Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 - Building Review Board - Annual ReportBUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2007 ANNUAL REPORT BACKGROUND Neighborhood 8 Building services 281 N. College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80521 970.221.6760 970.224.6134 fax rcgov.com The Building Review Board consists of seven members. Meetings are held on the last Thursday of each month in the Council Chambers at City Hall. The Board may also meet as needed in order to convene special meetings. Members who served during 2007 included David Carr, Alan Cram, Mike Gust, Gene Little, Jim Packard, Michael Smilie, and George Smith. Michael Smilie served as Chairperson throughout the year. Gene Little served as Vice -Chairperson. Council liaison to the Board was Council Member Kelly Ohlson. Staff support was provided by Felix Lee, Paul Eckman, Delynn Coldiron and Melanie Clark. 2007 YEAR IN REVIEW: As the appellate body for building codes and contractor licensing regulations, the Board held numerous hearings: APPEALS: • License Approvals: The Board heard 18 cases from contractors asking for approval of licenses that had been denied by staff due to incomplete and/or insufficient project experience, due to the specialized nature of the work done by such companies which did not fit well into any of the available Fort Collins contractor license classes, when an exam waiver was being requested, or due to the fact that violations had occurred to the City's licensing regulations. • Doug Barkus, d/b/a Chateau Development — The appellant was seeking a waiver of one of the experience criteria needed to obtain a C2 license since he had not completed the construction of a multi -family project that was either over 3 stories in height or that included 16 or more units as required by the City's licensing ordinance. As well, he was seeking a waiver of the required exam. The Board denied both requests. • Steve Wimp, d/b/a Thunderpup Construction — The appellant was seeking approval of a Class B license; however, his submitted projects were sufficient only for a Class C1 license. He was seeking this approval due to the fact that the company had operated under a Class B license for 16 years under the name of his partner. Because his partner intended to leave the company, the appellant hoped the license could be transferred to him. The Board denied the appellant's request. • Scott Pierce, d/b/a Complete Basement Systems — The appellant was seeking approval of a Class D2 license that would enable him to perform residential finish work. Because the appellant's experience was limited to this type of construction, he was unable to provide project experience sufficient to meet the City's D2 licensing criteria. As well, the Building Review Board — Annual Report January 2, 2008 Page 2 appellant was unable to pass the D2 exam and asked for a waiver of those questions on the test that related to structural construction. The Board granted a 30-day temporary license restricted to residential finish work and required that the appellant pass the D2 exam in order for the license to be finalized. Benjamin Wallace, d/b/a Remodel It — The appellant was seeking approval of a Class D2 license based on his eleven years of construction experience. Although the appellant had worked primarily for two general contractors during that time and participated in numerous projects, he did not have any projects that he supervised through the entirety of the project. Therefore, he was unable to document three projects that fully met the D2 licensing criteria. The Board denied the appellant's request. Del Bunker, d/b/a Tuff Shed — The appellant was seeking approval of a Class D2 license. Due to the appellant's current role as Product Manager and Assistant Secretary for his company, he does not provide construction site supervision and, therefore, was unable to document three projects that fully met the D2 licensing criteria. The Board granted the appellant's request, accepting his testimony as sufficient experience, with the condition that the appellant provide on -site supervision for all projects. • David Franklin, d/b/a B & B Contracting — The appellant was seeking approval of a Class D1 license but had only one project he could submit that met the D1 licensing criteria. The other projects submitted included a new commercial building and a commercial tenant finish. The appellant had a Construction Management degree from CSU and had taken classes in LEED Building Practices and Guidelines. The Board approved the appellant's request. • David Martinez, d/b/a J & M Remodeling — The appellant was seeking approval of a Class D2 license that would enable him to perform residential finish work. Because the appellant's experience was limited to this type of construction, he was unable to provide project experience sufficient to meet the City's D2 licensing criteria. The Board granted appellant's request for a limited D2 license. David Houts, d/b/a Construction Management Solutions — The appellant was seeking approval of a Class C2 license. The role of the appellant in each of the documented projects submitted was that of overall project manager and not as the designated on -site construction supervisor. Therefore, there was some question as to whether the appellant had sufficient on -site supervision experience as prescribed by the licensing ordinance. As well, the appellant had only two projects that he could submit that met the requirements of the C2 license, but needed three to fully meet what was prescribed by the ordinance. The Board approved appellant's request based on the appellant's core competencies identified through testimony at the meeting and experience, both professionally and as documented on the two C2 projects submitted. The Board placed a condition that approval of an ongoing C2 license would be contingent on the appellant finishing the pending Raven View project. Tim Kruse, d/b/a Gekko Building Services, LLC — The appellant was seeking approval of an HVAC license but was unable to submit four of the projects needed to fully comply with the licensing ordinance due to the fact that his records had been unintentionally destroyed while in storage and due to the fact that his business contacts were no longer around for him to get the required signatures. The Board approved the appellant's request with the stipulation that he complete four projects within the next six months and provide documentation on each project