go through because there are other options available. As to item 5, building commissioning, he was unsure. He stated that part of commissioning is making sure the air pollutants are out of the building which affects life, health, and safety. He also understands the complications with the multiple units. Gebo offered a correction, stating that as the building is residential, it would not have to comply with the Building Pollutant Flush Out criteria. A board member asked the appellants why they were opposed to doing the commissioning. The appellants stated that commissioning is much more applicable for larger scale commercial buildings which contain larger systems that are more integrated throughout the space and require more components to be aligned to ensure they are working properly. They added that in a residential environment, there are single systems per individual space. Cost would be a factor since each individual mechanical system of the building would have to be commissioned. The request to eliminate commissioning is a combination of the unique situation of the project and the fact that the building is not very far over the threshold. After further discussion, the appellant added that commissioning does not necessarily add to the performance of the building; it only verifies it. A board member asked whether the construction would move forward if the code appeal was not approved. An appellant stated that this could be true. He added that they are trying to make a decision on this at this time. The appellant estimated that these changes had the potential to increase the construction cost by $5-$10 per square foot. A board member asked how the fire created such a delay. An appellant stated that the company did not stop working and that their ability to extend into other projects was directly dependent on the impact of the fire. He added that they are still waiting on offers and presentations from the insurance company. He explained that when the fire occurred, the building plans were put on hold because they needed to understand how the fire impacted their current investment. He added that this variance process has taken about a month. A board member inquired about how the Crested Butte and Boulder municipalities dealt with energy distribution design and commissioning in a building of this size. One of the appellants stated that neither of those municipalities require commissioning for a building of this type. He noted that there were significant discussions with Crested Butte regarding implementation of code requirements because the proposed building was one of the largest buildings that had been constructed in that municipality. BRB January 26, 2011, Pg. 5 A board member questioned Gebo as to whether he agreed with the appellants’ statements that commissioning basically verifies that the systems and products were installed properly. Gebo responded that commissioning really is designed around the owner’s needs and his desires for building performance. The building is designed by architects and engineers. Then a third party does the commissioning to verify that the systems and components are installed correctly. A board member asked about the composition of the building’s owners. The appellants stated that 204 Maple Street is a condominium building with individual owners for each one of the units, including the commercial units. He noted that the buildings at 301 N. Mason, will both be apartment buildings and that there will be an individual owner for each building, but not for each unit. From that information, the board member stated that it would be difficult to ascertain one owner’s needs as far as overall commissioning. The appellant stated there are sub-entities at 204 Maple Street, so the commissioning would only really apply to Building 3, 210 Maple Street. The board asked appellant for any final comments. An appellant stated that he has spoken with the president of the owners’ association for Penny Flats #2, the condominium building that burned. The president stressed that the residents of the building hoped that this third building would go forward as part of the reconstruction so the entire phase could be completed. Gebo addressed the commissioning issue. He stated that the building is 16,500 square feet; only 1,500 square feet over the threshold limit. He stated that he agreed that commissioning would be difficult in a residential building because of individual openings into individual spaces. He stated he was looking for the Board’s input on this new code as to whether or not the City has exceeded its reach. Should it be re-examined? A board member stated that he felt the energy distribution design panels could be accomplished on a small panel. He explained that there are some fairly new advances, and a computer report can be printed that provides hour to hour loads. He agreed with Gebo’s comments about the new code stating that a balance needs to be achieved. A board member stated that he would vote in favor of Items 1, 2, and 5, but would question Items 3 and 4. He also asked Gebo if the appellant would be able to come back to this Board to make an additional presentation on Items 3 and 4. Gebo responded that the appellant would need to appeal this Board’s decision to City Council. A board member stated that he did not have an issue with Items 1, 2, and 5, but did feel there was no hardship or concrete reasoning for not doing Items 3 and 4. A board member commented that within Item 4, acoustical control, the testing component relates back to commissioning. STC ratings need to be met. He noted that there is also a background sound check that is confirmed by spot checks during the commissioning