Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/22/2018 - Building Review Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingBuilding Review Board Page 1 February 22, 2018 Alan Cram, Chair City Council Chambers Tim Johnson 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 February 22, 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 November 30, 2017 BRB Meeting 2. Sprague Roofing Appeal of Failed Roof Inspections for 1942 And 1948 Dorset Drive 3. Hammerskil Homes Request for Variance from Written Exam Requirement Prior to Obtaining a Supervisor Certificate • OTHER BUSINESS o Election of Officers o Update on Status of 2018 Code Cycle – Hovland (time permitting) • ADJOURNMENT Building Review Board Date: Roll Call Johnson Marzonie Massey Penning Reider Robinson Cram Vote  absent N/A 1 – Minutes of November 30, 2017 Reider Penning Robinson Massey Marzonie Johnson Cram abstain  absent 5:0 2 - Sprague Roofing Appeal - Overturn CBO Decision finding that the roofs comply with the Code. Penning Robinson Massey Marzonie Johnson Reider Cram  absent 6:0 3 - Hammerskil Homes Request for Variance - Uphold the CBO Decision, grant temporary D1 with 60 days to comply with testing. Massey Marzonie Johnson Reider Penning Robinson Cram  absent 6:0 Election of Officers - Alan Cram for Chair and Tim Johnson for Vice Chair Johnson Reider Penning Robinson Massey Marzonie Cram  absent  6:0 Roll Call & Voting Record Building Review Board 2/22/2018 BUILDING REVIEW BOARD THIS IS A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD Please contact Gretchen Schiager at 970-224-6098 or gschiager@fcgov.com if you inadvertently end up with it. Thank you! Sign-In Sheet DATE: U2/22/18 Name Mailing Address Email and/or Phone Reason for Attendance Dan Paull, Sprague Roofing Sprague Roofing Appeal Barbara Springer, Homeowner Sprague Roofing Appeal Perry Springer, Homeowner Sprague Roofing Appeal Glenn Gilbert, Gilbert Structural Engineering Sprague Roofing Appeal Mark Benjamin, Crowne Jade Design & Engineering Sprague Roofing Appeal Fred Ward, City of Fort Collins Building Inspector Sprague Roofing Appeal Sam Hancock, City of Fort Collins Building Inspector Sprague Roofing Appeal Jordan Pacific, Sprague Roofing Sprague Roofing Appeal Jerry Hanley, Hammerskil Homes Hammerskil Homes Request for Variance PLEASE NOTE: No one was asked to sign in, but they were asked to state their name for the record. The Secretary filled in the names after the fact. Agenda Item #1 Item # 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date Building Review Board STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 30, 2017 BRB MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes of the November 30, 2017 meeting of the Building Review Board. ATTACHMENTS 1. BRB November 30, 2017 Minutes - DRAFT DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 1 November 30, 2017 Alan Cram, Chair City Council Chambers Michael Doddridge, Vice Chair City Hall West Andrea Dunlap 300 Laporte Avenue Tim Johnson Fort Collins, Colorado Bernie Marzonie Justin Montgomery Staff Liaison: Rick Reider 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 November 30, 2017 A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, November 30, 2017, 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 1:01 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Cram, Doddridge, Dunlap, Montgomery, Johnson, Marzonie ABSENT: Reider STAFF: Hovland, Van Hall, Schiager • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 27, 2017 MEETING Member Marzonie moved to approve the minutes of the April 27, 2017 meeting Member Montgomery seconded. The motion passed 6-0. Building Review Board DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 2 November 30, 2017 2. PRESENTATION ON “ENGAGE” SOFTWARE Christine Macrina presented information about the new Engage software for City volunteers. She explained the purpose of the software, and provided a general overview of its use. She said there will be upcoming training opportunities for board members. 3. ADOPTION OF THE BRB 2018 WORK PLAN Mr. Hovland introduced the item for discussion. Public Input None Board Questions and Discussion None Board Deliberation Member Doddridge made a motion to adopt the 2018 Work Plan of the Building Review Board. Member Johnson seconded. The motion passed 6:0. 4. CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSAL TO MODIFY THE BUILDING CODE ADOPTION CYCLE Mr. Hovland explained that he is seeking the Board’s support in skipping every other code cycle, rather than adopting each one as they come out every three years. The Code adoption process is very labor intensive for staff and the committee, and is also an expensive undertaking. Code adoption takes approximately one year to complete and there is little time between cycles. The building code and the energy code (IECC) cycles follow the same schedule. He explained the differences between the 2015 and 2018 IECC, which he observed were minimal. Brad Smith, Energy Code Compliance Specialist, discussed how the City’s Climate Action Plan relates to the Code adoption cycle. He explained that Council may have concerns if we miss an opportunity to update energy codes. He said the impact of the IECC changes since 2012 have been minimal. He mentioned that Mr. Hovland will be meeting with the Energy Board, as well. Mr. Smith said his team agrees with skipping the next code cycle, but they have reservations about skipping it for three years at a time. He provided a handout about estimated impacts of the code updates which he reviewed with the Board. While code adoption is one of the cheapest initiatives to achieve some gains, he pointed out these statistics show the impact of adopting the 2018 IECC would be relatively small. He said there will be a big effort next year to enforce compliance. He emphasized the importance of transparency in this process. Public Input None Board Questions and Discussion Member Doddridge asked for clarification about the additional construction cost per building. Mr. Smith explained that is an estimated average of residential and commercial buildings. Member Dunlap asked about the labor involved in compiling this data. Mr. Smith explained the process used. He said they are predicting the number of buildings per type over the next three years, but that line item has a low confidence rating. Mr. Smith said they included an estimated $50,000 cost to the Building Department, which in the big picture is not even noticeable. Member Johnson asked why they are recommending skipping 2018, while at the same time saying it is relatively inexpensive. Mr. Smith said it is because of the relatively low impact the changes would make. Member Johnson expressed concern about missing an opportunity to make changes that would impact greenhouse gas. Mr. Smith said the City is on track to reach its 2020 CAP goals, but is not on track for 2030. However, they can’t accurately forecast that far out. That is why his team will support skipping the 2018 cycle, but not more. DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 3 November 30, 2017 Mr. Hovland emphasized they are talking about skipping all of the codes, not just the IECC. He added that the City’s ISO rating could be downgraded if the City is more than one code cycle behind the current code, explaining the steps he would take to avoid that. Mr. Hovland clarified that while the IECC stakeholder team isn’t in support of skipping every other code cycle, he would prefer that to be the general policy, adding that many other communities do that. Member Montgomery asked about the length of the adoption process and the impact on staff time. Mr. Hovland said while it has taken longer in the past, he is committed to a one-year process. Mr. Hovland estimated that half of his time would be spent on it during code review years, noting that it is also time-consuming for other Building Services staff who must learn the new codes. He also mentioned that feedback from the contractors and developers indicates that they also dislike dealing with the changes every three years. Mr. Hovland also noted the costs involved. There was some discussion about what neighboring communities were doing, and the challenges for contractors who work in more than one jurisdiction that use different sets of codes. Mr. Hovland said about half of the jurisdictions in the Denver area and further north are skipping every other code cycle. Chair Cram also noted the significant costs to the