The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3/29/2018 - Building Review Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingBuilding Review Board Page 1 March 29, 2018 Alan Cram, Chair City Council Chambers Tim Johnson, Vice Chair City Hall West Brad Massey 300 Laporte Avenue Bernie Marzonie Fort Collins, Colorado Katharine Penning Rick Reider Staff Liaison: Justin Robinson Russ Hovland Chief Building Official The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing Agenda March 29, 2018 1:00 PM • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the February 22, 2018 BRB Meeting 2. William Ternes Request for Variance from Written Exam Requirement • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Building Review Board Packet Page 1 Date: Roll Call Marzonie Massey Penning Reider Vote N/A 1 – Minutes of February 22, 2018 Marzonie Penning Massey Reider Yes Yes Yes Yes 4:0 2 - William Ternes Request for Variance - Motion to Proceed in the absence of the Appellant Penning Massey Marzonie Reider Yes Yes Yes Yes 4:0 2 - William Ternes Request for Variance - Motion to deny the request for variance Massey Penning Marzonie Reider Yes Yes Yes Yes 4:0 Roll Call & Voting Record Building Review Board 3/29/2018 Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY March 29, 2018 Building Review Board STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 22, 2018 BRB MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes of the February 22, 2018 meeting of the Building Review Board. ATTACHMENTS 1. BRB February 22, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT Packet Page 2 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 1 February 22, 2018 Alan Cram, Chair City Council Chambers Tim Johnson, Vice Chair City Hall West Brad Massey 300 Laporte Avenue Bernie Marzonie Fort Collins, Colorado Katharine Penning Rick Reider Staff Liaison: Justin Robinson Russ Hovland Chief Building Official The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Regular Meeting Minutes February 22, 2018 A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, February 22, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. • CALL TO ORDER Chair Cram called the meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Cram, Johnson, Massey, Penning, Reider, Robinson ABSENT: Marzonie STAFF: Hovland, Van Hall, Schiager • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • DISCUSSION AGENDA [Timestamp: 1:04 p.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 30, 2017 MEETING. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes of the November 30, 2017 meeting. Ms. Penning seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Building Review Board Packet Page 3 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 2 February 22, 2018 2. SPRAGUE ROOFING APPEAL OF FAILED ROOF INSPECTIONS FOR 1942 AND 1948 DORSET DRIVE Staff Report Russ Hovland presented the staff report, reviewing the background and facts of the case. He reviewed the relevant codes and stated, given two conflicting independent engineer reports, he had opted to keep the inspection in a failed status. Appellant Presentation Dan Paull, Sprague Roofing, presented his request to the Board. He stated he had never seen an inspection fail due to something unseen. He was out of town when the roof was installed, and his staff did not identify a problem with the decking. He has not seen detail regarding what areas are alleged to have soft decking. His engineering report shows the roof will carry a live and dead load. Mr. Paull stated the Code does not state “soft and spongy” conditions are a reason for failure, and noted his company replaces bad decking, as he gets paid to do so. He stated one sheet of decking was replaced because there was a pipe coming through the roof the homeowner wanted to be removed. He showed photos and videos of the roof area and stated the decking is shown to be in good condition and will adequately hold nails. Mr. Paull stated the Chief Building Official gave him the option of re-bracing the roof or providing an engineering report, which he did. He stated Fort Collins does not require mid-roof inspections and, based on the documentation provided, he requested this inspection be passed. Staff Response Mr. Hovland stated both roofs were built at the same time, assuming the same material and decking, in 1972. He said he accompanied the Appellant’s engineer during his inspection and now has a map of the soft spots. Appellant Response Mr. Paull stated his company is reputable and he does not want other contractors or homeowners to go through this again. Board Questions Mr. Reider asked if there is a metric to determine the amount of acceptable deflection. He asked what Mr. Hovland discussed with the Appellant’s engineer. Mr. Hovland replied his intent was to map out the soft spots of concern, whereas the engineer was doing his own separate inspection. Mr. Reider asked if trusses exist. Mr. Hovland replied in the affirmative and stated they are pre- engineered. Mr. Reider asked if the plywood is 3/8”. Mr. Hovland replied one of the reports stated it was 1/2”. He stated H-clips are required to be installed under current code if a building uses 24-inch centers with 3/8” plywood. Mr. Reider asked if there is a contract between the contractor and the homeowner. Mr. Paull replied in the affirmative and stated he could provide a copy to the Board. Mr. Reider asked if the contract states the fixed fee for decking replacement is $60 per sheet. Mr. Paull replied in the affirmative and stated all decking issues are first submitted to insurance; however, many insurance companies will not cover decking because it is considered rot. These roofs were submitted to insurance because of storm damage. Mr. Reider asked about Sprague’s policy should insurance not cover replacement decking. Mr. Paull replied the contract requires the homeowner to pay for decking at $60 per sheet should insurance not cover it. Mr. Reider asked who in company walked the roof and determined the decking met standards. Mr. Paull replied Jordan Pacific was that employee. Mr. Johnson asked if the 3/32 deflection criteria is the correct number. Mr. Hovland replied the Code allows a deflection for roof decking of 1/180. Packet Page 4 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 3 February 22, 2018 Mr. Robinson asked why the