Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 05/15/2007 - CONSIDERATION OF THE APPEAL TO THE BUILDING REVIEW ITEM NUMBER: 29 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: May 15, 2007 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Felix Lee SUBJECT Consideration of the Appeal to the Building Review Board on February 22, 2007 Seeking the Overturning of Certain Interpretations, Actions, and Decisions of the Building Official Regarding the Use and Occupancy of the Dwelling at 505 Locust Street. RECOMMENDATION Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the Code and Charter,and after consideration:uphold,overturn,or modify the Building Review Board's decisions, or remand the matter to the Board for further consideration. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On February 22,2007,the Building Review Board unanimously upheld the interpretations,actions, and decisions of the Building Official regarding the application of the City Rental Housing Standards for the dwelling at 505 Locust Street in response to the Appellant Peter Schultz's allegations of error contained in the Notice of Appeal dated November 9, 2006. The Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal to the City Council on April 11,2007 seeking further redress of the actions listed below which are the subject of this appeal. 1. Determination/interpretation not to require Jeanne Bolton,the owner of the rental premises located at 505 Locust Street,Fort Collins(CO)(the"Subject Premises"),to obtain a permit to convert the Subject Premises from a single family dwelling unit into a duplex as required by Section 5-260 of the Fort Collins Code. (Note: Section 5-260 of the City Code incorrectly references the UNIFORMB UILDING CODE, which no longer applies to single- or two-family dwellings as the prescribing code for new construction. The correct reference, the INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE, was inadvertently overlooked as the other inclusive code to be added to this section when it was adopted in August 2004. However, the permit requirements and the Building Review Board's jurisdiction are virtually identical under both codes.) 2. Determination/interpretation not to require Ms. Bolton to obtain a permit for a number of required alterations and improvements to the Subject Premises,including without limitation, installation of stairway railing,upgrading of wiring for smoke alarms, and the enlargement of basement exit windows (required structural alterations). May 15, 2007 -2- Item No. 29 3. Determination/interpretation not to require fire-rated barriers within the Subject Premises and not to require one or more permits thereafter. 4. Determination/interpretation not to require the payment of appropriate fees for conversion of the Subject Premises from a single-family dwelling unit into a duplex and for the alterations to the Subject Premises. BACKGROUND Late July 2006,the Appellant,residing at 501 Locust Street adjacent to 505 Locust Street ("Subject Property") communicated concerns to the Mayor via email about the condition and alleged over- occupancy status of the subject rental property built circa 1930. In response, Neighborhood and Building Services staff investigated his concerns and followed up with a written notice to the property owner of the subject property,Jeanne Bolton("Party-in-Interest"),related to the dwelling's use as a duplex and number of occupants. From research, including results from the Occupant Search Report dated November 2, 2006, staff determined that although the subject dwelling is listed as a single-family dwelling in the Latimer County records and finding no official City record indicating the Subject Property was converted to a duplex,historically it well might have been used as a duplex prior to the late 1960s. Furthermore, on-site inspections revealed that the interior ofthe garden level dwelling unit appears consistent with materials from that era. It is important to note that City records are incomplete prior to the mid- 1960s. With respect to concerns expressed by the Appellant regarding City Building Code provisions and related permits: 1. The necessary permit was obtained and final inspection approved for the installation of the new egress windows and handrail. 2. The installation of smoke alarms and associated wiring are considered exempt from a permit, given that the minor nature of the work was performed by a licensed electrician. 3. A"fire-rated barrier"between units is not applicable to existing buildings; required in new construction only. Appellant subsequently appealed the decisions ofthe Building Official with allotice ofAppeal dated November 9, 2006, to be heard by the Building Review Board. The Board rendered a unanimous decision to uphold the decision of the Building Official regarding the enforcement of the City's rental housing standards as contained in Article VI of Chapter 5 of the City Code, and, also determined the building permits sought and obtained by the Party-in-Interest were appropriate as specified in the Resolution 2007-1 dated March 29,2007. The Board also decided that whether or not a building permit is needed for the conversion of the Subject Property from a single-family residence to a duplex is not within its jurisdiction based on the following: May 15, 2007 -3- Item No. 29 1. Section 5-259 of the City Code states the Building Review Board has jurisdiction to provide final interpretations pertaining to meeting the minimum rental housing standards, but not final interpretations of the administrative procedures by the Building Official. 2. Section 5-30 of the City Code ,which contains a local amendment as specified in"Section R112.2" of the International Residential Code", states that appeals to the Building Review Board may only be made by either applicants for or holders of a building permit. ATTACHMENTS 1. City Clerk's Notice of Appeal Hearing 2. Notice of Appeal to City Council—4/11/07 3. Building Review Board Decision- 2/22/07 • Building Review Board Resolution 2007-1 • Building Review Board Meeting Appeal Minutes—2/22/07 4. Materials Provided for Building Review Board Hearing • Notice of Appeal to Building Review Board— 11/9/06 • Staff Summary for Appeal to Building Review Board— 12/21/06 • Various Correspondence 5. Building Review Board Hearing Verbatim Transcript—2/22/07 Attachment 1 Attachment 1 : City Clerk's Notice of Appeal Hearing City Clerk City of Fort Collins NOTICE The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall at 300 LaPorte Avenue, will hold a public hearing on the attached appeal from the decision of the Building Review Board affirming decisions and determinations by Michael Gebo and Felix Lee, made on March 29, 2007 pertaining to Rental Housing Standards at 505 Locust Street. If you wish to comment on this matter, you are strongly urged to attend the hearing on this appeal. If you have any questions or require further information please feel free to contact the City Clerk's Office (970-221-6515) or the Current Planning Department (970-221-6750). Any written materials that any party-in-interest may wish the City Council to consider in deciding the appeal shall be submitted to the City Clerk no later than 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 9 [Section 2-54 (b) of the City Code]. Section 2-56 of the City Code provides that a member of City Council may identify in writing any additional issues related to the appeal by May 8. Agenda materials provided to the City Council, including City staff's response to the Notice of Appeal,and any additional issues identified by City Councilmembers and any party-in-interest,will be available to the public on Thursday, May 10, after 2:00 p.m. in the City Clerk's Office and on the City's website at: http://fcgov.com/cityclerk/agendas.php. 