consumer. Having served on the Committee, he expressed frustration with the extensive discussions about sprinkler requirements, attic insulation and crawl space fire block. He stated that the average person can’t buy a house in Fort Collins anymore due to cost, yet we keep adding on. Member Doddridge participated in three of the last code reviews, and said the last two have been more about energy efficiency than life and safety. He asked if they could adopt the codes individually, for example IECC only and not the others. Mr. Hovland said that was a possibility, but due to the interconnectedness of the codes, it was not advisable. Member Doddridge mentioned having served on a code committee in another jurisdiction, and said the process would be made more efficient. Mr. Hovland said he would be open to recommended changes to adoption process. He noted that currently, the proposed code changes must be presented to 12 boards, and he hoped that could be cut in half. Chair Cram suggested a group presentation for all the boards. Mr. Hovland explained that his previous position had not yet been filled, causing a backlog for plan review, which would not be helped by another code review in January. Stock plans must be re- reviewed for compliance with new codes, which also requires additional staff time. Chair Cram noted that the Committee spent an inordinate amount of time discussing commissioning, which is a big frustration for contractors, particularly when it changes every three years. Member Johnson asked about changes in other codes. Mr. Hovland stated he did not see significant changes in the 2018 IBC, but he is hearing from the ICC that there will be more significant changes between 2018 and 2021. Member Montgomery said it makes sense to skip the 2018 code cycle. He said that the energy code changes from 2009 to 2012 were painful, and with technology changing at a rapid pace, waiting six years every time could create an unmanageable learning curve. Mr. Smith said a lot of jurisdictions are currently considering skipping the jump from 2009 to 2015 because it is so daunting. He said the City wants to continue to be an innovative and progressive jurisdiction, adding that Member Johnson had a good point about the challenges of neighboring jurisdictions working from different codes. Member Johnson mentioned the net-zero goal for 2030, and is concerned about setting ourselves up for huge hurdle in several years. Mr. Smith responded that there are impacts to being net-zero in terms of affordable housing. He said making a building structure, assemblies and envelope net-zero is currently not possible without renewables. Member Marzonie asked if Mr. Hovland was advocating for a six-year interval. Mr. Hovland confirmed that would be his preference, but acknowledged that with the stakeholder concerns, he would understand if the Board would prefer to support skipping just 2018 at this point. Member Marzonie suggested skipping one cycle as a trial, then reevaluating when the next one comes around. DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 4 November 30, 2017 Chair Cram agreed with skipping one cycle and then reevaluating. Mr. Hovland explained if he gets the Board’s support to skip the 2018 cycle, he will visit the Energy Board and probably the CAP Executive Team in January, and could ultimately go before Council. The Board’s recommendation would be influential with those groups. Member Johnson stated that while he is appreciative of Mr. Hovland and his staff, he is struggling with supporting skipping one even code cycle, even if it is low impact, when it could make a difference in emissions and greenhouse gas. Member Montgomery said he would support this proposal, since skipping 2018 wouldn’t have a big impact. However, going forward, he would like to be on a regular 3-year schedule. Board Deliberation Member Montgomery moved to support skipping only the 2018 code review and adoption, and waiting until the 2021 code cycle to determine whether that cycle can be skipped. Member Marzonie seconded. The motion passed 5:1 with Member Johnson dissenting. Mr. Hovland thanked the Board for its support. • OTHER BUSINESS Chair Cram asked about the likelihood of a meeting in December. Mr. Hovland responded that there were some contractor licensing issues with regards to unpermitted roofs, and while none have escalated yet, it was a possibility. Chair Cram acknowledged that Members Doddridge, Dunlap and Montgomery’s terms had expired. Mr. Hovland thanked the outgoing members for their service. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Cram adjourned the meeting at 2:10 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 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 22, 2018 Building Review Board STAFF Russ Hovland, Chief Building Official SUBJECT SPRAGUE ROOFING APPEAL OF FAILED ROOF INSPECTIONS OF 1942 AND 1948 DORSET DRIVE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY USummary: Barbara and Perry Springer owners of 1942 and 1948 Dorset Drive, hired Dan Paull of Sprague Roofing to replace the roof shingles on both houses in 2017. The required permits were issued to Dan on 10/18/17. These roofs were first inspected on 11/13/17 by Inspector Sam Hancock who failed them due to areas of soft roof deck. The roofing contractor requested a second inspection to verify the deck replacement would be required, so a different inspector, Fred Ward, inspected and passed the roofs on 11/28/17. In response to owner concerns about passing the second inspection Russ Hovland, Chief Building Official (CBO), performed a third roof inspection on 12/12/17 and found both roofs to be in noncompliance with the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC) because they have areas of deteriorated roof decking that deflected when walked on and felt soft/spongy. The CBO observed this violated the following sections of the IRC: R908.2 Structural and construction loads The structural roof components shall be capable of supporting the roof covering system and the material and equipment loads that will be encountered during installation of the roof covering system. R908.3.1.1 Roof re-cover not allowed A roof re-cover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. Specifically, the CBO found these deteriorated areas are not isolated to one part of the roof and are scattered around. The CBO found the deteriorated areas do not occur in close enough frequency or proximity to support a finding that the whole roof is soft or deteriorated. The CBO found the deteriorated areas are not adequate as a base for additional roofing over the deteriorated areas and will not support the roof covering system. Based on the third inspection, the CBO decided that the roof failed to comply with the IRC and the inspection currently remains in failed status. Building Services requires deteriorated areas of decking be replaced or repaired to come into compliance with 2015 IRC sections R908.2 and R908.3.1.1. The CBO will accept that the roofs comply with the above sections when deteriorated sections of the roof deck are replaced, repaired, or new decking is placed over the old. The CBO believes the inconsistency in the inspection results was due to the temperature at the time of inspection. The first and third inspections were done in relatively warm afternoon sunny weather. The second Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 2 inspection was completed in cooler morning temps when the material, and any moisture in the material, was hard/rigid/frozen. The CBO did give both the roof contractor (appellant) and home owners the option to obtain a Colorado licensed engineers analysis of the roofs to verify the failed roof inspection was justified or not. Both parties did submit those reports on 2/2/18 and 2/8/18 respectively. The appellants engineer stating the roof deck is structurally adequate and the inspection should be passed and the owners engineer stating the roof deck needs to be repaired and the failed inspection was justified. UAppeal: Dan Paull, the appellant, is claims the roof decking is not soft enough or structurally compromised enough to warrant a failed inspection. See supporting attachments/documentation. The Board’s jurisdiction for this appeal is City Code Section. 