process. He requested clarification. A board member said that if the commissioning is not required and the Board chooses not to make that a requirement or allow the variance, he wanted to ensure that the design of the wall would meet those standards that are in the building code. Performing the follow up test would not be a necessity as long as the City can verify products that meet STC ratings and that are third-party validated by whatever entity does the UL ratings or whatever organization verifies that the ratings do meet the standards. Gebo responded that if the variance for commissioning is granted, then the City would look to the STC ratings shown on the plans in the wall details, and it would be something that staff would be able to inspect in looking for those particular products. A board member stated that he had a concern about granting a variance on this particular item. There did not seem to be a lot of argument against it except for cost and the comments that it wasn’t BRB January 26, 2011, Pg. 6 needed. There was a reason commissioning was put in the code. It was felt that granting a variance for the commissioning would set a precedence. Regarding commissioning, a board member stated that the City needs to revisit the compatibility with the use and ask City Council to approve the change for a residential use. There was discussion among the Board that there is acknowledgement there are special circumstances surrounding this waiver because of the fire. Additionally, some issues are coming to the forefront that weren’t anticipated when the green code was written. The City needs to maintain what they are trying to do with the green codes. The residential and commercial committees wrestled with the code to establish balance for a reasonable code. This situation is more special because the commercial code is being used in a residential setting. This is not a precedent-setting decision, but an effort to allow the City and the community to accomplish what they need to do. With regard to acoustical control, a board member asked Gebo if the variance was approved to not require commissioning, would the Building Department still make sure that the building meets certain applicable standards. Gebo stated that was correct. The City currently has sound transmission rating requirements from dwelling unit to dwelling unit. If the Board deletes the commissioning but decides to keep the request for acoustic control applicable, then the City would want plan details for those components that could be verified at plan review and in the field. If commissioning is waived, then staff would have to verify acoustical control. A board member asked further questions about the acoustical control. Gebo stated that for residential, it is room to room or dwelling to dwelling. Also, exterior to interior. A board member also asked for clarification on the envelope insulation standard. Gebo responded that when batt insulation is installed, the manufacturer stated it must be installed to Resnet standards. In the cavity, it is full lofted. If insulation is going into a box, it must be cut so it fits well within the box. It cannot be compressed. Resnet 2 is used less around the rims because it is very hard to get in between the floor joists. The board member asked why, then, is that a burden to the builder. Gebo speculated that there may be an understanding on the part of the builder that a third party needs to verify that. But, insulation installation is something that the City will continue doing. The board member asked appellants if it was their concern that a third party would need to be hired to perform the appropriate inspection. The appellant said that was basically true. They have had experiences where, instead of a building inspector doing the inspection, a third party inspector completes the inspection and issues a rejection. They will be more comfortable now that they know it will be City inspected. The type of insulation used can also cause specific problems. Schneider made a motion for Case No. 01-2012 that the Building Review Board allow the variance request for 505.8, the Electrical Distribution Design Requirement for this case. Reider seconded the motion. The Chair stated that a yes vote is in favor of the variance. Vote: Yeas: Cram, Dunlap, Lenoch, Montgomery, Reider, Schneider, Smith Nays: None Schneider made a motion for Case No. 01-2012 that the Building Review Board approve the Variance for Code Requirement 502.4.3.2, the compliance with the continuous air barrier. Dunlap seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Cram, Dunlap, Reider, Schneider, Smith BRB January 26, 2011, Pg. 7 Nays: Lenoch, Montgomery Schneider made a motion for Case No. 01-2012 that the Building Review Board deny the variance request for Code Requirement 502.1, the installation of the insulation. Dunlap seconded the motion. The Chair stated that a yes vote would be to deny. Vote: Yeas: Cram, Dunlap, Lenoch, Montgomery, Reider, Schneider, Smith Nays: None Schneider made a motion for Case No. 01-2012 that the Building Review Board deny the variance request for Code Requirements 3603.3, 3603.3.1.1., 3603.3.1.2, and 3603.3.1.3. in regards to the acoustical control and sound transmission for interior and exterior application. Dunlap seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Cram, Dunlap, Lenoch, Montgomery, Reider, Schneider, Smith Nays: None Schneider made a motion for Case No. 01-2012 that the Building Review Board approve the Variance for Code Requirement 3604.1, building commissioning, as requested. Dunlap seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Cram, Dunlap, Lenoch, Reider, Schneider, Smith Nays: Montgomery One of the appellants asked if they would still be required to do a portion of the commissioning that dealt with acoustical control. Gebo responded that the appellant will be held to the requirements to provide plans and details showing the acoustical components in the design and plans, and that staff will inspect it in the field. Gebo reiterated that there is no commissioning, but acoustical control from the exterior to the interior as well as the building code requirement from dwelling to dwelling will be required. 