Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 06/05/2007 - RESOLUTION 2007-057 MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CO ITEM NUMBER: 16 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: June 5, 2007 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Felix Lee SUBJECT Resolution 2007-057 Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions Pertaining to the Appeal of Peter Schultz Regarding the Decision of the Building Review Board as Contained in Resolution 2007-1 of the Building Review Board Pertaining to 505 Locust Street. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On April 11, 2007, Peter Schultz filed a Notice of Appeal to City Council appealing the February 22,2007 decision of the Building Review Board(hereafter"BRB")regarding the use and occupancy of the building at 505 Locust Street as a duplex. On May 15,2007,City Council voted to modify the decision of the BRB as stated in this Resolution. In order to complete the record regarding this appeal,the Council should adopt a Resolution making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the appeal. BACKGROUND The Appellants' notice of appeal was based on the allegations that the following decisions of the BRB were incorrect: 1. Its determination NOT TO REQUIRE the principle "Party-in-Interest" and owner of the "Subject Premises", Jeanne Bolton, to obtain a permit to convert the property from a single family dwelling unit into a two-family dwelling or"duplex". 2. Its determination NOT TO REQUIRE Ms. Bolton to obtain a permit for alterations and improvements to the property, such as the installation of stair railing, wiring for smoke alarms, and the enlargement of basement exit windows . 3. Its determination NOT TO REQUIRE fire-rated barriers within the dwelling and NOT TO REQUIRE one or more permits thereafter. 4. Its determination NOT TO REQUIRE the payment of unspecified fees for conversion and related alterations to the building from a single-family dwelling into a duplex; as well as the June 5, 2007 -2- Item No. 16 BRB's determination that it DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION to consider and decide this particular question. At the May 15, 2007 hearing on this matter, Council considered the testimony of City staff, the appellant and applicant and their counsel. In subsequent discussions at this hearing,Council voted to uphold and further modify the decision of the BRB to include the following findings and conclusions: 1. The incorrect references to the Uniform Building Code in the BRB's Resolution 2007-1 are to be modified to the International Residential Code. 2. The BRB's decision that the Building Official properly required issuance ofbuilding permits for certain improvements is upheld. 3. The BRB's decision in Resolution 2007-1, that the BRB lacked jurisdiction under the International Residential Code(IRC)to consider the appellant's appeal is upheld insofar as that decision was made solely upon Section R112.2 of the IRC, which limits appeals to the BRB to either applicants or holders of a building permit. 4. The decision of the BRB is modified to state that the Rental Housing Code affords the BRB jurisdiction to provide final interpretations of all provisions of the Rental Housing Code. Furthermore, that the BRB should have examined the applicability of the City's Land Use Code and Building Codes to ascertain whether the applicant was or is required to obtain formal City approval for conversion of the subject property to a duplex. 5. Based upon the Council's examination of IRC Section R101.2, the present owner has engaged in no activity toward the conversion of the property from a single-family to a duplex to trigger the application of the IRC. Furthermore, upon examination of the definition of"development"in Article 5 of the Land Use Code, the owner has not engaged in any activity that would constitute "development" as the owner has not increased the intensity of the use of the land with the addition of more dwelling units, having purchased the property in 1984 as a duplex. 6. Although the BRB had jurisdiction under the Rental Housing Code to consider the question as to whether or not the applicant is required to obtain either a building permit or development approval and pay related fees,no building permit or development approval was required because no conversion of the building from a single-family residence to a duplex was sought by the applicant. All required building permits for alterations were obtained in accordance with City law. RESOLUTION 2007-057 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPEAL OF PETER SCHULTZ OF THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING REVIEW BOARD AS CONTAINED IN RESOLUTION 2007-1 OF THE BUILDING REVIEW BOARD PERTAINING TO 505 LOCUST STREET WHEREAS, the City's Building Official (the "Building Official") has made certain determinations regarding the City's Rental Housing Standards as they pertain to 505 Locust Street (the"Premises") and has issued building permits in accordance with those determinations; and WHEREAS, the Building Official has also made certain determinations as to whether a building permit needs to be issued to the present owner of the Premises for having converted the Premises into a duplex at some