5-27(14), which amends IRC Section 113.1 and empowers this Board to hear and decide appeals of decisions by the building official relative to the application and interpretation of the IRC. UBoard or Commission may vote to: • Uphold the decision of the Chief Building Official and find that the roofs failed to comply with 2015 IRC sections R908.2 and R908.3.1.1 by having deteriorated areas that are not adequate as a base for additional roofing and are not capable of supporting the roof covering system. • 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. • Modify the decision of Chief Building Official. For example, the Board may allow the owners or contractor to prove compliance with the standards of R908.2 and R908.3.1.1 by providing a Colorado licensed engineer’s report verifying the roof will support the dead and live loads and not pose a danger to personnel standing on those locations. Since this has already been exercised the board could require the City to obtain its own engineer to perform a 3P rd P analysis. • Remand (send back) the matter to the Chief Building Official with specific direction from the Board to receive and consider additional information. ATTACHMENTS 1. Sprague Roofing Request for Hearing 2. Hovland Email to Dan Paull 12-13-17 3. Appellant Narrative 4. Appellant Engineering Report – Original 5. Appellant Engineering Report - 1942 Dorset 6. Appellant Engineering Report - 1948 Dorset 7. Appellant Photos 8. Homeowner Engineering Report 9. Homeowner Third Party Roof Inspection NOTE: Two short videos were submitted by the Appellant, which cannot be attached to the packet. The videos will be played for the Board at the meeting. Copies of the videos can be made available upon request. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Dan Paull From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: R908.3.1.1. I will change the inspection can be replaced or new decking can be Russ Hovland Chief Building Official City of Fort Collins 970-416-2341 rhovland@fcgov.com Dan Russell < RHovland@fcgov.com> ', December 13,2017 2:35 PM (daniel@spragueroofing.net); Perry Springer (springerperry@yahoo.com); Tom n; Sam Hancock Failed inspections for 1948 8L 1942 Dorset to failed and this correction will be required. Those sections of roof deck over the old. Re: Failed roof inspection of 1948 and 194 Perry, Barbara, and Dan, Dorset, permits 81706732 & B1705733. These roofs were inspected on ltl13lt7 contractor requested a 2nd inspection to that inspector failed them due to areas of soft roof deck. The roofing ify the deck replacement would be required and a 2nd different inspector was sent and passed the roofs on 77/28/7 inspection and my findings are as follows: . ln response to owner concerns yesterday (12/12/17) I performed a 3'd roof Both roofs do have areas of deck that are These areas are not isolated to one part of the roof and they are scattered around but these areas do not close enough to say to whole roof is soft. We believe the inconsistency in the results was due to the temperature at the time of inspection. The 1 and 3'd inspections were done in relatively 50deg sunny weather. The 2nd inspection was cooler temps and the material and any moisture in materialwas ardlrigid/frozen. These soft spots are enough of a concern require those spots of decking be replaced or repaired per code section ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 6e Perry Springer 1948 - 1942 Dorset Address it to the Board or review panel On July 21 ,2017, Sprague Roofing entered into a contract to replace the roofs and gutters at 1948 & 1942 Dorset Drive in Fort Collins, Colorado. The shingles for both projects were delivered on October 24, 2017 and the work began shortly thereafter. On or about November 5,2017, Sprague Roofing called for a roof inspection of both roofs because the roofing work had been completed. As part of the re-roofing process, Sprague Roofing inspects the integral components, including the decking of the roofing system, to determine if any additional repairs are needed as required by the building code in the jurisdiction where the property is located. The Building code in the City of Fort Collins provides the following with respect to the roof decking: R908.3.1.1 Roof Re-Cover Not Allowed A rool' recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deterircrated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos- cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. Following the removal of the old shingles, Sprague Roofing conducts a thorough inspection of the roof decking. As part of that inspection, Sprague Roofing is able to determine the exact condition of the decking. Sprague Roofing has pedormed in excess of 1000 roofs. l, personally, have observed more than 1600 roofs and have supervised more than 1000 re-roofing projects. Based on my more than 16 years of experience, I am familiar with conditions in the roof deck that require decking replacement because the decking does not provide a sufficient substrate to affix the new shingles. Moreover, it is Sprogue -RooFINo ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Page 1 of 5 not uncommon to believe th shingles and upon inspection observe that the decking i Additionally, I have walked old shingles only to realize to allow the attachment of words, absent a visual i affixed to the decking is an of replacement. During the installation of the was in good condition and located at 1942 Dorset Dr. was abandoned and no to this correspondence are illustrate the condition of the decking is sound and was always replace decking that code and manufacturer insta the roof decking is not to either the property owner replaced pursuant to a Final lnspection(s) Once the roofs were Department for a final ins on November 13, 2017. At with the homeowner and However, the decking that needed to be rePlaced. Following this inspection, requesting a return of the employees would not be a Having personally insPected requested a re-inspection of different inspector to dete property owner also req people. The City indicated allow anyone to be Present the decking needs replacement prior to the removal of the the decking following the removal of the old shingles, to in sound condition and not in need of replacement. where the decking felt sound prior to the removal of the the removal of the shingles that it was not in a condition new shingles and was in need of replacement. ln other ion of the actual decking, walking the roof with shingles reliable method of determining whether decking is in need s roofs, Sprague Roofing determined the decking required the replacement of a single piece of decking ris decking was replaced because of an existing pipe that in use, and we were asked to re-sheet that area. Attached that depict the area of decking replacement as well as areas of the roof decking. As you can clearly see, the in need of replacement. lt is Sprague Roofing's practice to in need of replacement in order to comply with building ion guidelines so as not to void the warranty. However, if , Sprague Roofing cannot justify the replacement of same or the insurance company in the event the roof is being damage claim. , Sprague Roofing called the Fort Collins Building . The first inspection occurred with the property owner time, Sam Hancock conducted the inspection of the roofs inspection, The lssue 2. November 28, 2017, and inspectors inspected both properties. Following the re- property owner requested another re-inspection. The the City, and consequently, Mr. Russ Hovland agreed to This inspection was scheduled for December 12, 2017. Per Mr. Hovland's email, the Its of that inspection were as follows: "Both roofs do have of deck that are sofUspongy. These areas are not isolated to one part the roof and they are scattered around but these areas do not occur enough to say to whole roof is soft. We believe the in the inspection results was due to the temperature at the in relatively warm of inspection. The 1 and 3rd inspections were done sunny weather. The 2nd inspection was cooler temps and the m and any moisture in materialwas hard/rigid/frozen." These soft spots are be replaced or repa inspection status to of a concern to require those spots of decking per code section R908.3.1.1. I will change the and this correction will be required. Those Following the re-inspection, property owner complained inspect both roofs personal sections of roof deck the old." Nowhere in the code factor for roof failure Below, Sprague Roofing hi its issues in regards to the situation as laid out above: 1. How is it possible to something that can't be seen. Again, I have been on many roofs that I thought need to be replaced because the decking was soft, but once we removed the ingles the decking was acceptable and vice versa' Also, please see the i videos, of which shows deflection of decking. ln one clip, thedecking decking is not de inating and is solid; however, in the other clip the is clearly delaminati and falling apart. One needs replaced and the other is acceptable as it is is not. soaked or falling apart and is solid. The other clearly be replaced or new decking can be placed over oes it say anything about "sofUspongy" being a determining Russ Hovland is claiming reason for failure (see attached e-mail from Russ). older roofs on 24" centers with thin decking and with no H clips have some sort deflection. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Page 3 of 5 Section R908.3.1.1 Menti{ns absolutely nothing about "soft spots". What it does say would require a visual ins{ection. See above for code being referenced. 3. Photographs provided illustrate the roof decking is fully functional, but that it is thin decking with no H clipd, enabling this roof to have deflection of the decking. There is no water damage or deterioration depicted in these photographs. 4. The letter from the en$ineer has covered the issue of difference in weather and inspections. The tem$eratures between the various inspections were not that different. 5. Russ Hovland has situation; however, inspect the property Now in this case I had deflection of the existi video to prove this but that an engineer's report would suffice to clarify this Springers have denied Sprague Roofing the ability to an engineer. However, I was able to get a letter from Mark Benjamin in regard to is situation. ln that letter (see attached) by Mark Benjamin from Crown Jade deflection, code, snow load and human weight load. Furthermore, he poi out that for Sprague Roofing to install on soft decking, it would be a hazard to crew, and he has never heard of, or seen, a roofer doing so. 6. lf no mid-roof is requi wouldn't you be at the mercy of the honesty of the contractor! Now here' something to think about... lf there is bad decking I get paid to replace it. n't it benefit me to replace it if I get paid to do so? So why wouldn't l? lf I justify a reason to be paid more wouldn't in behoove me? 7. Not only for this but for future... am I going to have to call the city out on everyare roof to inspect decking before I re-roof it lF possible decking issues present? This is a issue considering ljust called the city yesterday to come inspect a roof we just off. I called at 1Oam and did not receive a call back till 3pm. I cannot wait for a call and hope we can get someone out there to inspect right away when we have weather coming. There is NO SOP in palace for this situation. replace 42 sheets of decking. However, there are some areas of decking, BUT the decking is not bad at all. I have pictures and s to say that's not enough because in the case we are referring to the Springers Roofs seems "soft" areas are failed because of "soft" areas. Because there is NO SOP it grounds for roof failure? Or is it? ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Page 4 of 5 Rectification ln closing, performed reasons: Sprague is respectfully requesting the final CBO and the work by Sprague the two properties be passed based upon the following Picture documentation howing the decking in good condition. The city's failure to ire mid-roof inspections. SofUSpongy is not a deflection. ining factor in the code. All roofs have some sort of 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Documentation prov as an issue. for "some areas of by the engineer stating he has never seen this situation Findingsnot by the engi demonstrate that the rationale for failing the roof is supported from a ral or engineering position. Lack of consistent gs by 4 code officials. Sprague Roofing is a Master Elite Contractor and has failed a city inspection, passed a city inspection two inspectors and then partially failed the same inspection ngy." The applicable building code in Fort Collins does not provide for replacement decking is "sofUspongy." roof decking merely based on the conclusion that the Fort Collins Building officials did not physically observe the condition of the prior to the installation of the new shingles, as these inspections are not requi . As outlined by Mark Benjamins engineering report, the roof decking will alwaYs some deflection when people walk on it. Moreover, the abilityto to roofing equipment and men on the roof in order place the shin effectuate the repairs su functional. iates that the roof decking was and continued to be For the forgoing , Sprague Roofing respectfully requests that the two properties final i be passed. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Page 5 of 5 STRUCTURAL OBS RVAT]ON REPORT Job No. SPGR1- 7 810 Sprague Roofin 217 Racquet Dr Ft. ColIins, Date signed: December 15, 2 Thrs ls a verifled password secured signature Sprlnger residences at Ft. Collins Attent_ron: Dan Re: Roof deck L942 & 1948 Do Dear Mr. Wolde 80524 Paufl ng at set Dr the I am a Pr have been pe buildings over I experienced roofing experi opinions here , along with my trarning and experience as a professional e gineer I revlew regarding the the comments by Russ Hovland, CBO of Fort Col-lins there were thr on L2/12/17 re on Ll/ 28 / I7 sulted in a pass. Structural- design criteria includes: burf (IRC) as amend Denver amendme 1ng code is 2075 International Residentia.l- Code by the focal buildrng jurisdlction to the 2016 speed is 729 ts; ground snow load of 30 psf; V-Uftimate wind h, exposure B; seismic zone B. The two above, an ins d framed homes have new roofs lnstalled. As noted concerns about this issue for that may feel request as the engineer walk consider that at which far exceeds the 30 psf roof snow load e deflection under that person Ioadlng is typically for that amount of weight. There 1s no rooftop needs to be serviced, so it is highly unlikely that alk on the roof. Even then, the decking typically the way you build ... fessional Engineer licensed in multiple states and forming structural inspections for over 5000 the last 15 years. Prior to becoming an engineer, full lrfetime of construction, includrng hands on nce. I offer these credentials as a basis for my supports my deflection. Mr. Hovl states thaL a existing roof the existing r additronal ro these homes, a roofing. R908 . be capable of and equipment of the roof c done sor seen roof on obviou This would h time of insta differential-s reviewed th www. accuweathe temperatures The low temper in fact 12/12 plywood sheath It is my above, that as to the foa the maximum courtesy of ha provide an opi impartlally pr seen lsolated those areas fr require remova Thank evaluation ser have any furth Very truly you COREY HRUTKAY/ MARK BENJAMIN/ I 1 Certrfred an ] certifled Pas Copies: (1) v a buildrng dep we may send it iqht with no concerns of failure, just a bit of nd referred to IRC Section R908 . 3. 1 . 1 .1 / which roof re-cover shaLl not be permrtted "Where the r roof covering...has deteriorated to the point that f or roof covering is not adequate as a base for ing." f don/t agree that this is the problem at the new roofing was not rnstalled over the exrstlng states that "The structural roof components shall rting the roof covering sysLem and the material oads that will be encountered during installation ering system." I have not personally, nor have I roofer yet who wiIL all-ow his crew to install a ly soft decking, as this is a danger to the crew. been brought to the homeowner's attention at the Iation. Mr. Hovland also opined that temperature STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION REPORT Job No. SPRG1-18055 B1706733 Date signed: February 2, 2018 This is a verified password secured signature Sprague Roofing 217 Racquette Dr., #3 Ft. Collins, Colorado 80524 Attention Dan Paull Re: Roof installation observation at the residence at 1942 Dorset Dr., Ft. Collins Dear Mr. Paull: I am a Professional Engineer licensed in multiple states and have been designing and performing structural inspections for over 6000 buildings over the last 17 years. Prior to becoming an engineer, I experienced a full lifetime of construction, including hands on roofing and framing experience. I offer these credentials as a basis for my opinions herein, along with my training and experience as a professional engineer. On January 29, 2018 I observed the installation of the shingle roof regarding a roof inspection