4. 2011 ANNUAL REPORT: Coldiron stated that the Board’s Annual Report summarizes the Board’s activities for 2011. She requested comments and suggestions from the Board members. She also stated that staff is hopeful that more violation checking and field work will be accomplished this year. A board member stated that “OMNI” should be changed to “AAMA” under No. 4, Administrative Items, item 7. A board member commented that the Board would deal with many green code issues this year. Hotels were specifically discussed. Gebo thanked the members for their comments and stated it would help provide direction as the City moves forward with the next series of 2012 codes. A board member suggested that some of the wording be revised and suggestions be made to City Council regarding clarifications or a new subcategory for unique units. Gebo said that would be appropriate at the time the new codes are presented to City Council for adoption. Gebo stated he will present those new codes to City council for the first quarter of 2013 for adoption that summer. There was further discussion regarding the need for exceptions for the particular type of project that was discussed today. Smith made a motion to approve the 2011 Annual Report with the correction of “AAMA” as discussed previously. Lenoch seconded the motion. BRB January 26, 2011, Pg. 8 Vote: Yeas: Cram, Dunlap, Lenoch, Montgomery, Reider, Schneider, Smith Nays: None 5. OFFICER ELECTIONS: Schneider made a motion to approve Alan Cram for Chair for the 2012 calendar year. Reider seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Cram, Dunlap, Lenoch, Montgomery, Reider, Schneider, Smith Nays: None Reider made a motion to retain Jeff Schneider for Vice-Chair again. Smith seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Cram, Dunlap, Lenoch, Montgomery, Reider, Schneider, Smith Nays: None 6. FOLLOW-UP REPORTS: • Need for additional omissions insurance for fenestration approval agencies. Gebo stated that the need for additional omissions insurance for fenestration approval agencies was posed at the last Board meeting. Gebo stated that after he researched the cost and time necessary to become AAMA certified, he decided that the City should teach a class on the green code and explain what the City is requiring as far as proper installation of fenestration to those AAMA standards. Those that complete the class as approved agencies would be accepted by the City and can certify back to the City that those windows have been installed properly. Gebo stated he has spoken with Paul Eckman regarding the question. Eckman informed him that contractors will need to determine for themselves if they need additional coverage, and the City will not be requiring additional coverage. A board member asked Gebo who would bring a claim against a contractor. Gebo responded that the owner would make that claim. He stated he understood that most claims have to do with water migrating into a building. The conversation then turned to contractor licensing. Gebo stated that the contractor licensing code has been around a long time and needs a very thorough review. A board member who will be on the contractor licensing committee suggested that the City provide background information on the direction they would like to head. Gebo stated that those things could be discussed at the first meeting. Gebo discussed several concerns he has with the current contractor licensing code. The first is that the City would like to move away from testing; i.e., ICC is doing this. Another area is the level of insurance required from the contractors. He also would like to review the level of licenses and see if some could be eliminated. A review of the exempt worker policy should also be conducted. Gebo stated he would also like to look at how other jurisdictions do their contractor licensing to see if there might be reciprocal opportunities available. He would also like to see the homeowner affidavit procedure reviewed. Coldiron suggested that other areas need examination such as electrical, plumbing and alarm system licensing. 7. OTHER BUSINESS: BRB January 26, 2011, Pg. 9 • Green Code Classes: Gebo stated that there is one more series of green code classes to be held. He recommended that board members try to attend the classes, if possible. A board member asked if architects, engineers and designers were also attending the classes. Gebo said between 10% to 20% of attendees are from those professions. The City has done a mass emailing advising them of the classes. • Budgeting For Outcomes (BFO): Coldiron stated that the BFO process for budgeting for the next two year cycle is moving forward. She explained that in this BFO cycle, the City will be adding an outside citizen to the Results Team and it is possible that boards and commission members or individuals who have completed the City 101 classes will be asked to participate. Coldiron stated that in the past the Board has been included in the BFO process later in the process. She stated she would prefer to get Board feedback earlier in the process this time. That way, if there are things the Board thinks should be added, they can add it as an augmented or enhancement offer. She requested that board members contact her with their comments and concerns. A board member suggested that having group discussions are very valuable. Also, he reiterated that the Board is supportive of staff and is concerned that staff may be short-handed. Gebo stated that he will be requesting one and a half positions. He stated that a lot of reroofing occurred this summer requiring the hiring of two hourly individuals to complete all the roofing inspections. Meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m. Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official Alan Cram, Chair Minutes to be approved by the Board at the May 31, 2012 Meeting FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting – February 23, 2012 1:00 p.m. Chairperson: Alan Cram Phone: 472-1752(H) Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson Staff Liaison: Mike Gebo (416-2618) A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, February 23, 2012 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Alan Cram Andrea Dunlap Torey Lenoch Justin Montgomery Rick Reider Jeff Schneider BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: George Smith STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Delynn Coldiron, Customer & Admin. Services Manager Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official AGENDA: 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: There were no minutes to approve. Minutes from the January 26, 2012 meeting will be finalized and submitted for approval at the next scheduled meeting. 2. CODE APPEAL: AMSHEL CORPORATION Reider and Schneider stated they know Steve Slezak and offered to recuse themselves. Gebo replied that if there are no current financial ties between Board members and Slezak and if the Board members feel they can be unbiased and listen to the facts, the Board members can hear the code appeal. Reider asked Slezak for his opinion. Slezak stated he had also had business dealings with Dunlap and was comfortable with their involvement. Schneider stated that Slezak also built his first home. Coldiron stated that this was case number 02-12, Stephen Slezak. She reviewed the pertinent sections of the Municipal Code Chapter 15, Section 15-156 that related to this appeal and explained the reasons the Board may grant variances from the terms of this code. She noted that the appellant was seeking a waiver of the required exam. BRB February 23, 2012, Pg. 2 According to Coldiron, the applicant obtained a Class B license in 1983, and that the license was in good standing until it expired in 2011. She noted that the code provides a 60-day grace period, following the anniversary date of a license or supervisor certificate, for renewal. If renewal does not occur within that time, the license or certificate is considered expired and cannot be renewed. Coldiron explained that once a license or certificate expires, an applicant must reapply and is subject to any of the current requirements, including testing and providing new project verification forms if the ones previously submitted no longer meet the prescribed licensing criteria. Coldiron included a sample renewal letter that is sent to contractors before their license will expire. She quoted from the last paragraph: “If we don’t hear from you within 60 days from your expiration date, your license or supervisor’s certificate will be placed on inactive status. A new application, subject to all current requirements including testing when applicable, is required to reactivate any expired license or certificate.” She confirmed that a renewal letter had been sent to the appellant and stated that due to this statement in that letter she assumed it was known to the appellant that testing would be required should he not renew within 60 days. Coldiron stated that there have been no violations against Amshel Corporation. She added that the requirement to complete a new application process does not speak to the quality of work a contractor performs; it is simply staff’s requirement to carry out the code as it is written. Staff, according to Coldiron, does not have the ability to waive these requirements. Due to this, Coldiron stated that the recommendation of staff is to deny the request. She added that staff does not feel there is any peculiar or exceptional difficulty as every applicant is required to do the same thing. Slezak addressed the Board. He stated that he owns Amshel Corporation and has been a general contractor since 1983. He agreed with Coldiron’s comments and stated that with all the items related to the economic downturn, he did not keep on top of his renewal deadline. Slezak noted that he has been a contributing member of the Community and has served on numerous boards and commissions. Slezak stated he has a current license in Denver, and has had licenses in Boulder, Colorado Springs, and Aurora. Although he hasn’t worked in Fort Collins for a couple of years, Slezak explained that he has tried to keep his Fort Collins license current. He noted that he also lives in Fort Collins. Slezak stated that he understands the code and doesn’t want to diminish it, but asked the Board to look at things from a broader perspective. Slezak stated that he has constructed buildings for the City of Fort Collins, churches and restaurants in town. Over the past 15 years he has developed entry level housing for the Community and other communities in Northern Colorado. Slezak stated that he has been involved with City Plan, the Civic Center Plan, the Downtown Plan, and was a member of the Downtown Development Authority for eight years. He feels that not having a license reflects that he is no longer