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 the City Clerk's Office(970-221-6515;TDD 970-224-6001)for assistance. U1-Yk V40�-- Wanda M. Krajicek City Clerk Date Notice Mailed: April 30, 2007 cc: City Attorney Chair, Building Review Board Neighborhood and Building Services Appellant/Applicant 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6515 • FAX (970)221-6295 Attachment 2 Attachment 2: Notice of Appeal IRC : w _u NOTICE OF APPEAL APR /lC107 To: City Council of the City of Fort Collins CITY CLERK'S OFFICE From: Peter Schultz (Appellant) 501 Locust Street, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Telephone: 495-1839 Regarding: Appeal of the March 27, 2007 Decision of the Building Review Board Affirming Decisions/Determinations by Michael W. Gebo, City of Fort Collins Codes and Inspections Administrator, and/or Felix Lee, City of Fort Collins Chief Building Official (Mr. Gebo and Mr. Lee are sometimes hereafter referred to as the "Respondents") Date: April 11 ' 2007 1. Actions which are the subject of this appeal: Determination/interpretation not to require Jeanne Bolton, the owner of the rental premises located at 505 Locust Street, Fort Collins, CO (the "Subject Premises"), to obtain a permit to convert the Subject Premises from a single family dwelling into a duplex as required by Section 5-260 of the Fort Collins Code. Determination/interpretation not to require Ms. Bolton to obtain a permit for a number of required alterations and improvements to the Subject Premises, including without limitation, installation of stairway railing, upgrading of wiring for smoke alarms, and the enlargement of basement exit windows (required structural alterations). Determination/interpretation not to require fire-rated barriers within the Subject Premises and not to require one or more permits therefor. Determination/interpretation not to require the payment of appropriate fees for conversion of the Subject Premises from a single family dwelling into a duplex and for the alterations to the Subject Premises. The Building Review Board has jurisdiction to consider and decide this issue. 2. The date of such actions: March 29, 2007 3. Appellant information: Peter Schultz, 501 Locust Street, Fort Collins, CO 80524, telephone (970) 495- 1839. The Appellant is the owner and occupant of a single-family dwelling located next door to and immediately west of the Subject Premises. The Appellant is the holder of a building permit for his home. His property value and quiet enjoyment are lessened by traffic, noise and other effects of six unrelated persons living in the Subject Premises. I 4. Bases for the appeal: The Building Review Board has jurisdiction to consider and decide all issues raised in Appellant's November 9, 2006 appeal to it. To rule otherwise would be to misinterpret, misapply, and/or ignore relevant portions of the City Code. The Building Official is directed to enforce all of the provisions of Article VI of Chapter 5 (Section 5-256) of the City Code. It is unlawful for any person to alter, improve or convert any structure in violation of Article VI, Chapter 5. (Section 5-239) It is unlawful for any person to alter, improve or convert any structure regulated by Article VI, Chapter 5 without first obtaining a separate permit for each structure in accordance with the Uniform Building Code ("UBC"). (Section 5-260) Whenever a building permit is required by the UBC, the appropriate fees must be paid. (Section 5-261) All rental housing in the City of Fort Collins is required to conform to the City building codes currently in effect, except for (1) legal uses which were permitted at the time of their creation or became legal non-conforming uses as a result of subsequent changes to the Land Use Code, and (2) rental housing that was legally constructed under the building construction codes enacted by the City at the time of their construction and which rental housing conforms to the provisions set forth in Article VI, Chapter 5. (Section 5-238) The Subject Premises is being operated and rented as a duplex by Ms. Bolton. Consequently, up to six unrelated persons have been living there. If the Subject Premises is a legal duplex, the occupancy maximum of six is permitted. The Respondents have determined that the Subject Premises is a legal duplex and are not requiring a permit to convert from a single-family dwelling to a duplex, as would otherwise be required. At the time of this determination on October 27, 2006, the only evidence to support this conclusion that Respondents had obtained from Ms. Bolton was her verbal statement that she had purchased the Subject Premises in 1984 as a duplex and had used it as a duplex since that time. The Appellant had challenged that evidence, providing Mr. Gebo with a copy of a printout from the Latimer County Assessor's Office which shows the Subject Premises as a single-family dwelling, and the Appellant had apprised Mr. Gebo that there were individuals who had resided in the neighborhood for a long time who disputed that the Subject Premises had been used as a duplex prior to the early 1980's. Mr. Gebo informed the Appellant on October 27, 2006 that he would reconsider his determination that the Subject Premises was a legal duplex not requiring conversion permits and the payment of fees if the Appellant provided additional information conflicting with the verbal statements of Ms. Bolton. Subsequently the Appellant obtained a signed letter from Gisele W. Driggers, which he submitted to Mr. Gebo on November 6, 2006. In her letter of November 5, 2006, Ms. Driggers stated that she lived at 516 Locust Street 2 between 1970 and 2004, and that the Subject Premises was a single-family residence until 1984 and not a duplex. After this further information was provided to Mr. Gebo, the Appellant received no notice that Respondents had changed the determination/interpretation not to require a conversion permit and fees (this further refusal to enforce the City Code therefore occurred between November 6, 2006 and November 9, 2006, the date of Appellant's appeal to the Building Review Board). Although applicable provisions of the City Code relating to occupancies and building restrictions have been in effect since 1958, the City lacks good records of permits, compliance, etc., prior to 1965. Evidently the Respondents' determination/interpretation that Ms. Bolton is not required to obtain a duplex conversion permit and pay the required fees is that the Subject Premises should be regarded as grandfathered under the Code. If Ms. Bolton had provided evidence of conversion of the Subject Premises to a duplex prior to 1965, and if such evidence was able to be reasonably accepted as true when considered alongside any opposing evidence, then Respondents' determination would presumably be appropriate. However, there