failure for soft decking. Structural design criteria includes: building code is 2015 International Residential Code (IRC) as amended by the local building jurisdiction; ground snow load of 30 psf; V-Ultimate wind speed is 129 mph, exposure B; seismic zone B. I met with Russ Hovland, Chief Building Official and Perry Springer, the owner. The temperature was warm, over 50° at 4 pm. Mr. Hovland walked the roof feeling for “soft” spots in the sheathing. Mr. Springer placed a pink X (the color chalk available) at those locations. There were a total of 7 X marks, 4 on the east slope of the garage, 1 on the west slope of the garage and 1 each on the north and south slopes of the house. As I understand it, this was performed earlier by Mr. Hovland, wherein he found other soft spots. In fact, I observed a white X from a previous visit on the south end of the west slope of the garage. Mr. Hovland did not mark that spot this time. I stood on the opposite slope of the roof looking down the plane of the roof while Mr. Hovland stepped all over the roof. Because of my extensive construction experience, including trim ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Page 1 of 5 carpentry, I was able to visually estimate the amount of deflection I observed. The maximum amount of deflection, under his weight, was 3/8”. I would like to note that Mr. Hovland mostly tended to step from foot to foot, with his feet at a mostly 2’ stance, which means that at worse case all of his weight was placed in the middle of the span between rafters. This is important for the following. I have Engineering Design Data for various plywood materials from TECO, a testing agency, and the Engineered Wood Association (WWW.apawood.org), the premier wood design agency. I observed that the plywood decking was 1/2” thick 3-ply CDX, as the bottom was visible from the garage attic and had large knots, which is a hallmark of CDX. C grade is on top, which can have small knots and splits, D grade is on the bottom, with large knots, and the plies are glued together with an exterior glue. This is not rated for long weather exposure, but acceptable and common for roof decking when this home was constructed. The Building Code and APA allows for a maximum deflection of L/240 under live load conditions, or 3/32” over 24” o.c. rafters. When I use the engineering data and calculations (see the attached Sheet No 1 of 1 for calculations) from TECO and APA, I calculate that under a 30 psf snow load that the plywood decking on this home will deflect a maximum of just over 1/16” inch, which is less by 1/32” than the allowable. As I understand it, the “soft” decking failures are based on the step test as performed by Mr. Hovland. To continue the calculations, when Mr. Hovland placed all of his weight, which I estimated to be 180 lbs., on the center of a span between rafters, the calculated deflection is 11/16”, well over the snow load induced 1/16” deflection. This is not an accurate test of whether decking on a home will support the maximum loads imposed. Mr. Hovland did state that the roof needs to hold the weight of personnel. This aspect of re-roofing is covered in the 2015 IBC in Section 1511.3 and the 2015 IRC in Section R908.2: “The structural roof components shall be capable of supporting the roof covering system and the material and equipment loads that will be encountered during installation of the roof covering system.” Also, a roof assembly is defined in the 2015 IBC and IRC in Chapter 2 as “A system designed to provide weather protection and resistance to design loads. The system consists of a roof covering and roof deck…A roof assembly includes the roof deck…and roof covering.” Section 1511.3.11 discusses re-covering versus replacement: “A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof … covering (read roof assembly – my comment) … is not adequate as a base for additional roofing.” The IBC (referred to when the IRC does not specifically address an issue) also refers to industry standards for acceptance of work. The Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA) Residential Roofing Manual ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Page 2 of 5 (2014) state that delaminated, deflected or interior grade decking is not a suitable base for a new roof assembly. When Mr. Hovland, Mr. Springer and I walked the roof all of the areas identified as soft Mr. Hovland really had to work at, stepping many times repeatedly, in order to see some deflection that he considered excessive. There were no areas that we felt in imminent danger of falling through the roof decking. There were no cracking sounds heard, such as I have experienced on other roofs that had splintered and truly failing decking. This decking was not delaminated, permanently deflected (holding dips on the decking) or interior grade, so it meets the ARMA specifications for a new roof assembly. Mr. Hovland also expressed concern about the roofing nails working loose under excessive periodic deflection. If the main function of this roof was for a walkway, then yes consistent periodic deflections of 1/2” or more could cause some roofing nails to work loose. However, since the function of this roof decking is to support the shingles and maximum 30 psf snow load, with deflections of 1/16”, there is little likelihood of the roofing nails working loose. It is my professional opinion, based on the credentials, experience and discussions noted above, that the “step” test is not an accurate determination of the roof decking’s ability to resist the loads specified in the IBC. I did not feel any areas that would not support “the material and equipment loads that will be encountered during installation of the roof covering system.” The roof decking in this home is structurally sound and stiff enough to support the maximum loads imposed and future material and equipment loads that will be encountered during installation of a new roof if needed. A soft decking failure is excessive and does not apply at this property. Please reverse this and give the roof a final approval. Please note that the Professional Engineer’s seal on this cover letter is valid for the calculation page attached to it; if the items are separated electronically or physically, all of the individual pages are to be considered invalid. Inasmuch as the site review of an existing structure for the purpose of observing the structural conditions requires that certain assumptions be made regarding existing conditions, and because some of these assumption may not be verifiable without expending additional sums of money or destroying otherwise adequate or serviceable portions of the building, the client agrees that, except for negligence on the part of the Engineer, the Client will hold harmless, indemnify and defend the Engineer from and against any and all claims arising out of the professional services the Engineer provides, with the stipulation that if conditions not identified in this report are discovered during ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Page 3 of 5 subsequent inspections or repair work, this engineer should be contacted for appropriate re-evaluation and recommendations. Thank you for retaining us to perform this structural evaluation service. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any further questions. Very truly yours, MARK BENJAMIN, PE, MSCE, SECB, CPHC ®Certified in the practice of structural engineering¾ ®Certified Passive House Consultant¾ Copies: (1) verified password secured document. If submitting to a building department, provide CJDE with an email contact so that we may send it directly per most building department’s request. Attachments: one ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Page 4 of 5 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Page 5 of 5 STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION REPORT Job No. SPRG2-18056 B1706732 Date signed: February 2, 2018 This is a verified password secured signature Sprague Roofing 217 Racquette Dr., #3 Ft. Collins, Colorado 80524 Attention Dan Paull Re: Roof installation observation at the residence at 1948 Dorset Dr., Ft. Collins Dear Mr. Paull: I am a Professional Engineer licensed in multiple states and have been designing and performing structural inspections for over 6000 buildings over the last 17 years. Prior to becoming an engineer, I experienced a full lifetime of construction, including hands on roofing and framing experience. I offer these credentials as a basis for my opinions herein, along with my training and experience as a professional engineer. On January 29, 2018 I observed the installation of the shingle roof regarding a roof inspection failure for soft decking. Structural design criteria includes: building code is 2015 International Residential Code (IRC) as amended by the local building jurisdiction; ground snow load of 30 psf; V-Ultimate wind speed is 129 mph, exposure B; seismic zone B. I met with Russ Hovland, Chief Building Official and Perry Springer, the owner. The temperature was warm, over 50° at 4 pm. Mr. Hovland walked the roof feeling for “soft” spots in the sheathing. Mr. Springer placed a pink X (the color chalk available) at those locations. There were a total of 8 X marks, 3 on the east upper slope, and 5 on the west upper slope of the house. The west addition was not checked as it did not originally have any failures. As I understand it, this was performed earlier by Mr. Hovland, wherein he found other soft spots. As I understand it from Mr. Perry, the two homes, this one and 1942 Dorset Dr., were built within a few weeks of each other with the same materials and builder. I stood on the opposite slope of the roof looking down the plane of the roof while Mr. Hovland stepped all over the roof. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Page 1 of 5 Because of my extensive construction experience, including trim carpentry, I was able to visually estimate the amount of deflection I observed. The maximum amount of deflection, under his weight, was 3/8”. I would like to note that Mr. Hovland mostly tended to step from foot to foot, with his feet at a mostly 2’ stance, which means that at worse case all of his weight was placed in the middle of the span between rafters. This is important for the following. I have Engineering Design Data for various plywood materials from TECO, a testing agency, and the Engineered Wood Association (WWW.apawood.org), the premier wood design agency. I observed on the other home at 1942 Dorset Dr. that the plywood decking was 1/2” thick 3-ply CDX, as the bottom was visible from the garage attic and had large knots, which is a hallmark of CDX. C grade is on top, which can have small knots and splits, D grade is on the bottom, with large knots, and the plies are glued together with an exterior glue. This is not rated for long weather exposure, but acceptable and common for roof decking when this home was constructed. The Building Code and APA allows for a maximum deflection of L/240 under live load conditions, or 3/32” over 24” o.c. rafters. When I use the engineering data and calculations (see the attached Sheet No 1 of 1 for calculations) from TECO and APA, I calculate that under a 30 psf snow load that the plywood decking on this home will deflect a maximum of just over 1/16” inch, which is less by 1/32” than the allowable. As I understand it, the “soft” decking failures are based on the step test as performed by Mr. Hovland. To continue the calculations, when Mr. Hovland placed all of his weight, which I estimated to be 180 lbs., on the center of a span between rafters, the calculated deflection is 11/16”, well over the snow load induced 1/16” deflection. This is not an accurate test of whether decking on a home will support the maximum loads imposed. Mr. Hovland did state that the roof needs to hold the weight of personnel. This aspect of re-roofing is covered in the 2015 IBC in Section 1511.3 and the 2015 IRC in Section R908.2: “The structural roof components shall be capable of supporting the roof covering system and the material and equipment loads that will be encountered during installation of the roof covering system.” Also, a roof assembly is defined in the 2015 IBC and IRC in Chapter 2 as “A system designed to provide weather protection and resistance to design loads. The system consists of a roof covering and roof deck…A roof assembly includes the roof deck…and roof covering.” Section 1511.3.11 discusses re-covering versus replacement: “A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof … covering (read roof assembly – my comment) … is not adequate as a base for additional roofing.” The IBC (referred to when the IRC does not specifically address an issue) also refers to industry standards for acceptance of work. The Asphalt Roofing ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Page 2 of 5 Manufacturers Association (ARMA) Residential Roofing Manual (2014) state that delaminated, deflected or interior grade decking is not a suitable base for a new roof assembly. When Mr. Hovland, Mr. Springer and I walked the roof all of the areas identified as soft Mr. Hovland really had to work at, stepping many times repeatedly, in order to see some deflection that he considered excessive. There were no areas that we felt in imminent danger of falling through the roof decking. There were no cracking sounds heard, such as I have experienced on other roofs that had splintered and truly failing decking. This decking was not delaminated, permanently deflected (holding dips on the decking) or interior grade, so it meets the ARMA specifications for a new roof assembly. Mr. Hovland also expressed concern about the roofing nails working loose under excessive periodic deflection. If the main function of this roof was for a walkway, then yes consistent periodic deflections of 1/2” or more could cause some roofing nails to work loose. However, since the function of this roof decking is to support the shingles and maximum 30 psf snow load, with deflections of 1/16”, there is little likelihood of the roofing nails working loose. It is my professional opinion, based on the credentials, experience and discussions noted above, that the “step” test is not an accurate determination of the roof decking’s ability to resist the loads specified in the IBC. I did not feel any areas that would not support “the material and equipment loads that will be encountered during installation of the roof covering system.” The roof decking in this home is structurally sound and stiff enough to support the maximum loads imposed and future material and equipment loads that will be encountered during installation of a new roof if needed. A soft decking failure is excessive and does not apply at this property. Please reverse this and give the roof a final approval. Please note that the Professional Engineer’s seal on this cover letter is valid for the calculation page attached to it; if the items are separated electronically or physically, all of the individual pages are to be considered invalid. Inasmuch as the site review of an existing structure for the purpose of observing the structural conditions requires that certain assumptions be made regarding existing conditions, and because some of these assumption may not be verifiable without expending additional sums of money or destroying otherwise adequate or serviceable portions of the building, the client agrees that, except for negligence on the part of the Engineer, the Client will hold harmless, indemnify and defend the Engineer from and against any and all claims arising out of the professional services the Engineer provides, with the stipulation that if ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Page 3 of 5 conditions not identified in this report are discovered during subsequent inspections or repair work, this engineer should be contacted for appropriate re-evaluation and recommendations. Thank you for retaining us to perform this structural evaluation service. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any further questions. Very truly yours, MARK BENJAMIN, PE, MSCE, SECB, CPHC ®Certified in the practice of structural engineering¾ ®Certified Passive House Consultant¾ Copies: (1) verified password secured document. If submitting to a building department, provide CJDE with an email contact so that we may send it directly per most building department’s request. Attachments: one ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Page 4 of 5 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Page 5 of 5 Appellant Photo 1 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Page 1 of 3 Appellant Photo 2 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Page 2 of 3 Appellant Photo 3 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Page 3 of 3 Gilbert Structural Engineering, LLC January 3, 2018 Perry Springer 1942 Dorset Dr Fort Collins, CO 80526 3113 Meadowlark Ave - Fort Collins, CO 80526-2842 970.377.3100 Re: Failed roof inspections, Permits 81706732 & 81706733 1942, 1948 Dorset Dr Fort Collins, CO GSE Project Number: 17-032 Perry: As requested, I met with you on December 20, 2017 to observe and evaluate the structural adequacy of roof sheathing at the subject locations. 