homeowner’s structural engineer upheld the failed inspection. Mr. Hovland replied the letter does not go into a lot of detail, but does support the failed inspection given concern for soft spots. Mr. Massey asked if the H-clips would have been required when these homes were built. Mr. Hovland replied he was unsure, but stated they would be required if whole decking sheets were replaced. Ms. Penning asked if the homeowner’s engineer did any calculations. Mr. Paull replied their letter states the conclusion is based on a limited observation and no inspection, calculations, or testing were performed. Chair Cram stated he recalls H-clips were required in the 1970’s and noted it is difficult to newly install H-clips without tearing out a sheet above and below. He stated it is difficult to know if there was water in the roof and discussed the different temperatures on the various inspection days. Mr. Paull replied his engineer’s report addressed the temperature variations as irrelevant. Parties-in-Interest in Opposition of Appeal Barbara Springer, homeowner, provided a brief history of the case. She stated the gutters had not been removed, as had been agreed upon, and the new drip molding had been cut to fit the old gutters. She stated Mr. Paull refused to finish the agreed upon roofing job; however, Sprague did return three times to do the roof repairs. She stated she had to schedule the inspections herself and noted the first inspection failed, and surprisingly the second passed. The third inspection failed both roofs, and the subsequent engineering report concurred and stated individual spots on both roofs were deficient enough to be classified as not adequate as a base. Mrs. Springer stated she would like the two failed inspections to stand and would like the repairs to be made. Perry Springer, homeowner, stated he was unaware of the soft spots until after receipt of the first failed inspection. He stated other roofing companies have agreed the decking should have been replaced prior to the installation of shingles and requested the Board uphold the failed inspections. Glenn Gilbert, homeowner’s engineer, discussed various calculations and materials and stated the subjective analysis of a spongy-feeling deck is valid. He discussed the importance of the City’s inspectors being responsible for citizens’ welfare. Board Questions Mr. Johnson asked about the materials. Mr. Gilbert replied H-clips were used and the measure is 24 inches on center; therefore, 3/8” plywood is too thin. He questioned the wisdom of allowing that thickness of plywood stating it is too flexible. Mr. Reider noted the appellant did not install the 3/8” plywood. Appellant and Parties-in-Interest Rebuttal Mark Benjamin, appellant’s engineer, discussed the allowable deflections under live and dead loads and stated these roofs did not look or sound like they had soft decking. Appellant Closing Statement Mr. Paull stated this is not about deflection but about visual inspections of what the contractor sees. He stated the Code requires the roof to be solid, hold a nail, and not have water damage. He reiterated his statement that he would have made money on replacing bad decking. Board Questions and Discussion Ms. Penning asked if the decking would need to be replaced if the live load codes were not met. Mr. Hovland replied the decking would need to be replaced if it doesn’t meet either of the live load code sections. Chair Cram questioned why the decking did not get replaced. Mr. Massey stated the cost factor comes into play and noted the lack of a requirement for a mid-roof inspection makes these issues difficult. Mr. Robinson asked Mr. Gilbert why he did not provide additional details in his letter. Mr. Gilbert replied engineers observe by Code; his disclaimer states he is not an inspector, which is a common disclaimer on engineer’s reports. Packet Page 5 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 4 February 22, 2018 Chair Cram asked Mr. Paull if he ever made an offer to the homeowner to re-deck the roofs. Mr. Paull replied in the negative. He stated his crew did not identify any decking concerns; if they had, he would have brought it up with the homeowner. Ms. Penning suggested the roof could be re-braced with extra framing behind the sheathing. Mr. Reider stated the Board’s decision is to either uphold or overturn Mr. Hovland’s decision. He stated it is not necessarily up to the contractor to install all new decking despite the original inferior product being used. He stated he feels for the homeowner, but does not see any evidence that the contractor did not do an adequate job. Mr. Hovland stated the spots he identified as problem areas deflected about 1/2” and noted the Board has options other than upholding or overturning his decision. Ms. Penning suggested using a 3rd party engineer. Mr. Johnson asked Fred Ward, the second City Inspector who passed the roof inspection, for his input. Mr. Ward replied the roof did not crack or creak and did not seem unsafe. He stated the roof had some sagging, but seemed to be within the range of acceptability. Sam Hancock, the City Inspector who conducted the first inspection, stated this particular subdivision was allowed to have the 3/8” plywood installed, most of which have H-clips. That thickness of plywood is softer and spots can be very spongy. He stated those areas should have been replaced prior to roofing. Ms. Penning asked Mr. Hancock to define ‘spongy.’ Mr. Hancock replied one does not feel safe when walking on it. Delamination is usually moisture-driven; however, he cannot make that call at this point without more investigation in the attic. Chair Cram noted the Board could modify Mr. Hovland’s decision by requesting a third-party engineering report. Mr. Paull requested his employee, Jordan Pacific, provide input and noted the code section cited for the failure does not mention ‘soft and spongy.’ Mr. Pacific stated he walked the roof when the shingles were off and stated it is not his job to determine whether the sheeting is adequate for the span on the rafters. He saw no damage to the sheeting. Chair Cram outlined the Board’s options. Mr. Reider stated the Board should make a decision, and does not favor requiring input from another expert. Mr. Robinson stated he would like to consider modifying the determination of the Chief Building Official to require the appellant to provide proof of compliance. Ms. Penning agreed and stated the ‘spongy’ nature needs to be better defined. Mr. Johnson agreed and stated he would like to receive input from an independent engineer hired by the City. Mr. Massey stated that is reasonable; however, there are already several varying opinions in existence. Ms. Penning asked if an engineer can check from the attic space. Chair Cram replied there is no attic space given the home has a cathedral ceiling. Mr. Johnson asked if Mr. Hovland could look at spots from underneath. Mr. Hovland replied he would need to get into the attic and look at the underside of the roof decking in order to get enough additional information to change his decision; however, it might be difficult to access all necessary areas. Mr. Springer stated about 40-50% of each house has inaccessible attic space. He showed some delaminated plywood he pulled from the roof. Mr. Hovland expressed concern he would be able to make a detailed enough decision based on access. Mr. Massey asked if the spots he could access were found to be soft, and the inspection therefore failed again, would decking be required to be repaired or replaced in those spots. Mr. Hovland replied in the affirmative. Packet Page 6 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 5 February 22, 2018 Mr. Reider asked if the homeowners are responsible for bringing the roof up to code with new decking if the contractor is not found to be at fault. Mr. Hovland replied the failed inspection ultimately falls to the responsibility of the homeowner; however, if the contractor has a failed inspection and refuses to fix the situation, that is a contractor licensing issue. He stated the contractor is open to fixing the roof, if allowed to do so by the homeowner and required by the City. Mr. Massey stated that he doesn’t take overturning the Chief Building Official’s decision lightly, but while that the materials meet the bare minimum code, that isn’t the responsibility of the roofer. Board Deliberation Mr. Massey moved that the Building Review Board overturn the decision of the Chief Building Official and find that the roofs comply with 2015 IRC sections R908.2 and R908.3.1.1 because the roofs are adequate as a base for additional roofing and do support the roof covering system. Based on the information heard today, including testimony from Mr. Pacific, engineers, and inspectors, there is sufficient evidence that the threshold is met, despite the plywood meeting only minimum standards. Mr. Reider seconded the motion. The motion passed 6:0. [Secretary’s Note: The Board took a short break at 3:12 p.m. and reconvened at 3:21 p.m.] 3. HAMMERSKIL HOMES REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM WRITTEN EXAM REQUIREMENT PRIOR TO OBTAINING A SUPERVISOR CERTIFICATE Staff Report Shar Gerber presented the staff report. She provided a summary and background of the case and noted the last license obtained by Mr. Hanley was when the City was under the 2009 Codes, and his license expired on June 30, 2017. All permits bearing Mr. Hanley’s name are completed, with the exception of one which is expired. Appellant Presentation Jerry Hanley, Hammerskil Homes, stated he is requesting to be reinstated without testing. He said his license expired due to a clerical error and retesting is difficult due to the need to take time off and the cost. He stated he would be happy to donate time or money to Habitat for Humanity in lieu of taking the test. Staff Response Mr. Hovland stated Mr. Hanley was originally licensed under 2009 Codes, and since then, two Code cycles have passed. Appellant Response Mr. Hanley stated his company has never had any issues with the City and he does stay up to date with current Codes. Staff Response Ms. Gerber noted the license holder for the company is not required to test; however, the supervisor certificate holder is required to do so, and in this case, that does not necessarily need to be Mr. Hanley. She explained Fort Collins needs to ensure current Codes are understood and recommended the Board deny Mr. Hanley’s request and uphold the decision to require testing. Board Questions Mr. Reider asked if all D1 licensees are periodically required to take tests. Ms. Gerber replied the testing requirement comes into play when an individual is seeking a new license or, upon renewal, if the individual lets their license expire. Had Mr. Hanley renewed his license in a timely manner, no testing would be required. Mr. Reider asked if there is periodic testing for current license holders. Mr. Hovland said there was not, adding that contractors must renew their licenses every two years and have a 60-day grace period. Mr. Reider asked if there is a continuing education component. Mr. Hovland replied in the negative. Packet Page 7 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 6 February 22, 2018 Mr. Reider asked how long Mr. Hanley’s license had been expired. Ms. Gerber replied his license expired June 30, 2017 and he attempted to renew it about six months later. Mr. Reider asked how Mr. Hanley arrived at the $2,000 estimate for the cost of the test. Mr. Hanley replied the first time he took the test, it was $500, plus books and study guides. Mr. Reider asked Mr. Hanley if he could physically and mentally take the test. Mr. Hanley replied in the affirmative and stated he sees the testing as more of a penalty. Mr. Reider asked how a contractor is informed of license expirations. Ms. Gerber replied the contractor receives a paper license and wallet card indicating the expiration date. Additionally, a letter is mailed about two and a half months in advance. Ms. Penning asked about Mr. Hanley’s recent permit application. Mr. Hanley replied the project is pending; however, the permit will not be issued without the license being up to date. Mr. Robinson asked about the licensing requirements for the other jurisdictions in which Mr. Hanley works. Mr. Hanley replied he has built approximately 60 custom homes, all of which have been up to code, and other jurisdictions do not require the same license renewal process. Mr. Massey asked if Mr. Hanley has completed any recent continuing education. Mr. Hanley replied he is consistently keeping up to date with trade magazines and is in the field constantly. Ms. Penning asked Mr. Hanley about his