is no such evidence from Ms. Bolton, who must be regarded as having the burden of substantiating the position that the Subject Premises is somehow a legal duplex not requiring a permit and the payment of fees. Her verbal statement to Mr. Gebo, even if entirely true, only pertains to the time period from 1984 to the present. Again, Ms. Bolton has the burden of proof that hers is "among the legal uses that were permitted at the time of their creation"under Section 5-238. While Respondents may have been prompted by good will and generosity, the City Code does not authorize them to make an unsubstantiated leap of faith that the Subject Premises were a legally converted duplex prior to 1965 — that is almost 30 years of time before Ms. Bolton entered the picture. While the Code does allow the Building Official to interpret the provisions of Article VI of Chapter 5, there is nothing that permits of an expansive determination about Section 5-238 relating to compliance of all rental housing with the provisions of Article VI of Chapter 5, and, additionally, conformance of all rental housing to current building codes except legal uses that were permitted at the time of their creation. These provisions are clear and mandatory. Even in the absence of any contrary evidence provided by the Appellant, Ms. Bolton has not met the burden of proof of establishing that the Subject Premises were converted as a duplex prior to 1965 (Mr. Gebo acknowledges that the City has no record of a legal, permitted conversion of the Subject Premises after 1965). Yet, the Appellant has provided strong objective evidence to the contrary. The Appellant respectfully requests the City Council to reverse the decision neither to require a permit at this time to convert the Subject Premises to a duplex nor the payment of appropriate current fees. Additionally, after the Appellant complained to the City and the City inspected and reinspected the Subject Premises, Ms. Bolton was required to make certain improvements to the Subject Premises, including without limitation installation of a stairway handrail, rewiring/upgrading of smoke alarms, and enlargement of escape windows. The City did not require a permit for all of this work, although the work acted 3 to alter and improve the Subject Premises. This was in contravention of Section 5-261 and, derivatively, Section 5-262. The Respondents did not require fire-rated barriers in floors, ceilings and/or walls as required by the City Code. The Appellant respectfully requests the City Council to reverse the decision of the BRB and Respondents and direct Respondents to require Ms. Bolton to obtain a permit for all of the alterations and improvements to the Subject Premises (including fire-rated barriers) and pay the appropriate current fees for them. A word should be said about the procedure of this Appeal. After discussions with the City Attorney, the Appellant's attorney was informed that the City Attorney is of the opinion the BRB lacks jurisdiction to hear Appellant's appeals relating solely to the UBC, but that it has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the Appellant under the rental housing standards. The BRB ultimately decided the same things. The Appellant notes that the rental housing standards in many sections make mention of, and refer to, the City's building codes. The rental housing standards expressly mention and cover situations involving conversion, alteration and improvement of housing structures in the City. The appeal to the BRB was therefore made under the provisions of Division 2, Article VI, Chapter 5 of the City Code. Pursuant to Section 5-312, procedures for hearing any appeal before the BRB as provided for in Article VI, Chapter 5 must be in accordance with Section 2-47 et seq. Sections 2-47, et seq. apply most closely to appeals from different kinds of hearings, and so concepts of"party in interest" and "conduct of a fair hearing" appear in these sections. Appellant wishes to make clear that he does not contend that Mr. Gebo, Mr. Lee or the City Attorney have been unfair in a procedural sense. This Appeal is, as detailed above, simply a contention on Appellant's part that the BRB, Mr. Gebo and/or Mr. Lee have failed to interpret and apply relevant substantive provisions of the City Code properly. The record includes the documents the Appellant submitted or showed to the Respondents, the Respondents' other file documents, the City Code, the content of verbal discussions and meetings between the Appellant and Respondents (as to which they can testify or summarize in a stipulated narrative, as the City Council pleases), and a transcript of the BRB hearing held on February 22, 2006. The Appellant will mail a copy of this Notice of Appeal to Ms. Bolton at her address of P.O. Box 497, Berthoud, CO 80513. Thank you. DATED this 1 11 day of April, 2007. APPELLANT: -y Peter Sc C: Jeanne Bolton P.O. Box 497 Berthoud, CO 80513 e� CLa—t) i CI k4t LLL, 4 Attachment 3 Attachment 3 : Building Review Board Hearing Decision 02/22/07 RESOLUTION 2007-1 OF THE BUILDING REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPEAL OF THE DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL REGARDING 505 LOCUST STREET WHEREAS,the Building Official of the City and his subordinates (the "Building Official's made certain determinations regarding the City's Rental Housing Standards as they pertain to 505 Locust Street and issued building permits in accordance with those determinations; and WHEREAS, the Building Official also made some determinations regarding whether a building permit would need to be issued to the present owner of 505 Locust Street for the conversion of the building into a duplex at some unknown time in the past, and determined that such a building permit would not need to 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 decisions of the Building Official; and WHEREAS, a hearing on the appeal was scheduled for December 21, 2006, but was cancelled because of a blizzard and rescheduled for February 22,2007; and WHEREAS,on February 22,2007,the Building Review Board, after notice given in accordance 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 Building Review Board;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, the Building Review Board shall adopt,by resolution, findings of fact in support of its decision on the appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BUILDING REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that, pursuant to Section 2-56(e) of the City Code, the Building Review Board 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 the Building Official's decision regarding 505 Locust Street and its compliance or noncompliance with the Rental Housing Standards of the City is hereby upheld and that the Building Official properly required the issuance of building permits for certain improvements in order to ensure compliance with the City's Rental Housing Standards. 