Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009 - Building Review Board - Annual ReportCommunity Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation BUILDING REVIEW BOARD 2009 ANNUAL REPORT BACKGROUND: 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 2009 included Alan Cram, Andrea Dunlap, Mike Gust, Brice Miller, Jim Packard, Jeff Schneider and George Smith. Jim Packard served as Chairperson throughout the year. Board Member Cram served as Vice-Chairperson. Council liaison to the Board was Council Member Kelly Ohlson. Staff support was provided by Felix Lee, Mike Gebo, Steve Dush, Paul Eckman, Delynn Coldiron and Melanie Clark. 2009 YEAR IN REVIEW: As the appellate body for building codes and contractor licensing regulations, the Board held numerous hearings: 1. APPEALS: • License Approvals: The Board heard no 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. • None. • Exceptions/Upgrades: The Board heard two cases from contractors and/or building owners asking for exceptions that would allow them to build outside of the constraints of their current license or the licensing regulations. • Simon Darke, d/b/a Alpine Custom Carpentry: The appellant was seeking an ongoing project exemption to his Miscellaneous & Minor Structures license that would enable him to perform the full range of projects his company specializes in, since many of these surpass the square footage and one-story limitations of his license. The Board denied appellant’s request and encouraged him to come back for approval on a case-by-case basis. • Rick Emery, d/b/a Ridgetop Builders: The appellant was seeking a project exemption to his E license that would enable him to expand an existing tenant finish project to include an addition onto the existing building pursuant to his customer’s request. The Board approved a one-time exemption allowing the appellant to perform the addition with the requirement that he take and pass the ICC Contractor A exam. BRB Annual Report December 31, 2009 Page 2 - 2 - 2. LICENSE HEARINGS: The Board heard three cases against contractors who had violated the City’s licensing regulations. • David Houts, d/b/a Construction Management Solutions: This contractor appeared before the Board to seek reinstatement of his revoked C2 and D1 licenses. The Board instructed this contractor to fulfill a number of items at the hearings held on August 30, 2007 and March 27, 2008. Due to the fact that one of his projects remained incomplete, the Board reinstated the D1 license only, with the caveat that once the outstanding project was complete, the C2 license could also be reinstated. • Scott Mills, d/b/a Force Five Roofing: This contractor appeared before the Board due to alleged violations to the licensing ordinance for working without building permits, working without a contractor’s license and lack of site supervision. The Board found that the contractor was in violation of knowing or deliberate disregard of the Building Code or any other Code adopted by the City, failure to comply with any provision of the code related to a specific construction project, failure to obtain the required permit for the work performed, performance of work for which a license or supervisor certificate is required without a valid current license and inadequate supervision for exempt workers. The contractor was prohibited from reapplying for a contractor’s license for six months. • Richard Gray, d/b/a Gray’s Construction: This contractor appeared before the Board due to alleged violations to the licensing ordinance for inadequate supervision of exempt workers and potentially lending or consenting to the use of their license by another contractor. The Board found that the contractor had failed to comply with a provision of the code related to a specific construction project and provided inadequate supervision for exempt workers. The contractor was allowed to continue working, but placed on probation for 6 months. 3. BUILDING/RENTAL HOUSING CODE HEARINGS: The Board heard five cases involving City Codes: • Michael Bello, d/b/a Urban Development Partners, LLC: This was the second appearance by the appellant before the Board, seeking an exception to the Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) requirements with respect to meeting accessibility standards. He was requesting this on the basis of undue hardship due to: 1) Flood plain requirements and 2) Design complications required to meet the complementing details of the neighboring historic structure. Staff and the Board denied appellant’s first request. Staff denied the appellant’s second request due to the fact that there remained items the appellant could do on the proposed site to meet accessibility standards. The appellant provided information on additional options he had explored in an attempt to meet the accessibility standards and discussed the difficulties of those options. As well, he provided information on research he had done on the availability of handicap units within the area that he believed would more than suffice for the handicapped units that he was hoping not to have to include in his project. Increased costs and the resulting price point of his properties were also concerns the appellant shared. After significant discussion with City staff and consideration of testimony from the appellant and a representative from the Commission on Disability, the Board denied the appellant’s request. • 515 E. Drake, Apt A-116: The tenant at this address contacted the City for an inspection due to an ant infestation. At inspection, the inspector found evidence of ants as well as the BRB Annual Report December 31, 2009 Page 3 - 3 - following: 1) bathtub would not drain properly, 2) glazing on the living room window was pulled from the frame and the window was not sealed correctly, 3) locks were not operable on the living room, kitchen, or northeast bedroom windows, 4) no smoke alarms in the bedrooms or in the area outside of the bedrooms, 5) electrical outlets in the bathroom and kitchen were not GFCI protected, and 6) two outlets in the living room not working properly. The Board heard testimony from property manager Sandee Diamond, from her Attorney Earl Edwards, from former tenant Megan Galvin and from her mom, Leneva Tanner. The property manager was concerned about the Notice she had received and the fines that could be incurred if she couldn’t get the necessary repairs made within the given timeframe. She was seeking relief from the given timeframe. There was a lot of discussion around timeframes and potential changes to existing notification processes. After clarifying some key issues, the appellant agreed to withdraw her appeal. • 1000 W. Horsetooth Road, Apt B-14: The tenant at this address contacted the City for an inspection due to a roof leak. The tenant indicated that over the course of several years she had made requests to have the roof leak investigated and repaired, to no avail. At inspection, the inspector found water in one of the globe lights on the ceiling, as well as the following: 1) scorch marks on the outside of the water heater tank, 2) a water pressure relief valve that terminated