a member of the Community. He asked whether Fort Collins is a better place with Amshel Corporation not being a part of the Community. He stated that he did not envision himself testing for the license, so this could represent an end to approximately 40 years in the City. Gebo asked Slezak if he had recently tested for a particular license in a different jurisdiction and what code the test covered. Slezak stated that staff had told him he hadn’t tested since 2009. He stated he knew he had taken the IBC and IRC updates with the City of Fort Collins. In response to Gebo’s question about testing in other jurisdictions, Slezak stated that Colorado Springs has very tough testing standards, but he thought that was under the UBC. He added that they had built a number of buildings in Colorado Springs. Slezak explained that he hadn’t done any testing under the IBC or the IRC in Denver. Slezak stated that he is remorseful about not renewing on time, but feels it is punitive to withdraw such a long-standing license because the renewal was not paid in a timely fashion. Montgomery asked about testing requirements for renewals. Coldiron stated that whenever there are substantial changes to codes, or adoption of new codes, existing contractors are required to either BRB February 23, 2012, Pg. 3 attend a class that is offered by the City or take an amendments exam. She believed the last class Slezak attended covered the 2003 IRC. Gebo asked if Slezak attended the ’09 update that was held on Drake or watched the video of our ’09 amendments. Slezak said he wasn’t sure, but he thought it was a couple of years ago. Coldiron checked the records and stated that Slezak took the City’s ’03 IRC class in June of 2005 as well as the ’06 IBC class in December of 2008. She reported that Slezak has not taken the 2009 IBC class. Cram asked Slezak if he had attended any of the green sessions that have been offered. Slezak stated that he had not. He explained that he had changed his email address and was not aware of the classes. Schneider confirmed that Slezak acknowledged receiving the notice of license renewal. He also asked Slezak if he was out on leave for medical reasons or a sabbatical during the renewal period that would limit his ability to get the information back to the City. Slezak replied no. Lenoch stated that he thought Slezak was hesitant about testing and questioned why. Slezak stated that if he had a current project to build and had to test, he would test. He stated that the main reason for holding the contractor’s license is to feel he is part of the Community. Schneider asked Gebo if there had been significant changes between the Uniform Codes and the I-codes. Gebo stated there has been a significant philosophical change from the Uniform Codes to the International Codes. He noted a shift to more fire sprinkling as one example. Reider asked Coldiron how the City would have responded if Slezak brought the funds in to pay for the license renewal. Coldiron stated they would have renewed the license and put a hold on the use of that license until he took the class. Reider asked Gebo how often the classes are conducted. Gebo stated that all the local amendments for the ‘09 codes were presented in April of last year. He added that Channel 14 filmed those classes and they are re-presented quarterly. Dunlap asked Slezak if he had completed three buildings under the current IBC. Gebo was interested in commercial buildings that were built under the 2006 or 2009 building codes. Slezak responded no because his company had been building multi-family properties for the last 15 years. Gebo stated that multi-family would fall under the IBC. Slezak responded that he had completed a number of them. Schneider asked for clarification on the multi-family projects; i.e., were they mixed use or were they strictly residential multi-family and how many stories. Slezak stated that he had built multi-family properties with no mixed use element. He explained that his company hadn’t done anything in the last two years. He added that the buildings were typically two story town homes or condominiums. Gebo stated that those buildings would have fallen under the IBC code for condominiums. Dunlap asked Slezak if Amshel Corporation had appropriate insurance in place. Coldiron stated that insurance was not necessary to renew a license, although the City would require this prior to issuing any permits for him. Montgomery stated that Slezak’s past experience as a contractor was exemplary. His concern was that a precedence would be set if they approved this request and other contractors would ask for the same exemption. Lenoch made a motion that the Building Review Board deny the variance request for Mr. Slezak because it appeared that Mr. Slezak received the 60 day notice, and Mr. Slezak was aware that the BRB February 23, 2012, Pg. 4 Building Department has these safeguards in place to protect the Community. Mr. Slezak has been a respected contractor in this town for 25, almost 30 years. There is no hardship. Montgomery seconded the motion. Discussion: Schneider asked the Board members if they thought Slezak should take the full exam or just the local amendment test. Gebo stated that if Slezak were to renew his license, he would be required to participate in the local amendment class. There is also a local exam available that deals with amendments. Dunlap asked what would be missed if Slezak took the local amendments test versus the full exam. Gebo stated no more than he would be missing if his license had remained current and he was simply renewing. Reider stated that Slezak has a long history of skill and performance. He stated he might be in favor of a