3. That the question of whether a building permit should be sought by the owner of 505 Locust Street for the conversion of the building thereon from a single- family residence to a duplex at some unknown time in the past is outside of the jurisdiction of the Building Review Board because,pursuant to Section 5-259 of the City Code, the Building Review Board has jurisdiction to provide final interpretations regarding the provisions of Article VI of Chapter 5 pertaining to housing standards, and no more. Accordingly, the Building Review Board does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal regarding the Uniform Building Code and whether a building permit must be sought thereunder for the conversion of the property into a duplex because Section 5-27 of the City Code, which contains amendments and deletions to the Uniform Building Code provides in Section 105.2 of the Amended Uniform Building Code that appeals to the Building Review Board may only be made by persons who are either applicants for or holders of a building permit. Since the Appellant is neither the building permit applicant nor holder of a building permit for 505 Locust Street, the Building Review Board has no jurisdiction to hear his appeal under the Uniform Building Code. 4. For the foregoing reasons, the Building Review Board upholds the decision of the Building Official regarding the enforcement of the City's housing standards as contained in Article VI of Chapter 5 of the City Code and determines that the building permits sought and obtained therefor are appropriate. The Building Review Board further determines that it has no jurisdiction to consider or decide any issue raised in the Notice of Appeal pertaining to whether, under the Uniform Building Code or any other provision of the City Code, the owner of 505 Locust Street would at this time be required to seek and obtain a building permit for the conversion of 505 Locust Street from a single-family residence to a duplex at some unknown time in the past, most likely prior to the present owner having come into ownership of the property. i Passed and adopted�t a regular meeting of the Building Review Board of the City of Fort Collins on the 2`! day of March, 2007. Chairman I Minutes approved by Che Board at the March 29,2007 Meeting FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting—February 22,2007 hai rson: Michael Smilie Phone:(226-4260) uncil Liaison: Kelly Ohlson tall Liaison:Felix Lee(221-6760) A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday,February 22,2007 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue,Fort Collins,Colorado. BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: Alan Cram Mike Gust Gene Little Jim Packard Michael Smilie, Chair George Smith BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: David Carr STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee,Neighborhood&Building Services Director Paul Eckman,Deputy City Attorney Delynn Coldiron,Contractor Licensing&Admin Services Coordinator AGENDA: 1. ROLLCALL The meeting was called to order and roll call was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Little made a motion to approve the minutes from the January 25, 2007 meeting. Packard seconded the motion. The motion passed. 1 3. Rental Housing Standards Appeal Hearing—Peter Schultz,Appellant—505 Locust Street Lee introduced this appeal. He mentioned that pursuant to the procedures provided in the City Code,Sec. 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 appellants Notice of Appeal received by the City Clerk on November 9,2006,relating to the subject property. The following items were the appellant's basis for appeal: BRB February 22,2007 Pg.2 1. More than three adult occupants, all of whom are not related, are living in what the appellant believes to be a "single-family dwelling", which is not legally allowed to house more than three un-related adults under current and upcoming City Land Use Code regulations. 2. That even though the Zone District in which his and the subject premises are located, allows "two-family dwellings" (duplexes),neither City building permit records that have been found to date nor the County Assessor records corroborate the subject premises is a duplex dwelling. 3. The "Respondents" erroneously have determined that the subject premises is a "legal" existing duplex without the benefit of requiring a building permit for such conversion and creation of the second dwelling unit,including assessment of current applicable fees. 4. The`Respondents"improperly have allowed certain alterations,such as,installation of a stair rail, installation of smoke alarms and associated electric wiring,and enlargement of basement egress windows without permits. 5. The"Respondents" improperly have not required installation of"fire-rated barriers" and any applicable building permit. Responses from City Building staff were as follows: 1. The Building Official is authorized to adopt administrative rules, procedures, and policies, including the administration of issuing and requiring building permits and determining when a change of use of a building occurs,as described in more detail below. 2. The Rental Housing Standards, pursuant to Sec. 5-256, provide the Building Official with "the authority to adopt and promulgate administrative rules and procedures consistent with the provision of this Article; to interpret and implement the provisions of this Article; to secure the intent thereof..." 3. Furthermore, the City Building Code, Sec. R104.1 states, "The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this (Building) code. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in conformance with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code." 4. The purview of the BRB is limited in the following respects when hearing appeals pursuant to the provisions of the City building Code. As noted in the excerpts below,the appellant in this case has no standing to appeal any provisions of the City Building Code to the BRB. Moreover the BRB is not empowered to hear appeals of the City Building Code relating to its "administration," under which, in "Chapter 1 — Administration" is found such functions as: "Organization and Enforcement '"Modifications,""Alternate materials,design, and methods of construction," "Permits," "Applications," "Fees," "Inspections," "Change of Use," and "Certificate of Occupancy." a) "When a building permit applicant or a holder of a building permit desires relief from any decision of the building official related to the enforcement of this code, except as is otherwise limited in Section 105.4, such building permit applicant, building permit holder, or representative thereof may appeal the decision of the ;I BRB February 22,2007 Pg.3 building office to the Board stating that such decision by the building official was based on an erroneous interpretation of the building regulations ..." b) "The Building Review Board shall have no authority with respect to any of the following functions: 1. The administration of this code;2. Waiving requirements of this code, except as provided for.pursuant to this Section 105; 3. Modifying the applicable provisions of, or granting variances to, this code, or approving the use of alternate designs, alternate materials and/or alternate methods of construction except as provided for in this Section 105 and based upon a specific appeal from a determination or decision of the building official on an individual case basis; and 4_ Modifying,interpreting,or ruling on the applicability or intent of the zoning and land use regulations or other laws of the city except as expressly empowered otherwise." After thorough research into this case, Lee stated