near the floor with no obvious drain nearby, 3) electrical outlets in the kitchen that were not GFCI protected, 4) no smoke alarm in the bedroom and 5) no carbon monoxide detector in the unit. The Board heard testimony from Tom Sibbald, a managing partner of Rose Tree Limited Partners and his attorney, Craig Stirn. They were appealing the corrections they had been asked to make and had concerns over whether the building inspector’s findings were accurate, as well as the legality of an inspector identifying additional items outside of what he was asked to check and then requiring repairs. They also had concerns over requiring code changes retroactively to units that met all code requirements at the time they were built. After significant discussion with City staff and consideration of the testimony that had been heard, the Board denied this appeal and instructed that any items that remained outstanding from the Notice and Order to Repair be corrected and re-inspected within 30 days. • 117 N. Mack Street: This premises was posted as unfit for human occupancy on April 7, 2009 after City staff received numerous complaints from area residents and neighbors about foul odors emanating from the house, visible nuisances on the premises and a report from a Larimer County Humane Society Officer who was investigating an allegation of too many cats who found large amounts of excrement and generally filthy conditions and clutter inside the home. The Board heard testimony from the owner’s attorney, David Herrera, who was appealing the City’s designation that the premises was condemned. He noted that the owner was recovering from some serious health conditions but wanted to fix the house. He stated that now that the CO had been revoked due to the unfit designation, the owner was unable to get a needed grant from Neighbor to Neighbor to do the repairs. Herrera asked the Board to reject the condemnation status and restore the house to its previous level of occupancy. After significant discussion with City staff and consideration of the testimony that had been heard, the Board upheld the decisions of the Building Official, but rescinded the condemnation status and returned the property back to unfit for occupancy status allowing 120 days for the owner to either obtain a building permit or have a re-inspection for occupancy to meet Section 108.1.3 of the Interior Property Maintenance Code. BRB Annual Report December 31, 2009 Page 4 - 4 - • 1907 Water’s Edge, Apt E: The tenants at this address requested a rental inspection to determine the safety of their loft staircase and whether it was in compliance with building codes. Upon inspection, it was determined that the staircase was not in compliance with current codes and a Notice of Violation and Order to repair was issued. The appellant was disputing this Order based on the fact that the City approved the construction at the time the unit was built, evidenced by the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The Board agreed with the appellant and vacated the Notice of Violation. 4. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: • Reviewed Unrecorded Dwelling Unit Proposal: The Board reviewed and provided feedback on proposed regulations related to unrecorded dwelling units. The first discussion occurred at their January 29, 2009 meeting. A second discussion occurred in April, where the Board made a motion to not endorse/support staff’s proposal due to weaknesses in the structure of the document, as well as a lack of clarity dealing with possible issues of people not being aware of the incentive program or the related time frames. The Board recommended that the proposal be sent back to them for more work. Council ultimately approved the proposal. Updates continued throughout the remainder of the year. • Changed Hearing Procedures and Bylaws: The Board made some refinements to the adopted Bylaws, and also worked to develop a more concise protocol for rental housing hearings. The Board approved the changes at their June 25, 2009 meeting. The Board had additional discussion on this item at their August 27, 2009 meeting with City legal staff. Additional changes were approved, including designated time periods for each portion of a hearing. • Packet Distribution: Due to the increased size of packets with the addition of rental housing code hearings, it was agreed to change the hearing cutoff date for applications to the last day of each month and then move packet distribution up one week, giving Board Members extra time for review. • Community Scorecard: The Board viewed and provided feedback on the City’s Community Scorecard. Each Board Member was provided with a copy. Jeff Scheick, the Director of Planning, Development and Transportation Services presented this information and explained the data contained within the document. He further discussed areas of concern, including activity and revenue declines. • Budget: The Board was concerned about their ability to be able to provide feedback to City Council on recommended budget cuts to ensure that the services they rely on would be continued. This item was briefly discussed in April. The Board prepared a formal response to City Council related to the budget during their September meeting. The motion recommended that City Council keep all development and permit fees collected for related activities within the CDNS group and not be co-mingled in the General Fund, to enable CDNS to rebuild and restructure the cut backs in order to restore adequate levels of customer service to the people that are asking for, and paying for those services. • Planning, Development and Transportation Reorganization: The Board viewed and provided feedback on a presentation regarding budget challenges and a resulting reorganization. The information was presented by Jeff Scheick, the Director of Planning, Development and Transportation Services. The reorganization included the creation of the consolidated Community Development & Neighborhood Services Department; elimination of the Transportation Service Group management structure; creation of a PDT Budget, Communications, Policy and Program Manager; move of Parking Services to Traffic; move of Transportation Planning to Advance Planning and move of Street Pavement Maintenance to the Streets Department. He also reviewed additional staff reductions that were proposed as part of the 2010/2011 budget. BRB Annual Report December 31, 2009 Page 5 - 5 - • Green Building Code: The Board heard a presentation from Utilities’ staff on the Green Building project that is now underway. City Council has made it clear that they would like to see Fort Collins remain a leader in green building and are looking at what else the City should be involved with to keep moving forward. The project is still being framed, but the one piece that will be moving forward is the Green Building Code. This code piece is just one part of a larger vision that includes removing obstacles that make life difficult for developers and builders, encouraging innovation and rewarding success. Work will continue on this project through 2010, with ample opportunity for participation.