Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 02/22/2018City 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 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 L/180. 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. 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. 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. 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: 1. the variance Is without substantial detriment to the public good; and 2. the variance does not substantlally Impair the Intent and purposes of Chapter 1 S, Article V of the City of Fort Col/Ins Municipal Code; and 3. the strict application of Sec. 1 S-1 S6(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 tlmeframe 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.J • 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 "s O Z 7'. / f5 �� Russell Hovland, Chief Building Official Rick Reider, Acting Chair City of Fort Collins Page 7 February 22, 2018