that he had 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", based on information found in the "Occupant Search Report" of November 7 2006, prepared by the City Historic Preservation Office. He noted that the report revealed two separate conventional phone lines listed for the dwelling — one attributed to the widowed owner/occupant, D. Evans, and another line attributed to two CSU students. According to Lee, it was also reasonable to conclude that the lower apartment/dwelling unit could easily have been created to supplement the income of the widowed owner, D. Evans, with or without permits, before such permits were required by the City or even considered by a homeowner. Lee noted that any extant City paper permit records for such work might easily have been lost, given their repositories being relocated many times over the decades. Further, he felt it was easy to surmise that the owner would not necessarily volunteer such conversion to the County Assessor's Office with a consequent increase in taxable value. With respect to concerns expressed by the appellant regarding City Building Code provisions and related permits,the Lee reported that a permit was required and issued on November 30,2006 for the installation of the new egress windows and handrail. He added that the installation of smoke alarms and associated wiring were considered exempt from a permit, given the minor nature of the work which had been performed by a licensed electrician. Lee stated that the appellant's position on his interpretation that a "Fire-rated barrier" should be required as if the lower dwelling unit was created today is neither realistic nor required for the existing use. Lee 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 and stipulated as "Actions which are the subject of this appeal"which were contained in the Appellant's"Notice of Appeal" dated November 9, 2006. He added that the unspecified "appropriate fees", which are located under the "administrative" provisions of the City Building Codes, as such are explicitly precluded from the BRB's purview as referenced in the earlier citations. Lee further contended that the BRB could bear this case,based on the criteria limited to the applicable provisions found in ARTICLE IV, DIVISION 2. RENTAL HOUSING STANDARDS, Subdivision C. Standards and Subdivision D. Substandard Buildings,Sections 5-276 through 5-314. There was significant discussion on the Board's purview and limitations related to the items included in this appeal. Deputy City Attorney, Paul Eckman, provided clarification related to i Board purview,as well as other Board questions and comments. The Board heard testimony from appellant,Peter Schultz; attorney Elizabeth Lamb Kearney who was representing the owner,Jeanne Bolton, owner of the subject premises; and Mike Gebo, City BRB February 22,2007 Pg.4 5. Building Code Administrator who had personally performed inspections on the subject premises. They asked questions and obtained clarifications on details as needed throughout the testimony. Following g closin statements, the Board had a lengthy and detailed discussion on the various items forwarded in this appeal. Little made a motion to deny the appellant's request that the Board reverse the interpretation/decision of the Building Official based on City's staff s determination that the property now meets the requirements of the Rental Housing Code and based on the fact that this is the only item within the purview of the Board. Smith seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Little,Packard,Smilie,Cram,Smith and Gust Nays: None It was added that this motion included tacit indication that the Board was upholding the previous determinationtinterpretations of the Building Official in this case, as well as the fact that the appellant did understand that the subject property is a duplex. 4. Scott Pierce,d/b/a Complete Basement Systems: Lee introduced this appeal. He noted that the appellant was in the process of applying for a D2 license and supervisor certificate. He explained that,according to the City's licensing requirements,to qualify for a Class D2 license or supervisor certificate,an applicant must have constructed or supervised the construction of three(3)completed projects,each with a 6. construction value of not less than fifteen thousand dollars($15,000.)and each of which entailed the significant structural alteration of or the addition to a single-family home or equivalent structure as determined by the Building Official. However,because the appellant's company performs only residential finish work,Lee stated that the appellant was unable to Mee provide documentation on projects that are sufficient to qualify for an unrestricted D2 license. Therefore,the appellant was seeking a limited D2 license that would enable him to perform non-structural residential finish work. Lee added that the appellant had taken the City's D2 exam on January 5,2007,but did not pass. It was the appellant's position that many of the questions on the test did not pertain to the type of Fc�ii, construction his company performs and,therefore,he was also requesting that these questions be Dire waived and that his current test be accepted. The Board heard testimony from the appellant,Scott Pierce.. After closing statements,the Board discussed the information that had been presented. Smilie made a motion to grant a 30day temporary D2 license restricted to residential finish work pending the receipt of adequate project verification and successful completion of the D2 exam. Once these items are completed,the temporary license can be converted to a D2 license restricted to residential finish work. Little seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Little,Smilie,Cram,Smith and Gust Nays: Packard Attachment 4 Attachment 4: Materials Provided for Building Review Board Hearing RECEIVED NOV Cf e 2006 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE To: City Clerk of the City of Fort Collins From: Peter Schultz 501 Locust Street,Fort Collins,CO 80524 Telephone:215-1533 Date: November 9,2006 Regarding: Appeal to Building Review Board This Notice of Appeal is filed with your office on this date pursuant to Sections 5- 312 and 2-47 et seq of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. Thank you. I f I I i I ' [ [,��s r•s ry � i NOTICE OF APPEAL 1,10V 0 S 2006 GI i Y CLERK'S OFFIGw To: Building Review Board of the City of Fort Collins From: Peter Schultz Appellant 501 Locust Street,Fort Collins,CO 80524 Telephone:215-1533 Regarding: Appeal of Decisions/Determinations by Michael W. Gebo, City of Fort Collins Codes and Inspections Administrator and/or Felix Lee, City of Fort Collins Chief Building Official (the"Respondents") Date: November 9,2006 I. Actions which are the subject of this appeal: Determination/interpretation not to require Jeanne Bolton,the owner of the rental premises located at 505 Locust Street, Fort Collins, CO (the "Subject Premises"), to obtain a permit to convert the Subject Premises to a duplex as required by Section 5-260 of the Fort Collins Code. Decisionfmterpretation not to require Ms.Bolton to obtain a permit for a number of required alterations and improvements to the Subject Premises, including without limitation, installation of stairway railing, upgrading of wiring for smoke alarms, and enlargement of basement exit windows. Decisionlinterpretation not to require fire-rated barriers within the Subject iPremises and not to require one or more permits therefor. Decision/interpretation not to require the payment of appropriate fees for conversion of the Subject Premises to a duplex and for the alterations to the Subject Premises. 