1942 and 1948 Dorset Dr are single family wood framed residences and approximately 40 years old. They were recently re-roofed by Sprague Roofing of Fort Collins and subsequently failed in two of three inspections by the City of Fort Collins. I am in receipt of correspondence of Russel Hovland, the Fort Collins' Chief Building Official and Dan Paull, a representative of Sprague Roofing where they discuss the failed inspections and alternatives for remediation. Russell Hovland states: "Both roofs do have areas of deck that are soft/spongy. These areas are not isolated to one part of the roof and they are scattered around but these areas do not occur close enough to say to whole roof is soft. These soft spots are enough of a cqncem to require those spots of decking be replaced or repaired per code section R908.3.1.1." IRC 2015 states: R908.3.1.1 Roof re-cover is not allowed, Item 1: " ... roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing." I walked the roofs of both residences and observed a portion of the sheathing of 1942 from below through an attic access. The sheathing is APA Rated 24/0, a three ply plywood that is referenced as 3/8" thick. I was not able to verify the thickness. I observed the soft spots on both roofs referenced by Russell Hovland, and I observed the early stages of deterioration at sheathing fasteners, and delamination of the sheathing plys. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8 Page 1 of 2 I agree with Russell Hovland's assessment that the soft spots are enough of a concern to warrant being repaired because individual spots are deficient enough to be classified as "not adequate as a base" according the IRC, and not isolated; but they are not extensive enough to classify the entire roof as soft. In my opinion, as a minimum, Sprague Roofing is obligated to furnish a roof that passes inspection, and this could be accomplished by reinforcing soft spots from beneath. Installing 2x4s in the flat position and attaching them to roof truss top chords at each soft spot is a possible method of repair. It's also my opinion that a portion of this situation is the result of the sheathing furnished in the original construction. Rated 24/0 sheathing on a roof in Fort Collins is barely Code compliant, and any deterioration will cause deficientcy. After satisfactory repair, the re-roofing may pass inspection and be adequate to support Code mandated loads, but it will have less than full value. Sprague Roofing could have provided the customer service of identifying the deficiency before re-roofing, and offering the value adding option of replacing the entire roof. This structural evaluation is based on a "Limited Observation"; no inspection, calculations or testing were performed. I am reporting only those items that were readily visible or made evident by surface characteristics. The observation reported and opinions rendered reflect my professional engineering judgment based on my knowledge of structures and construction practices, and do not constitute a warranty, express or implied. Sincerely, Glenn A. Gilbert, P.E. • ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8 Page 2 of 2 --"". , ..,, == '\ @TARBET RD8FIH8 On Target Roofing 5210 Coral Burst Cir Loveland, CO 80538 0: (970) 619-8902 www.OnTargetRoofing.com Thank you for trusting On Target Roofing with your project. On Target Roofing reserves the right to revise or supplement this estimate based on site conditions, code requirements, or additional scope requirements that may become necessary to properly complete repairs. The adjuster's original estimate may differ from this estimate indicating that some scope items may need to be reconciled prior to the commencement of work. On Target Roofing may assist the adjuster(s) in correcting either estimate to reflect a proper scope ofrepair. Inspection Notes (1/05/2018): Roof recently installed over poor plywood sheathing. Several soft spots noted during inspection to all East and West facing facets. East Facing facet near ridge has an area I would be concerned with stepping through. New addition to dwelling (North and South facing facets appear to be in good shape. During the inspection it was noted the step flashing at roof to wall junction was not installed properly. Several pieces of step flashing are not fastened to the roof and lift freely. Shingles were cut too close to the step flashing causing them to bow. This will not allow the shingles to lay flat and cure correctly. Ridge cap shingle where ridge ties into sloped facet is creased and should be replaced. Kickout was not done correctly during re-roof. It should have been added to the last piece of step flashing so that precipitation does not accwnulate and pond near siding. Ventilation for structure is not correct. 2ND STORY: There are 3 types of exhaust ventilation: static air vents, dormer vent, and powered vent. Existing layout will create a draw from dormer to nearest static air vent rather than having fresh air pulled from soffit vents. Powered vent will suffice for the summer in pulling out excess heat, however, this will not be affective for drawing moisture during the wet and cool months of the year. Recommendation: block air flow from gable vent, center power attic fan on 2nd story and remove static air vents OR block gable vent, remove power attic fan and install a total of 4 Lomanco 750 static air vents. Calculations based upon venting 816 SQ FT ofattic space on the 2nd story (using 1/300 Rule per 2012 IRC as required by City ofFort Collins building code.) 2nd story has adequate intake ventilation (5 C816 soffit vents). 1ST STORY: There are 6 C816 soffit vents providing sufficient intake ventilation, however, in order to ventilate the 1200 SQ FT of attic space a total of 6 Lomanco 750 vents are necessary. Assuming air flow between 1st story original structure and new addition are joined, vents should all be placed along ridge line ofnew addition. Proper ventilation is required for adherence to code and issue of manufacture warranty for shingles. While Lomanco products are not necessary for proper ventilation I recommend looking at their website and using the Vent Calculator to verify the above mentioned. Any specific questions can be addressed by contacting them and speaking with an engineer for free- they are awesome! Warranty: On Target Roofing will provide the property owner with a 5 year workmanship warranty upon completion of roof replacement. Warranty will activate on the date of installation. Permit Disclosure: Building Permit cost is not included in the price of this estimate. On Target Roofing is responsible for furnishing all necessary pennits and scheduling inspections. Building Permit cost is based upon project valuation and is specific to your municipality. Cost of permit will be represented on the final invoice. Questions regarding this estimate should be directed to: Josh Scheuring Managing Partner (970) 342-9800 josh@ontargetroofing.com 1948 _DORSET_ DR 1/12/2018 Page: 2 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9 Agenda Item #3 Item # 3 Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 22, 2018 Building Review Board STAFF Russ Hovland, Chief Building Official Shar Gerber, Customer and Administration Services Manager SUBJECT HAMMERSKIL HOMES, INC. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM WRITTEN EXAM REQUIREMENT PRIOR TO OBTAINING A SUPERVISOR CERTIFICATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Mr. Hanley of Hammerskil Homes, Inc. 