contingency plan for the pending permit should the Board uphold the testing requirement. Mr. Hanley replied he would start studying and noted the test does not just cover amendments, but the entire Code. Ms. Penning asked about the timeline for the permit. Mr. Hanley replied he has a contract, he is just waiting for the permit. Chair Cram stated the test is $75 and encouraged Mr. Hanley to buy the books every three years regardless. Mr. Hovland stated the test is now several hundred dollars and the Code books are $100 to $200. He stated the City does want contractors to have those books. Mr. Hanley asked if he could forego the testing if he purchased the books. Mr. Reider asked if a temporary license could be granted and the permit could be issued. Mr. Hovland replied in the affirmative. Ms. Gerber asked what type of permit Mr. Hanley is attempting to pull. Mr. Hanley replied it is a whole house remodel which will be about a 4-month project. Ms. Penning asked if the project has structural elements. Mr. Hanley replied it has very small structural elements. Mr. Massey asked if the test is open book. Ms. Gerber replied in the affirmative. Appellant Closing Statement Mr. Hanley stated he operates a reputable firm and would prefer not to retest. Staff Closing Statement Mr. Hovland clarified any type of temporary license would be tracked and Mr. Hanley would be required to complete testing within the timeframe specified. Should the license not be renewed prior to the project being complete, a new general contractor would need to be hired to complete the project. Board Questions and Discussion Ms. Penning supported a 60-day temporary license given the permit is for a remodel. Mr. Johnson asked if this type of decision would set a precedent for the future. Chair Cram replied the Board has made similar rulings in the past, and these are not precedent-setting decisions from a legal standpoint. Mr. Massey stated he believes Mr. Hanley can pass the open book test within the timeframe. He stated he was surprised there was no continuing education component in general. Board Deliberation Mr. Reider moved that the Building Review Board uphold the decision of the Chief Building Official; however, Mr. Hanley will be given a temporary D1 license, and will have 60 days to comply with the testing requirements, finding that: Packet Page 8 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 7 February 22, 2018 1. the variance is without substantial detriment to the public good; and 2. the variance does not substantially impair the intent and purposes of Chapter 15, Article V of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code; and 3. the strict application of Sec. 15-156(c) results in peculiar or exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional or undue hardship upon Mr. Hanley to a degree, which is why the Board is offering the 60-day temporary license and timeframe in which to become compliant with license requirements. Mr. Reider recommended Mr. Hanley disclose his temporary license status to clients. Ms. Penning seconded the motion. The motion passed 6:0. [Timestamp: 4:02 p.m.] • OTHER BUSINESS o Election of Officers Mr. Reider asked if Chair Cram would be willing to serve. Chair Cram replied in the affirmative. Mr. Reider nominated Alan Cram to remain Chair. The nomination was approved unanimously. Mr. Massey nominated Tim Johnson to remain Vice Chair. The nomination was approved unanimously. o Update on Status of 2018 Code Cycle Mr. Hovland stated all the surrounding jurisdictions will be moving to the 2018 Codes early next year, so it makes sense for the City to move forward with the 2018 cycle, as well. He noted Fort Collins typically leads in new Code adoption. Chair Cram supported moving forward and volunteered to be on the review committee. Mr. Massey asked which other jurisdictions will be adopting the 2018 Codes. Mr. Hovland replied Greeley, Loveland, Larimer County and Windsor are all moving to the new Code. He stated there is a new push to adopt the new Code every cycle rather than every other cycle. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Cram adjourned the meeting at 4:13 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. Minutes approved by a vote of the Board on __________. _________________________________ ______________________________ Russell Hovland, Chief Building Official Alan Cram, Chair Packet Page 9 Agenda Item 2 Item #2 Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 29, 2018 Building Review Board STAFF Russ Hovland, Chief Building Official Shar Gerber, Customer and Administration Services Manager SUBJECT REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM WRITTEN EXAM REQUIREMENT PRIOR TO OBTAINING A SUPERVISOR CERTIFICATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Mr. Ternes of Custom Design Storage Sheds and Garages has requested a variance from the requirements of Municipal Code Section 15-157(c) that he must pass a written exam prior to obtaining a supervisor certificate, after his current supervisor certificate and contractor’s license had been expired for more than 60 days. If this variance is granted the Mr. Ternes will be granted a supervisor certificate and contractor license without passing a written exam. BACKGROUND Mr. Ternes has had a history with licensing with the City of Fort Collins starting with a J (Jobber) license issued in May of 1997, no testing was required for this license type at the time. He then was granted a 30-day temporary D2 license limited to scope of work, excluding additions, in October of 2002 pending a passing exam. The license expired on November 24, 2002 due to Mr. Ternes not successully passing the exam. A second 30-day temporary D2 license was granted on January 17, 2003, to allow for a second project to be completed and to allow for additional time to prepare to take the exam a second time. Mr. Ternes attempted the exam a second time and did not achieve a passing score. January of 2003, Mr. Ternes also appeared before the Building Review Board and was granted an 8-month extension to his temporay license. Mr. Ternes attempted the exam a third time September of 2003, but again did not pass. December 18, 2003 the Board approved a limited D2 license. The limitations included: (1) single story; (2) up to 1000 square feet; and (3) to include garages, sheds, decks, carports, and