2. The date of such action: i October 27, 2006 (the decisions/interpretations complained of continued to be reconsidered and reconfirmed from that date until the date of this appeal) 3. Appellant information: 1 Peter Schultz, 501 Locust Street, Fort Collins, CO 80524, telephone 215-1533. s Mr. Schultz is the owner and occupant of a single-family dwelling located next door to and immediately west of the Subject Premises. The Appellant is the holder of a building � d .I permit for his home. His property value and quiet enjoyment are lessened by traffic, noise and other effects of six unrelated persons living in the Subject Premises.' 4. Bases for the appeal: The Building Official is directed to enforce all of the provisions of Article VI of Chapter 5 (Section 5-256)of the City Code. It is unlawful for any person to alter,improve or convert any structure in violation of Article VI, Chapter 5. (Section 5-239) It is unlawful for any person to alter, improve or convert any structure regulated by Article VI, Chapter 5 without first obtaining a separate permit for each structure in accordance with the Uniform Building Code ("UBC"). (Section 5-260) Whenever a building permit is required by the UBC'the appropriate fees must be paid. (Section5-261) All rental housing in the City of Fort Collins is required to conform to the City building codes currently in effect except for legal ues es as which were of subsequent changes of their creation or became legal non-conforming to the Land Use Code, and rental housing that was legally constructed under the building construction codes enacted by the City at the time of their construction and which rental housing conforms to the provisions set forth in Article VI,Chapter 5. (Section 5-238) � * r The Subject Premises is being operated and rented as a duplex by Ms. Bolton. Consequently,up to six unrelated persons have been living there. If the Subject Premises is a legal duplex, the occupancy maximum of six is permitted. The Respondents have determined that the Subject Premises is a legal duplex and are not requiring a permit to convert from a single-family dwelling to a duplex, as would otherwise be required. At the time of this determination on October 27, 2006, the only evidence to support this i conclusion that Respondents had obtained from Ms.Bolton was verbal statement that she had purchased the Subject Premises in 1984 as a duplex and had used it as a duplex 1 since that time. The Appellant had challenged that evidence,providing Mr. Gebo with a copy of a printout from the Larimer County Assessor's Office which shows the Subject Premises as a single-family dwelling, and the Appellant had apprised Mr. Gebo that there were individuals who had resided in the neighborhood for a long time who disputed that the Subject Premises had been used as a duplex prior to the early 1980's. Mr. Gebo informed the Appellant on October 27,2006 that he would reconsider his determination that the Subject Premises was a legal duplex not requiring conversion permits and the payment of fees if the Appellant provided additional information conflicting verbal statements of Ms. Bolton. Subsequently the Appellant obtained a signed letter from Gisele W.Driggers,which he submitted to Mr. Gebo on November 6,2006. In her letter of November 5, 2006, Ms. Driggers stated that she lived at 516 Locust Street between 1970 and 2004,and that the Subject Premises was a single-family residence until 2 I I I F r 1984 and not a duplex. After this further information was provided to Mr. Gebo, the Appellant received no notice that Respondents had changed the determination/interpretation not to require a conversion permit and fees (this further refusal to enforce the City Code therefore occurred between November 6, 2006 and the date of this Notice of Appeal). Although applicable provisions of the City Code relating to occupancies and building restrictions have been in effect since 1958, the City lacks good records of permits, compliance,e etc. prior to 1965. Evidently the Respondents' p determination/interpretation that Ms. Bolton is not required to obtain a duplex conversion permit and pay the required fees is that the Subject Premises should be regarded as grandfathered under the Code. If Ms. Bolton had provided evidence of conversion of the Subject Premises to a duplex prior to 1965, and if such evidence was able to be reasonably accepted as true when considered alongside any opposing evidence, then Respondents' determination would presumably be appropriate. However, there is no such evidence from Ms. Bolton; who must be regarded as having the burden of substantiating the position that the Subject Premises is somehow a legal duplex not requiring a permit and the payment of fees. Her verbal statement to Mr. Gebo, even if entirely true, only pertains to the time period from 1984 to the present. Again, Ms. Bolton has the burden of proof that hers is "among the legal uses that were permitted at the time of their creation"under Section 5-238. While Respondents may have been prompted by good will and generosity, the City Code does not authorize them to make an unsubstantiated leap of faith that the Subject Premises were a legally converted duplex prior to 1965 —that is almost 30 years of time before Ms. Bolton entered the picture. While the Code does allow the Building Official to interpret the provisions of Article VI of Chapter 5, there is nothing that permits of an expansive determination about Section 5-238 relating to compliance of all rental housing with the provisions of Article VI of Chapter 5, and, additionally, conformance of all rental housing to current building codes except legal uses that were permitted at the time of their creation. These provisions are clear and mandatory. Even in the absence of any contrary evidence provided by the Appellant, Ms. Bolton has not met the burden of proof of establishing that the Subject Premises were converted as a duplex prior to 1965 (Mr. Gebo acknowledges that the City has no record of a legal,permitted conversion of the Subject Premises after 1965). Yet, the Appellant has provided strong objective evidence to the contrary. The Appellant respectfully requests the BRB to reverse the decision neither to require a permit at this time to convert the Subject Premises to a duplex nor the payment of appropriate current fees. Additionally, after the Appellant complained to the City and the City inspected and reinspected the Subject Premises, Ms. Bolton was required to make certain improvements to the Subject Premises, including without limitation installation of a stairway handrail, rewiring/upgrading of smoke alarms, and enlargement of escape windows. The City did not require a permit for all of this work, although the work acted to alter and improve the Subject Premises. This was in contravention of Section 5-261 3 I I l and, derivatively, Section 5-262. The Respondents did not require fine-rated barriers in floors, ceilings and/or walls as required by the