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 then Mr. Hanley will be granted a supervisor certificate and contractor license without passing a written exam. The Board’s jurisdiction for this appeal is pursuant to City Code Sec. 15-156 to hear variance requests of the supervisor certificate requirements of Chapter 15, Article 5. Background: Mr. Hanley was approved for a Class D1 license on June 30, 2011. At that time the City was under the 2009 International Residential Code (IRC)/2009 International Building (IBC). The International Code Council (ICC) did conduct 2009 code year testing on a national level. Mr. Hanley submitted with his application for licensing a 2006 code year National Standard Building Contractor B official results report. The 2006 code year result report was accepted as satisfying exam requirements because the City administratively allows current adopted code year or one adopted code year previous. Mr. Hanley attended the Fort Collins amendments class on April 19, 2012. This class, offered by the City, is to review local amendments only and is not a requirement for maintaining an active contractor’s license. This class is no longer offered. A license expiration letter was sent to Mr. Hanley on April 12, 2017 to the address on file. Mr. Hanley’s license expired on June 30, 2017, renewal documentation was not received. Mr. Hanley of Hammerskill Homes, Inc. has been listed on seven (7) permits as the General Contractor. 1 – Residential Addition (2011), 2 – Basement Finishes (2012 and 2013), 2 – Minor Alterations (2013 and 2015), 2 – Residential General Alterations (2015 and 2016). All permits are completed and closed with the exception of one that is in expired status. 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 Agenda Item #3 Item # 3 Page 2 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. UThe 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. From the time Mr. Hanley was originally issued a license and supervisor’s certificate from the City of Fort Collins, the adopted code year has change twice, from 2009, to 2012, to current 2015. The City of Fort Collins adopted the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC) on July 17, 2017. Mr. Hanley’s contractor license is currently expired until he obtains a supervisor’s certificate. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the board deny Mr. Hanley’s request for a variance from the written exam requirement of Section 15-157(c). If the board denies the request then Mr. Hanley 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. If the Board agrees with the recommendation, the Board may pass a motion to deny the variance request for Mr. Hanly of Hammerskil Homes, Inc. 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. Hanley can obtain his supervisor certificate, and ultimately his contractor’s license, without passing the written exam described in Section 15-157(c). This motion should find: 1. that the variance is without substantial detriment 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 Agenda Item #3 Item # 3 Page 3 (Choose one or both, as applicable): 3 The strict application of Sec. 15-156(c) results in peculiar or exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional or undue hardship upon Mr. Hanly; or 4. That Mr. Hanly 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. E-mail communication between Russ Hovland and Mr. Hanley 3. License renewal reminder letter date 4/12/2017 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 City of ��r_....t.,,.c_o_LL ........ i� HAMMERSKIL HOMES INC Jerome HANLEY 2205 Stonecrest Dr FORT COLLINS, CO 80521 100.804100.549110 Dear Contractor: Community Development and Neighborhood Servlcn 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.416.2740 970 224.6134 - fax fcgov.comlbuilding Notice Date: April 12, 2017 Contractor License#: D-713 License Expiration Date: 06(30/2017 It is time for you to renew your License# D-713 with the City of Fort Collins. which will expire on 06/30/2017. Please provide the following in order for us to process your renewal request: I) A col_Tlpleted renewal information form 2) Check in the amount of $225 made payable to the City of Fort Collins ($25 if you are only renewing the supervisor certificate) 3) A current certificate of liability insurance ( $1,000,000/person; $2,000,00()/accident; $2,000,000/property damage) with the City listed as a certificate holder. 4) A completed Affidavit of Employment(*) and a list of all employees who will be performing work on Fort Collins job sites. Please provide the list on company letterhead, list the employee's full name and the last four digits of their social security number. 5) Proofof Worker's compensation insurance if you have trade employees. 6) Immigration Affidavit("' not needed, ifwe have one on file). 7) Legible copy of driver's license (not needed, if we have your current Driver's License information on file). Once we have received the items listed above, your renewal license/certificate will be issued and sent to you by mail. No permits can be issued to your company once the date of your license expiration has passed until such time that you renew. If we do not hear from you within 60 days from your expiration date, your license and/or supervisor 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. Development Review Center 970-416-2740 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Page 1 of 2 ktColli� City of Dear General Contractor, Planning, Development & Transportation Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134· fax hNp:llwww.fcqov.com!buildinql This letter accompanies your City of Fort Collins license and/or certificate renewal notification. We will no longer be including the renewal documents with the accompanying letter. You can find the Renewal Form and Employee Affidavit at the following web page: http://www.fcgov.com/building/forms-index.php. The General Contractor Renewal forms are at the bottom of the page. Please return renewal documents, a copy of your current Driver's License, (we will shred the DL copy after updating our data) and payment to: City of Fort Collins Building Services 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Please Note: We are now sending other building department notifications and updates via email only. Please make sure you include your current email address as well as your current mailing address to send the renewed certificates. Thank you, Building Services ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Page 2 of 2 erhaps caused the soft deckrng farlures/passes. I temperatures for those three days on . com for Ft. Coflins. 11 /73/17 had high/Iow 70/30, LL/28/11 - 41/21, and 12/L2/11 - 63/26. ture for those days was not vastly different, and 7 had the .l-owest low. T have personally not seen ng get "stiffer" during cold weather. rofessional opinion, based on the credentials noted t roof decklng problems should be fu11y examined s applled, and are typrcally adequate to support sign loads imposed. You should be granted the ing your own structuraf engineer walk the roof and ion. If I am allowed to do so, I will honestly and vide my opinion. In a few other cases where I have reas of soft decking, I specify reinforcement to L under the decking, in the attics, that does not of roofing. , f or ret aining u s t o perf orm thl s st ructura.L ice. Please feel free to contact our office if you r questions. Ef, BSCE PE, MSCE/ SECB, CPHC he practice of structural engineeringl ive House Consultant I ifred password secured document. If submitting to rtment, provide CJDE wlth an email contact so that directly per most building department's request. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Page 2 of 2 roof installation deckrng deflection. It appears e inspections. The first on 11/L3/17 and the thlrd ulted in a failure due to soft decking. The second ctor for the Fort Coflins Building Department had possrble soft deckrng. Tn my experience regarding many roofs I have walked, f have felt some spots oft. I was not allowed to walk this roof at your homeowner stated today that they had a structural- he roof and a reporl- 1s belng prepared. However, 200+ pound person is standing on less than a one square foot a requirement. T not excessive equipment that a person will Engineered Designed for the way you live. g IJI c)Jz -79 lz o; =*.H s UE F\ CO\ o xc) !{\r (:) Y o\ r{ trl'="i.E. Hol @ o o =5^ r L,q;A.' 9<h s >r\- 2 ! il EX tL = rR Ol ru- -t\ r{ Nt A st Oid CLC Y() o & o- ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Page 1 of 2 that Sprague Roofing's workmanship was fine. roof was nailed to was bad; therefore, the entire roof property owner sent correspondence to Sprague Roofing ng deposit and a notice that Sprague Roofing or its back on the property. roof decking, I was surprised by the failed inspection and properties. I requested that the inspection be done by a exactly which areas of the roof had failed and why' The that the insurance agent be present and a couple of other the roofs would be inspected by the City, and would not the time of the inspection. The re-inspection occurred on ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Page 2 of 5