to ensure compliance with the licensing ordinance. • Raju Jairam, d/b/a MBI Corporation — The appellant was seeking reinstatement of his Class A license, as well as an exam waiver. His license had lapsed past the 60-day grace period allowed by ordinance which subjected the appellant to all current licensing Building Review Board —Annual Report January 2, 2008 Page 3 requirements, including testing. Based on licensing changes that had been approved in prior years, the projects submitted by the appellant at the time of his initial license application no longer met the requirements of a Class A license. They now were sufficient for a Class B license. Staff granted a temporary 30-day Class B license pending the Board hearing. The Board reinstated the appellant's Class A license with the stipulation that he pass the City's licensing exam within 90 days. • Henry Schilling, d/b/a Service Master — The appellant was seeking approval of a D2 license to enable him to perform restoration work. Because the appellant's experience was limited to this type of construction, he was unable to provide project experience sufficient to meet the City's D2 licensing criteria. The Board granted appellant's request for a limited D2 license. • Brian Cass, d/b/a B & S Colorado — The appellant was seeking approval of a D1 license but had only 1 project that met the D1 licensing criteria. The other two projects submitted by the appellant were for new commercial buildings. The Board approved the appellant's request accepting his commercial experience to fulfill the licensing criteria. • Bob Peterson, d/b/a Associates in Building & Design — The appellant was seeking approval of a C1 license. Although he did have three new commercial building projects to submit, he did not have one that met the Type I, II or III construction criteria required by the licensing ordinance. The Board granted appellant's request for a C1 license, limiting the construction projects to wood frame only. • Craig McCarty, d/b/a Service Team of Professionals — The appellant was seeking a limited Class E license that would enable him to perform restoration work. Because the appellant's experience was limited to this type of construction, he was unable to provide project experience sufficient to meet the City's E licensing criteria. The Board denied the appellant's request due to the fact that the work projects that had been submitted dealt primarily with cosmetic fixes/repairs. Tad Bjorlie, d/b/a TNT -- The appellant was seeking approval of a Class D2 license that would enable him to build decks up to 1,000 square feet. Because the appellant's experience was limited to this type of construction, he was unable to provide project experience sufficient to meet the City's D2 licensing criteria. The Board granted appellant's request for a D2 license, limiting the construction projects to open decks up to 1,000 square feet and no more than 2 stories in height. Byron McGough, d/b/a Wattle & Daub -- The appellant was seeking approval of a limited C1 license that would enable him to perform structural modifications as part of his commercial and residential historic restoration projects. Because the appellant's experience was limited to this type of construction, he was unable to provide project experience sufficient to meet the City's C1 licensing criteria. The Board granted appellant's request for a C1 license, limiting the construction to commercial and residential restoration projects. As well, the Board stipulated that oversight by a qualified engineering company would be required, as determined by City staff, on a case by case basis. Ed Secor, d/b/a Wattle & Daub -- The appellant was seeking approval of a limited C1 supervisor certificate that would enable him to provide on -site supervision for his company's commercial and residential historic restoration projects. Because the appellant's experience was limited to this type of construction, he was unable to provide project experience sufficient to meet the City's C1 licensing criteria. The Board granted appellant's request for a C1 supervisor certificate, limiting the construction to commercial and residential restoration projects. As well, the Board stipulated that oversight by a qualified engineering company would be required, as determined by City staff, on a case by case basis. Building Review Board — Annual Report January 2, 2008 Page 4 Bryan Martin, d/b/a Co -Cat Restoration/Reconstruction -- The appellant was seeking approval of a limited C1 license that would enable him to perform structural repairs and modifications due to water and/or fire damage. Because the appellant's experience was limited to this type of construction, he was unable to provide project experience sufficient to meet the City's C1 licensing criteria. The Board granted appellant's request for a C1 license, limiting the construction to commercial and residential restoration projects, up to and including building replacements, but not allowing new buildings or new additions. • Exceptions/Upgrades: The Board heard 3 cases from contractors and/or building owners asking for exceptions that would allow them to build outside of the constraints of their current license. • Daniel Ericson, d/b/a Journey Homes — The appellant was seeking a project exemption to his D1 license that would enable him to perform the construction of a 944 square foot, single -story, block pool house and an outdoor swimming pool for the new Maple Hill Subdivision. The Board approved the requested exemption. • Andy Rex, d/b/a Rex General Contractor — The appellant was seeking two project exemptions to his D2 license that would enable him to 1) construct two new single family homes, and 2) perform a commercial office remodel. The appellant had previously obtained other project exemptions from the Board, which projects had been completed without incident. The Board approved both exemptions requested. Byron McGough, d/b/a Wattle & Daub — The appellant was seeking a project exemption to his E license that would enable him to perform some structural modifications as part of a basement remodel within a commercial building. The appellant planned to work under the specific directives and observations of a licensed structural engineer for the job. The Board approved the exemption with the stipulation that the appellant provide daily on -site supervision throughout the entirety of the project. 