City Code, The Appellant respectfully requests the BRB to reverse the decision of Respondents and direct them to require Ms. all of the alterations andae curr n improvements e for tthemubject Bolton to obtain a permit for Premises(including fire-rated barriers)and pay the approp- 5. General observation: A word should be said about the procedure of this Appeal. After discussions with the City Attorney,the Appellant's attorney was informed that the City Attorney is of the opinion the BRB lacks jurisdiction to hear Appellant's appeals relating solely to the UBC, but that it has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the Appellant under the rental any housing standards- The Appellant notes that the rental housing The rental houards in msing sections make mention of, and refer to, the City's building standards expressly In and cover situations involving i therefore made alteration nder the improvement of housing structures in the City. This Appeal Code. Pursuant to Section 5- provisions of Division,) Article VI, Chapter 5 of the City e. Pursuant for t Article 5 312, procedures for hearing any appeal before the BRB as provided Chapter 5 must be in accordance with Section 2-47 et sect'. Sections 2-47, et seg apply in most closely to appeals from different kinds of hearings, and so c-Apepts pellant s interest" and "conduct of a fair hearing" appear in these s wishes to make clear that he does not contend that Mr. Gebo, Mr. Lee or the City Attorney cneyve have onten been unfair in a procedural sense. This Appeal is,as detailed above, simply tion on Appellant's part that Mr. Gebo and/or Mr. Lee have failed to interpret and apply relevant substantive provisions of the City Code properly. The record includes the documents the Appellant submitted or showed to the Respondents, the Respondents' other file documents, the City Code and the content of verbal discussions and mmarize in eetings between the Appellant and Respondents (as to which they can testify o stipulated narrative,as the Board pleases). The Appellant will mail a copy of this Notice of Appeal to Ms. Bolton at her address of P.O.Box 497,Berthoud,CO 80513. Thank you. DATED this 1 day of Novembe _ r AP Pete i i C: Jeanne Bolton P.O.Box 497 Berthoud,CO 80513 4 I I III Community Planning and Environmental Services Neighborhood and Building Services City of I+ rort�i� APPEAL HEARING BEFORE THE BUILDING REVIEW BOARD CASE: 01-R-06 DATE: December 21, 2006 APPELLANT: Peter Schultz SUBJECT PREMISES(PROPERTY): 505 Locust St. PARTY-IN-INTEREST: Jeanne Bolton, owner of subject property DECISION MAKER:The"Building Official" (Felix Lee and his authorized representative, Mike Gebo, a.k.a., "Respondents") ACTION REQUESTED: Pursuant to the procedures provided in the City Code, Sec. 5-312, Article VI, Division 2, Rental Housing Standards, the appellant is requesting the Building Review Board "reverse" the interpretations, ion the on s and decisions of the "BuildingOfficial" as stipulated in the ap pellant's Notice of Appeale y City Clerk on November 9,2006, relating to the subject property. SUMMARY: Chronology 1. July 29, 2006-email to Mayor Hutchinson: The appellant, who is an owner/occupant of the home located at 501 Locust St., lodged concerns about the dwelling (built circa 1930) on the subject property at 505 Locust St., condition and the status of the rented immediately adjacent to the west of the appellants property. 2. August 4, 2006-voice message from M. Gebo to Appellant b voice message that the City would be Building Code Services Manager Michael Gebo notified the Appellant Y investigating the matter. 3. August 8, 20D6-Notice from M. Gebo to subject-property owner J. Bolton Mr. Gebo followed up with a written notice to the property owner and "Party-in-Interest", Jeanne Bolton, requesting she contact M. Gebo regarding the Appellant's concerns related to the dwelling unit's use as duplex dwelling or boarding house without required conversion permits and compliance with the City Rental Housing Standards. 4. August 22-24, 2006-M. Gebo phone contact with J. Bolton: Mr. Gebo made phone contact with J. Bolton, who indicated the subject premises has been a duplex for "40 years. On August 24, 2006, upon further phone discussion, Ms. Bolton agreed to modify lower basement egress windows and provide smoke alarms in the bedrooms, complying with City Rental Housing Standards; and within a month she would request a compliance inspection. 5. September 12,2006-P. Eckman sent letter to attorney Bill Kneeland: Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman sent a letter with M. Gebo's August 8 notice to . Blton to private attorney, Bill Kneeland, explaining the investigation process related to subject-propertycomplaints. , (970)221-6760-FAX(970)224-6134 28orth College Avenue-P.O. Box 580-Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580- 1 N 505 Locust St Appeal December 19, 2006 Page 2 6. September 19, 2006—City compliance inspection: City Building Inspector R. Carroll under direction of M. Gebo made a follow-up inspection to verify that windows were modified and permanently wired smoke alarms were installed by licensed electrician in the lower apartment bedrooms. 7. September 26, 2006—Notice from M. Gebo to J. Bolton: States that inspection revealed that the basement apartment complies with City Rental Housing Standards and is a legal duplex. 8. September 28, 2006—Appellant submits letter to Mayor Hutchinson: Details ongoing concerns about the subject property and asserts that M. Gebo's determinations and decisions are incorrect. 9. October 20, 2006—memo from M. Gebo to P. Eckman: In response to the Appellants lingering assertions and concerns alleging several code violations, M. Gebo notes that upon further inspection with J. Bolton on site, that the lower unit reveals two more violations of the City Rental Housing Standards, in addition to those previously cited needed to be resolved: 1) installation of a complying handrail on the lower unit access stairway; and 2) installation of a temporary "step" directly below the emergency egress window in both bedrooms to facilitate egress within 60 inches of the window sills, provided that within 30 days or weather permitting, permanent new complying egress windows would be installed. 10. October 23, 2006— Notice from M. Gebo to J. Bolton: M. Gebo sends revised notice to J. Bolton confirming the two additional items from the most recent inspection. 11. October 26, 2006—Meeting at City Attorney's Offices: P. Eckman, M. Gebo, Appellant P. Schultz and his counsel Rick Zier discuss the matter, including allegations of non-compliance with provisions Rental Housing Standards and the "illegal" conversion of the subject premises to a duplex. 12. October 27, 2006—P. Eckman sent letter to Appellant's attorney. Zier: P. Eckman advised that for purposes of appealing P. Schultz's allegations, the time window for such appeal started on that date. Eckman also notes that Building Official Felix Lee determined that the subject lower apartment bedroom windows must meet the all of the minimum criteria specified in the Rental Housing Standards, necessitating either raising the floor levels in the bedrooms or lowering the window sill heights to within 60 inches of the floor and that the temporary steps proposed by M. Gebo are not an acceptable alternative. Eckman further advises that in order to appeal provisions of the City Building Code,the prospective appellant either must be a "building permit applicant"or a "holder of a building permit. j 13. October 30, 2006— Notice from M. Gebo to J. Bolton: 1! Stipulates that new complying egress windows must be installed in lower apartment bedrooms within 60 days of the notice and that a building permit must be obtained. 