steps. During the active timeframe of the license, Mr. Ternes had pulled and completed 39 permits, three (3) of which are in expired status to this date. Of the 39 permits, 11 were for basement finishes. All work in enclosed habitable living space was excluded during the 8-month extension. The license expired October 24, 2010. From the time Mr. Ternes was originally issued his first temporary license and supervisor’s certificate the City of Fort Collins has adopted the following code years; 1997 UBC, 2003 IRC, 2009 IRC, 2012 and current 2015 IRC. Mr. Ternes’ contractor license is currently expired until he obtains a supervisor’s certificate. Packet Page 10 Agenda Item 2 Item #2 Page 2 Applicable Code Provision: City Municipal Code Chapter 15 Article V Contractors Sec. 15-157. - Supervisor certificate; fees; examinations; renewals states at relevant subsections: (c) Prior to obtaining a supervisor certificate, except as provided otherwise in this Article, an applicant for such certificate shall have passed a written examination administered or approved by the City or the equivalent of such examination as determined by the Building Official. Every applicant who undergoes a written examination administered by the City shall pay a nonrefundable examination fee of seventy-five dollars ($75.) prior to such examination. Any applicant who fails to achieve a minimum score of seventy-five (75) percent shall be entitled to another examination covering the same license class or specialized trade, provided that the applicant shall not be permitted more than two (2) such examinations within any six-month period unless otherwise approved by the Board. Alternatively, an applicant may be granted a third such examination within any six-month period upon the applicant demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Building Official adequate preparation for the examination by successfully completing a class or coursework covering the building code or other code as applicable, or the equivalent thereof as approved by the Building Official. The applicant shall pay a nonrefundable re- examination fee of fifty dollars ($50.) for each subsequent examination covering the same license class or specialized trade. Examinations shall be given at a time and place designated by the Building Official. The written examination for a supervisor certificate may be waived by the Building Official provided that the applicant can prove that he or she has passed a satisfactory written examination equivalent in scope to that administered by the City. (d) A supervisor certificate may be renewed provided that the biennial fee is paid and renewal occurs within sixty (60) days following the anniversary date such certificate was issued, and further provided that the adopted building code or other applicable code over which an examination was administered remains in effect at the time of renewal. When such adopted code over which the renewing certificate holder passed an examination has been substantially revised prior to the time of such renewal, the certificate holder must attest and certify, on a form provided by the City, that he or she has received and reviewed a copy of the City's latest amendments, or has attended a City-provided training class. The holder of an expired certificate may be reissued such certificate by submitting a new application and paying all applicable fees as set forth in § 15-158. Such applicant shall not be required to pass an examination as prescribed in Subsection (c) above, provided that the adopted building code or other applicable code over which such applicant passed an examination remains in effect at the time the renewed certificate is obtained. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the board deny Mr. Ternes’ request for a variance from the written exam requirement of Section 15-157(c). If the board denies the request then Mr. Ternes will be required to pass the written supervisor certificate test for the currently adopted code year, 2015, before his contractor’s license is renewed/reinstated. Packet Page 11 Agenda Item 2 Item #2 Page 3 If the Board agrees with the recommendation, the Board may pass a motion to deny the variance request for Mr. Ternes of Custom Design Storage Shed and Garages from the written exam requirement of Section 15-157(c). If the Board disagrees with the recommendation, the Board may pass a motion granting the requested variance so that Mr. Ternes can obtain his supervisor certificate, and ultimately his contractor’s license, iwthout passing the written exam described in Section 15-157(c). This motion should find: 1. That the variance is without substantial determent to the public good; and 2. That the variance does not substantially impair the intent and purposes of Chapter 15, Article V of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code; and (Choose one or both, as applicable): 3. The strict application of Section 15-156(c) results in peculiar or exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional or undue hardship upon Mr. Ternes; or 4. That Mr. Ternes has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Board that he possesses other qualifications not specifically listed in this Article, 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 supervisor certificate. ATTACHMENTS 1. Building Review Board Appeal Form 2. Historical Information Packet Page 12 - ' Cityof ktColli~ Contractor Licensing 281 N College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Phone 970-416-2740 Fax 970-224-6134 www.fcgov.com/nbs/contractor.php BUILDING REVIEW BOARD APPEAL FORM (Contractor Hearing) Appellant Name:W /j /.r~ 111 K- Je.¥11 e.s Address: /~7/ 2- Bl~ T0o/ Phone#: 9"JO-S(e7-S3L// Action Requested: 'JI Exam Waiver 0 License approval (denied by staff) Mobile# ~ D License Upgrade D Other ____________ _ Description of request/problem and other mitigating factors (attach additional information and/or materials): __ 5'12- /4i±o,.c.k - ~- Appellant Signature Date Appellant may appear in person, in writing, or by agent and should be prepared to present all relevant details, or other evidence in support of this hearing request at the hearing time indicated below. Regular meetings are scheduled for the last Thursday of each month at 1 :00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 300 LaPorte Avenue. Applications must be filed one month prior to the desired hearing date to ensure consideration. OFFICE USE ONLY Hearing Date 3 - z.._ J ~ Hearing Time _ J...