2. LICENSE HEARINGS: The Board heard 4 cases against a contractor who had violated the City's licensing regulations. Darin Hunt, d/b/a United Construction, LLC — This contractor was found working on a job site prior to obtaining the needed license or permits. He had applications submitted for both; however, neither were finalized prior to commencement of construction. The Board authorized the issuance of the Class E license that had been applied for and directed that a letter of reprimand be placed in the respondent's file. As well, they noted that any further violations that occurred within the next twelve months would result in an immediate suspension of the respondent's license. The Board also required the payment of all outstanding fees and fines. David Houts d/b/a Construction Management Solutions — This contractor was found working on a job site prior to obtaining the needed permits. He had applications submitted for all of the permits in question (six single-family attached units within a single building), but did not finalize these prior to the commencement of construction. The Board found that the respondent was in violation of the following items of Section 15-162(d) of the licensing ordinance: 1) knowing or deliberate disregard of the building code or other City code, 2) failure to comply with any provision of the code, and 6) failure to obtain required permits. The Board was in agreement with the financial penalties that had been assessed. The Board lifted the suspension that had been placed on the license by the Building Official for the current project only. The Board directed that a six month suspension run concurrently with the current project prohibiting the respondent from proceeding with any further projects during Building Review Board — Annual Report January 2, 2008 Page 5 completion of the current one or prior to the end of the six-month suspension period. The Board also directed that a letter of reprimand be placed in the respondent's file. Rick Gerhart d/b/a Vision Builders & Design — This contractor was found working on a job site prior to obtaining the needed permit and had also performed construction beyond the scope of his existing license. The Board found that the respondent was in violation of the following items of Section 15-162(d) of the licensing ordinance: 1) knowing or deliberate disregard of the building code or other City code, 2) failure to comply with any provision of the code, 6) failure to obtain required permits and 7) commitment of any act of negligence, incompetence or misconduct in the performance of the contractor's specific trade which results in posing a threat to public health and safety. The Board lifted the suspension that had been placed on the license by the Building Official and directed that a letter of reprimand be placed in the respondent's file. Darrin Hunt, d/b/a United Construction -- This contractor was found working on a job site prior to obtaining the needed permit. This was a repeat occurrence for this contractor who had appeared before the Board in June, 2007 for the same reason. He did not appear at the Board hearing; however, multiple customers who had been impacted by this contractor's performance attended and spoke about their experiences. Legal action had been commenced on behalf of at least one of the customers who spoke due to the problems they encountered on their job. The Board found that the respondent was in violation of the following items of Section 15-162(d) of the licensing ordinance: 1) knowing or deliberate disregard of the building code or other City code, 2) failure to comply with any provision of the code and 6) failure to obtain required permits. The Board revoked this contractor's license with an additional restriction forbidding the contractor to obtain any further contractor licenses with the City of Fort Collins personally and in instances i.e., a partnership or company, where he is an officer or has any position of control. 3. BUILDING CODE HEARINGS: The Board heard 1 Building Code case involving the City's Rental Housing Standards. Rental Housing Standards Appeal — Peter Schultz, Appellant — 505 Locust Street: According to City Code Section 5-312, Article VI, Division 2, Rental Housing Standards, the appellant was requesting that the Building Review Board reverse the interpretations, actions and decisions of the Building Official as stipulated in the appellant's Notice of Appeal. The appellant based his appeal on the following: 1) more than three unrelated adults living in what the appellant believed to be a "single-family residence'; 2) no permits on file with the City showing that the property had been converted to a duplex; 3) respondents benefiting from the duplex without having had to obtain a permit or pay related fees; 4) respondents performing additional construction without permits and 5) respondent failing to install fire - rated barriers and obtain any associated permits. After thorough research of the case, the Building Official determined that it was reasonable to infer that the subject premises was more likely than not used as a duplex by the late 1960s, well before the imposition of City capital improvement expansion fees or parkland fees, and, quite possibly, prior to the time permits were required for this type of conversion. The Building Official stated that a permit had been obtained for the more recent construction project and that the fire -rated barrier was not realistic or required for the existing use. The Building Official also maintained that the appellant had no standing to appeal to the Building Review Board any of the particular "administrative" matters referenced in the City Building Code that were the subject of this appeal, including the questions related to fees, but that the Board could hear the case based on the criteria limited to the applicable provisions found in the Rental Housing Standards. Building Review Board —Annual Report January 2, 2008 Page 6 After hearing from the appellant, respondents, City Attorney and Building Official, the Board had a lengthy and detailed discussion on the various items presented in the appeal. The Board denied the appellant's request to reverse the interpretation/decision of the Building Official based on City staffs determination that the property now met the requirements of the Rental Housing Code and based on the fact that this was the only item within the purview of the Board. 4. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: • Review of proposed Exterior Property Maintenance, Dangerous Building and Rental Housing Codes.