middle ground although he didn’t disagree with the Board’s comments about setting a precedence. He asked Gebo for further information regarding the class or videotape. Gebo stated the ordinance requires that the applicant must take an update exam or attend a training to renew the contractor’s license. He added that most contractors choose the training. Mr. Reider asked Gebo if the Board members would have the authority to require an applicant to take the ’09 class and the local exam as a middle ground compromise to reinstate the license. Gebo responded that, yes, they could make that determination. Coldiron stated that the Board needed to act on the current motion or withdraw it. Lenoch stated that he would withdraw the motion. Montgomery stated that, as the second, he would approve the removal of that motion, but he still felt the same. He did not think it was an undue hardship to follow the directions of the City code. He heard Slezak say he didn’t want to take the test because he doesn’t have any work in the City and that it doesn’t make sense for him to spend time doing it unless there is some work. Lenoch stated he is concerned about the precedence that would be set if the variance was granted. Montgomery offered the same motion as he previously stated. Lenoch seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Lenoch, Montgomery, Schneider Nays: Cram, Reider Abstain: Dunlap Coldiron stated that the Board could enter a motion to require testing if Slezak were to re-apply. Schneider stated that he was concerned because Slezak could decide to wait five years before he tested. Gebo stated it would be cleaner if a decision was made at the time Slezak was ready to renew his license. It may be that the City will be under a different code. Cram summarized, saying that the appeal had been denied, and no further motions are forthcoming. Slezak would need to revisit required testing at the time he has a contract and needs a contractor’s license. Gebo informed Slezak that he has a right to file an appeal with City Council and that staff will forward him information about those particular steps. 3. FOLLOW-UP REPORTS: BRB February 23, 2012, Pg. 5 • None. 4. OTHER BUSINESS: • Boards & Commission – City Plan: Gebo stated he was invited to a meeting of staff liaisons for all the various boards and commissions. When the City adopted Plan Fort Collins, one part of the Plan was to review all the boards and commissions and talk about the best boards to have and what boards are needed. He explained that there does not seem to be an aligned path on how these boards and commissions operate or what their roles and functions are. There doesn’t seem to be good communication between the City Council liaisons and boards and staff liaisons and City Council. In April, the chairs and vice-chairs of all boards and commissions will be invited to become part of this conversation. • Contractor Licensing Committee Update: Gebo stated there have been two meetings of the Contractor Licensing Committee to date. Gebo stated the committee is made up of BRB board members and some contractors in the Community. Gebo provided an overview, saying they are discussing aligning the ICC exams to the type of contractor license offered by the City. There has been discussion about requiring that a contractor that has tested under the IBC have a certificate holder that is familiar with the IRC in case he wants to build a single family home. There will be discussions about exempt workers at the next meeting in two weeks. Appropriate credentialing also needs to be discussed. Gebo stated it might even need to be more stringent. Gebo stated they should be done with the committee work after another four or five meetings. • Coldiron stated there is a potential roofing violation that the City is investigating. • Schneider asked if a revised Board member contact list could be forwarded. • Schneider asked about the status the CDNS Director position. Coldiron stated that Laurie Kadrich has been named as interim director. • Schneider commented on the fact that the minutes from last month’s meeting were not completed and stated that Board minutes should be available within a month. Gebo stated that they would arrive at a solution. • Gebo stated that the construction industry is advising staff that designers and architects are hiring many staff to keep up with the workload. The City is expecting that permit applications will increase. Staff is currently very far behind in the plan review process. There is money available in this year’s budget for a half time plan review position and Gebo will be filling that position shortly. Montgomery asked to what extent the City performs plan reviews. Gebo stated that plan reviews are conducted for all projects that have a permit. Gebo stated that hourly employees have been hired to complete roofing inspections. Staff is beginning to have a building inspection backlog. • Gebo also discussed electrical distribution systems, commissioning, and air tightness testing for a multi-family building. He specifically related ongoing discussions to last month’s BRB hearing regarding Penny Flats. As a result of the Board’s decision, staff has amended their review process because staff doesn’t feel that those three items are practical in a true multi-family building. • Schneider asked about the status of the ventilation combustion testing issue that plumbers are concerned about. Gebo stated that the Utility Department has scheduled four dates to conduct a one hour class on how to do a combustion safety test. Meeting adjourned at 2:18 p.m. BRB February 23, 2012, Pg. 6 Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official Alan Cram, Chair