__,f? ,....__.._M _____ _ Reviewed by-~-----l-~'---------------------------- Distribution:Orinal - Appellant, Copy - File ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 13 . ., rm. CUSTOM DESIGN utnl STORAGE SHEDS " February 5, 2018 Addendum to Building Review Board Appeal Form To whom it may concern: Custom Design Storage Sheds was shut down in 2009 due to my divorce. My license issued by the City of Ft. Collins expired in October 2010. I have continued to remain in the same line of work, construction, mostly working for other companies as a Sales Consultant. After going through a nasty divorce, 8 years later in 2017, my kids pushed me to re-open Custom Design Storage Sheds. During the past 8 years, the City of Ft. Collins building codes have remained pretty much the same, with the exception of, the size of j-bolts which has been changed from a requirement of 7" long to 12" long. I have always used 12" j-bolts since I started building garages in 2003. Also, during my time in business, I have never failed an inspection. My shed and garage architectural drawings have not changed and they still meet today's building codes. In conclusion, I am requesting that my license that was issued to me in December of 2003 be re- instated without the requirement of taking the written test. There have not been any major changes and the section that has been added, regarding Radon, does not apply to outdoor storage sheds or garages. Sincerly, /)J.Uu1,. L,I ~ I ~I.L William Ternes, Owner Custom Design Storage Sheds 970-567-5341 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 14 Community Planning and Environmental Service Building and Zoning Department City of Fort Collins Custom Design Storage Sheds William R. Ternes 37556 Lee Lake Avenue Windsor, CO 80550 Re: License D2-62 Dear William: December 24, 2003 Congratulations on your approval as a City of Fort Collins Class D2 contractor. Based on the City's contractor licensing ordinance, and direction from the Building Review Board, your license allows you to construct residential garages not exceeding one thousand (1,000) square feet in total floor area; and any work allowed under the miscellaneous and minor structures 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. 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 I and 2; and Group U other than private). You are authorized to do only the work specified within the scope of your license. Any work requiring a City license, and which is not included in the scope of your license, must be done either by another contractor who has the appropriate City license; or, you must apply for and obtain the appropriate City license that covers the scope of work proposed. Enclosed with this letter are your original license and certificate, as well as a wallet card, which must be available on any job site within the city limits of Ft. Collins. City building inspectors may ask for verification of your license. All general contractors must have a designated construction supervisor. The supervisor must have a valid supervisor ce,tificate with the City of Fort Collins and must observe reasonable standards of attendance on any Fort Collins construction site as is necessary to assure adequate supervision of all construction work. If you are not personally performing or supervising the work done under your license, a person doing so must be designated as a construction supervisor and obtain _the necessary approval from the City. Only the license holder, the license holder's designated construction supervisor, actual employees of the license holder, or City licensed subcontractors may do work under the above license. All general contractors who utilize their own trade employees (employees performing work regulated by the licensing ordinance on Fort Collins job sites). must ensure that these employees are registered with the Building & Zoning office by submitting the following documentation: I. ") A copy of the W-4 form for each employee, and A valid certificate for worker's compensation insurance with the City of Fo1t Collins listed ,ts a certificate holder. Once the above information is received, employee identification cards will be issued for each employee. Each employee should have their card available on the job site to verify that they are registered with the City. '.2K I \J()rth Lollegt> A, en ue • PO Box 580 • Fort Collin::., CO 80522-058\J • (t170) 221-6760 • FAX (970)' 224-613-1 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 15 City of Fort Collins No. __ 2o_s_s_-0_2 _ _ This certifies tliat WILUAM TERNES CUSTOM DSGN STORAGE SHEDS is ficensecf by tlie City ef Fort Co(fins, Coforacfo as a: CLASS D2 CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISOR - R-3 & U ONL Y#l,000 SQ. FT. Date Issued: OCTOBER 24, 2008 OCTOBER 24, 2010 Expiration Date: - ------ Contractor Signatu~e ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 16 • City of Fort Collins 02-62 No. _____ _ This certifies tliat CUSTOM DSGN STORAGR SHEDS WILLIAM TERNES is ficensed by the City ef Fort Co(fins, Co{orado as 1 a: CLASS 02 GENERAL CONTRACTOR-GENERAL R-3 & U ONLY #1,000 SQ FT Date Issued: OCTOBER 24, 2008 Expiration Date:OCTOBER 24, 2010 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 17 (ltltlJ ml CUSTOM VESIGN ANV GARAGES STORAGE SHEVS . TM I "Tougher than Tough" 8111 Ternes, owner \\ 970-567-5341 Fort Col/Ins, CO I Northglenn, CO \ blll@cdsheds.com ·WWW .cdsheds.com BBB. .• ... ll~Billl Start With Trust" bbb.org Check us out with your BBB" ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 18 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 19 . a.