unknown time in the past, and has determined that such a building permit need not be issued; and WHEREAS,on November 9,2006,Peter Schultz(the"Appellant")filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk of the City appealing the foregoing decisions of the Building Official; and WHEREAS,a hearing on the appeal was scheduled for December 21,2006,but,because of a local snow emergency, was rescheduled for February 22, 2007; and WHEREAS, on February 22, 2007, the Building Review Board (the `BRB"), after notice given in accordance with the Code of the City,considered the appeal,reviewed the record on appeal, heard presentations from the Appellant and other parties-in-interest and,after discussion,upheld the decisions of the Building Official and made other findings regarding the jurisdiction of the BRB, which findings are contained in Board Resolution 2007-1 (the"Resolution"); and WHEREAS,on April 11,2007,allotice of Appeal of the BRB's decision was filed with the City Clerk by the Appellant; and WHEREAS, on May 15, 2007, the City Council, after notice given in accordance with Chapter 2,Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, considered said appeal, reviewed the record on appeal, heard presentations from the Appellant and other parties-in-interest and, after discussion, modified the decision of the BRB; and WHEREAS,City Code Section 2-56(e)provides that no later than the date of its next regular meeting after the hearing of an appeal, City Council shall adopt, by resolution, findings of fact in support of its decision on the appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that, pursuant to Section 2-56(e) of the City Code, the Council hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. That the grounds for appeal as stated in the Appellant's Notice of Appeal conform to the requirements of Section 2-48 of the City Code. 2. That all references in the Resolution to the Uniform Building Code ("UBC") are hereby modified to refer instead to the International Residential Code("IRC"); that the reference in the Resolution to City Code Section 5-27 is hereby modified to reference City Code Section 5-30;and that the reference to Section 105.2 of the UBC is hereby modified to refer to Section RI 12.2 of the IRC. 3. That the decision of the BRB contained in paragraph(2) of the Resolution is hereby upheld in that the Building Official properly required the issuance ofbuilding permits for certain improvements to the Premises in order to ensure compliance with the City's Rental Housing Standards and properly did not require a building permit for the upgrading of wiring for smoke alarms. 4. That the decision of the BRB contained in paragraphs(3 )and(4)of the Resolution, that it lacked jurisdiction under the IRC to consider the Appellant's appeal,is hereby upheld insofar as that decision was made based upon the IRC itself because, according to Section R112.2 of the IRC, appeals to the BRB may be made only by persons who are either applicants for or holders of a building permit, and the Appellant is neither the applicant for nor holder of a building permit pertaining to the Premises. 5. That, nonetheless, the decision of the BRB is hereby modified with regard to this jurisdictional question, because Section 5-259 of the City's Rental Housing Code grants jurisdiction to the BRB to provide for final interpretations of all provisions of the Rental Housing Code and to hear appeals provided for thereunder; accordingly, the BRB had jurisdiction to interpret the meaning of Section 5-238 of the Rental Housing Code pertaining to the applicability thereof. 6. That, under the terms of City Code Section 5-238, the BRB should have examined the applicability of the City's Land Use Code and City Building Codes(the IRC)to ascertain whether the present owner of the Premises was, or is, required to obtain City approval, either through the issuance of a building permit or the approval of a development plan(or both)because of the conversion of the Premises from a single- family residential dwelling to a two-family dwelling at some time prior to the owner's acquisition of the property in 1984. 7. That, in applying IRC Sections R101.2 and R105.1, the present owner of the Premises has engaged in no activity upon the Premises to convert the Premises from a single-family to a two-family dwelling unit so as to trigger the application of the IRC. Furthermore,the owner of the Premises has not changed the intensity of the use of the land by increasing the number of dwelling units in the structure, having purchased the property in 1984 as a duplex. -2- 8. That, for the foregoing reasons, although the BRB had jurisdiction to consider the application of the City's Rental Housing Code and determine whether or not the owner of the Premises must obtain either a building permit or development approval, and pay City fees therefor, no such building permit or development approval was required because no conversion of the building from a single-family residence to a duplex was sought by the owner of the Premises, and all required building permits for repairs were obtained in accordance with City law. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 5th day of June, A.D. 2007. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk -3-