� fYl!J workman�h,111 a..n.d oral inl-e,rt/lws 3ou. have. contlu o/.e d Wt '1-h mt'. I-/ 1A1ou) d henef/f a-flt.us in- frlj' 51' fut:d 1011. � h_a.pe () Se!f'a.nl-/.e_ /es/ to h:Jc.e --pr f k a. re t:l.f O / C!.nns./rucboK- +lu:d Clf P0 J inslead of k1Yl3 les-+ over aff'ct s 'fM_f builc/ ets hMt 110 tlR.id to k ..J.erkd 111., nor ha-oe lcrwwu� of '1/,/J/l)u �U- �-r� ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 20 �-�. -- -- - - fort collins building & zoning dept. City offortCollw 281 N. College Ave., P.O. Box 580j Fort Collins, co 80522-0580; Voice: 970 221 6760 FAX: 970 224 6134 BUILDING REVIEW BOARD CONTRACTOR HEARING January 24, 2003 Case No. Appellant Name: Company Name: Background: 01-03 William R. Ternes Custom Design Storage Sheds Appellant ls requesting an exam waiver for a Class 02 license. The appellant has taken the Citys D exam and failed both times. On the last attempt, he scored a 71 %. A 75% is needed to pass. Accon::ling to the appellant's information, the questions he had trouble with pertained to new home construction which is infonnation he is not as familiar with since his company only builds steps, storage sheds, garages and decks. They do not get involved with building additions and/or new homes. The City has only one D test vmich is used for both the 01 and 02 licenses. It cowrs residential construction up through a duplex. Based on the experience documentation submitted bythe appellant, he was granted a 3Cktay temporary 02 license in October, 2002 to enable him to puisue a pending shed project. This license expired on November 24, 2002 due to the fact that the appellant did not successiJlly pass the exam. However, a second 30-day temporary license was granted on January 17, 2003 to enable the appellant to pursue a second pending project. After two attempts at the same e>am, the licensing ordinance requires that the tester either complete a building code class or wait six months prior to the next exam attempt. The appellant conveyed to staff that he currently has too much work to enable him to take a class and asked about otheroptions. Although the City's Miscellaneous & Minor Structures license allows similar work as is done by the appellant's company, the 120 sq. foot limitation severely reduces the projects he would be able to perform in Ft. Collins. Therefore, he is requesting an exam waiver from the Board to enable him to obtain the requested 02 license. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 21 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 22 BRB 12/2002 Pagel 3. Contractor Appeal - William Ternes, d/b/a � Design Storage; Sheds, 4#01-03 Fielder explained the procedures for contractor appeals. Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. Lee stated that Mr. Ternes bas taken the City's Class Dex� which covers both the Dl and D2 licenses, and allows an applicant to build additions and new construction. Lee noted that the Appellant has taken the exam twice and has failed both exams. However, on the second exam the Applicant missed passing the exam by a few percentage points. Lee stated the Appellant is requesting an exam waiver for the D2 license. The Appellant's request is based on the Appellant's employer building structures such as sheds, garages, and decks-not complete dwelling units or additions. Lee stated the Appellant is on his second thirty-day, temporary license pending passing the exam or a waiver authorized by the Board. William Ternes, owner of Custom Design Storage Sheds, addressed the Board. Ternes stated he bas been in business for twelve years. Ternes explained that his worked consisted of sheds, garages, mobile home steps, end custom decks. Ternes stated he does not do additions, and he does not want to build houses. Ternes stated that when be took the ex� there was a grey area between the miscellaneous license and a D2 license. Ternes noted that some of the items on the test do not pertain to his business such as radon. Ternes stated his business is unique since the projects he works on are pre-manufactured homes. Ternes asked if there was a way a test could be made up to fit his specific needs. Ternes stated that the biggest structure that he offers is a 30x40 garage, which he has not built one in twelve years. Lee asked the Appellant if he only did the structural part of the exterior. Appellant Ternes replied yes. Lee thought the Appellant should be pursuing a framing license. Lee stated if the Appellant is pursuing his general contractor's license, then a D2 appears to be the appropriate license. The general contractor's license would allow the Appellant to supervise the entire project from the ground up. There was a discussion held regarding what the framing license and the general contractor's license would allow the Appellant to do, and how each would specifically relate to Appellant Ternes' business. Massey asked staff if Appellant Ternes has met the experience requirements. Lee stated that was correct Massey asked about the test regarding Miscellaneous and Minor Structures. Lee explained that there is a separate test for Miscellaneous and Minor Structures, and the exam is less rigorous than the D2 licensing exam. There was a discussion held regarding what the Appellant would be able to build under the Miscellaneous and Minor Structures license, and what the Appellant would be able to build under the D2 license. The Appellant stated he would be willing to discontinue the 30x40 garage from his product line. Appellant Ternes made his closing statements. Lee made his closing statements, and stated that the license does not have a niche for every business out there. Lee felt the proposed work fell within the D2 license scope. Little felt that the most appropriate license would be a D2 license. Massey stated that if the Appellant was willing to take the Miscellaneous and Minor Structures exam and passes the exam, the Board could modify the license. There was a discussion held regarding the routes the ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 23 .. BRB 12/2002 Pagc3 Board could take to aid Appellant Ternes. Lee noted that roofing is not essentially allowed under D2 work. the framing license, and reiterated that Appellant Ternes project scope is Fielder stated he was leaning toward a modified Miscellaneous and Minor Structures license. Massey agreed, and stated a reasonable allowable square footage would have to be determined. Appellant Ternes noted that his company is going to start obtaining building permits for gazebos (that come in a kit form), and was wondering if the gazebos would fall under the 120 square foot limitation. Lee stated that the gazebos would be regulated by the building code if they were greater than 120 square feet. Little asked the Appellant what the biggest product he offers in regards to height and square footage. Appellant Ternes gave a summary of his product line. Appellant Massey asked Ternes the responded Appellant that if he he had had a license any other with the licenses City of that Firestone. the Board could consider. Little Structure. stated Appellant he was Ternes in agreement would have with a Fielder 1000 square in expanding feet limitation. the Miscellaneous Little would like and an Minor exam to be required. Little encouraged the Applicant to take the D2 license exam until he is able to pass it Ternes stated he has minimal time to study due to his workload, although he intends to take and Minor the D2 Structures licensing exam was similar again. to Massey the D2 commented license except that the the Appellant expansion would of the Miscellaneous not be able to build habitable spaces. McCoy felt there was more modification to upgrade the Miscellaneous and Minor Structures license than to restrict the D2 licensc. Massey was in favor of granting a passto limited the D2 D2 license exam. (Massey not including wanted habitable to place living a time space)restriction , altl,.ough on how the long Appellant the Appellant would have had to pass the D2 exam. to Massey allow made the six a motion month to required extend the waiting Appellant's period tempoillI)' to lapse. D2 liCODSC for another eight months� enclosed habitable living space. Little seconded the motion. The The motion D2 license passed. will exclude anyV Yeas: Vote: McCoy, Little, Fielder, Massey and Smilie. Nays:None. 4. Other Business report. The Board Fielder reviewed seconded the the annu,motion. al report. The motion Massey passed. made a motion to approve the 2002 annual Vote: Yeas: McCoy, Little, Fielder, Massey, and Smilic. Nays:None. There was a discussion held regarding the election of officers. The Board decided to postpone the election until the February meeting due to other board members being absent -----·- ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 24 Meeting adjourned at 2:08p.m. BRB 12/2002 Page4 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 25 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 26 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 27 Dec 07 03 10s10p Theresa and Bill Ternes 970-67�-055'4 CUSTOM VESJGN STORAGE SHEDS 11J56 La Lab Aven� Windsor. CO 80SSO ·i·' Phone: 970/221·0198 or 970/567·5Jtll f· L..,;.; 1.im:ill=:D..;:.··:.11· · Fax: 9701221·0198 Ft. Collins Building & Zoning Dept. 281 N. Co!l�ge Ave. P.O. Box 580 Ft Collins. CO 80522·0580 Fax: 224-6134 December 7, 2003 Dear Building Review Board; I am requesting a Miscellaneous License 1hat will enable me to build storage sheds, garages, decks, carports, loafing sheds and pole barns. I am requesting that you ammend your requirement of building up to 250 sq. ft. For our customers, we wish to build these structures up to 1500 sq. ft. I am sure you have my test scores at your disposal and will see I have 'taken the D exams twice a year ago and just recently. I have not been able to reach the passing score, but have scored close to a passing seon�. I am hoping that would be sufficient to be granted the Miscellaneous License that would enable me to build my limited choice of structures up to 1500 square feet. Test-taking has never been my forte. I have shown my work to be nearly flawless in all the years I have been inspected by your department, and have never had a project fall. Therefore1 f am asking for my work to speak for my ability to construct according to coae. Please include me on your aQenda for the next Contractor Hearing on Thursday, December 18, 2003� at 1 :00, cf that is the next step for you to grant this petition. Jam submitting the completed form along with this letter. Please let me know if there is anything else I must do before the meeting. Thank you. Respectfully, �� BUI Ternes, Owner Custom Design Storage Sheds p.3 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 28 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 29 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 30 BRB 12/18/2003 Appellant Structures also license sought would an exemption cover most to include of the a Appellant's 1500 square projects. feel limit The or the Page maximum 6 size of the proposed buildings. Bill lowered Ternes to l 000 addressed square the feet Board. because Ternes he has discontinued stated that the his I 30 500 x 40 square garage. feet Ternes waiver stated could that be the biggest garage that he builds is a 24 x 36. Ternes stated that he did not understand why he Misce11aneous had to take a and Dl tesl Minor to Structure build garages license and with stated an exemption his case. regarding Ternes noted the size. that Ternes he wanted stated a that he was not good at taking tests. with Theresa taking Ternes, exams. Bill's wife, addressed the Board. Mrs. Ternes attested lo her husband's struggle intention.his Lee said that Ternes on the replied application that he Ternes was told requested that he had a D2 to license, have a D2 and license. asked Ternes Lee stated if that that was a D2 reiterated license was that required a D2 license for a garage. was required. Ternes noted Lee said that that his largest the Miscellaneous product was and 720 Minor square Structures feet. Lee discussiona Structures license does license. held not regarding allow construction the differences of private between garages. the It D2 was and a specialty the Miscellaneous license. There and Minor was According Carr asked to staff the if pennit the statement database, in Ternes Ternes has letter passed was true items regarding where permits not having were failed required. inspections.Ternes made limited his D2 closing license. statements. Lee made his closing statements, and stated Ternes sought a Massey (2) up to made 1000 a square motion feet; to approve and (3) a to limited include D2 garages, license. sheds, The limitations decks, carports, include: and ( steps. 1) single Massey story; based Little seconded the approval the motion. on Ternes' The experience motion passed. and his nearly passing test score for a full D2 license. Nays:Vote: Yeas: None. Little, McCoy, Fielder, Massey, Smilie, and Carr. 8. Other Business Lee There stated was considerable that City Council discussion met on afterwards. the 16111 and The a IRC quick will overview be scheduled of the for IRC ordinance was presented.in early March. Meeting adjourned at 3:01 p.m. ��Director ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 31