14. November 6, 2006—Fax from R. Zier to P. Eckman: Attached "To Whom it May Concern" letter and non-verified signature (Gisele Driggers) indicating she lived at 516 Locust St. from 1970 to 2004 and worked in the Latimer County Assessor's Office from 1965 to 1992, during which time she states the subject property"was not a rental or a duplex". i 281 North College Avenue• P.O.Box 580• Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 •970-221-6760•FAX 970-224-6134 I 505 Locust St Appeal December 19, 2006 Page 3 15. November 7, 2006—City Historic Preservation Office occupant search of subject property: Staff report of past"reverse" directories ((1967 & 1968) reveal two CSU students (ph: 482 6979) in addition to owner residing in the building (ph: 482 6895). 16. November 15, 2006 — Faxed 1980s MLS listing and appraisal form for subject property from Elizabeth L. Kearney, P.C.,to M. Gebo: Listing indicates subject property as "potential up & down double" and 1986 appraisal form for loan indicates the property is a "multi-family, duplex" building. 17. November 30, 2006—Building permit issued: Permit issued to Splittgerber Construction for installation of hand rail and complying egress windows. 18. December 8, 2006—City Clerk's"Notice of Public Hearing" before the Building Review Board in response to"Notice of Appeal" submitted by the Appellant on December 9, 2006: Official public notice of the Appellant's hearing for December 21, 2006 and Appellarifs detailed reasons for the appeal and rationale for assertion that the "Respondents" (M. Gebo and Building Official Felix Lee) as the "decision maker" have misinterpreted, and incorrectly made determinations and decisions applicable to the subject property and to the City Rental Housing Standards, the City building code, and the City Code as summarized below. 19. December 15, 2006— Memo from the Appellant to the BRB: Appellant's account of the meeting with City staff on October 26, 2006, for the record, and an attached"Outline of Argument to the Building Review Board Appeal of Peter Schultz",which details the Appellants rationale and basis as to why.the Board should "reverse the administrative determination" by staff and "remand" (to staff) with specific "instructions" that the owner be required to obtain permits for the "corrective work" and for the owner to"obtain a permit for conversion (to a duplex) and pay the current fees associated therewith". Aivellant's Basis for Appeal In his"Notice of Appeal"of November 9, 2006, the Appellant asserts the following: 1. More than three adult occupants, all of whom are not related, are Irving in what the Appellant believes to be a "single-family dwelling", which is not legally allowed to house more than three un-related adults under current and upcoming City Land Use Code regulations. 2. That even though the Zone District in which his and the subject premises are located, allows "two-family dwellings" (duplexes), neither City building permit records that have been found to date nor the County Assessor records corroborate the subject premises is a duplex dwelling. 3, The "Respondents" erroneously have determined that the subject premises is a "legal" existing duplex without the benefit of requiring a building permit for such conversion and creation of the second dwelling unit, including assessment of current applicable fees. i 4. The "Respondents" improperly have allowed certain alterations, such as, installation of a stair rail, installation of smoke alarms and associated electric wiring, and enlargement of basement egress windows without permits. 5. The "Respondents" improperly have not required installation of "fire-rated barriers" and any applicable building permit. it 281 North College Avenue• P.O.Box 580•Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580. 970-221-6760 •FAX 970-224-6134 I 505 Locust St Appeal December 19, 2006 Page 4 Staff ("Respondenf)Responses 1. The Building Official is authorized to adopt administrative rules, procedures, and policies, including the administration of issuing and requiring building permits and determining when a change of use of a building occurs, as described in more detail below. 2. The Rental Housing Standards,pursuant to Sec. 5-256, provide the Building Official with"the authority to adopt and promulgate administrative rules and procedures consistent with the provisions of this Article; to interpret and implement the provisions of this Article; to secure the intent thereof—" 3. Furthermore,the City Building Code, Sec. R104.1 states,"The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this (Building) code. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in conformance with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code." 4. The purview of the BRB is limited in the following respects when hearing appeals pursuant the provisions of the City Building Code. As noted in the excerpts below, and cited in Paul Eckman's October 27, 2006 memo to Rick Zier, the Appellant in this case has no standing to appeal any provisions of the City Building Code to the BRB. Moreover, the BRB IS NOT empowered to hear appeals of the City Building Code relating to its "administration", under which, in "Chapter 1 —Administration" is found such functions as: "Organization and Enforcement", "Modifications", "Alternate materials, design, and methods of construction", "Permits", "Applications", "Fees", "Inspections", "Change in Use", and "Certificate of Occupancy". (a)"When a building permit applicant or a holder of a building permit desires relief from any decision of the building official related to the enforcement of this code, except as is otherwise limited in Section 105.4,such building permit applicant building permit holder,or representative thereof may appeal the decision of the building official to the Board stating that such decision by the building official was based on an erroneous interpretation of the building regulations.. :' (b)"The Building Review Board shall have no authority with respect to any of the following functions: 1. The administration of this code; 2. Waiving requirements of this code, except as provided for pursuant to this Section 105; 3. Modifying the applicable provisions of, or granting variances to, this code, or approving the use of alternate designs, alternate materials and/or alternate methods of construction except as provided for in this Section 105 and based upon a specific appeal from a determination or decision of the building official on an individual case basis; and 4. Modifying, interpreting, or ruling on the applicability or intent of the zoning and land use regulations or other laws of the city except as expressly empowered otherwise." 5. 281 North College Avenue• P.O. Box 580• Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580. 970-221-6760 •FAX 970-224-6134 II I 505 Locust St Appeal December 19, 2006 Page 5 Conclusion As the "Decision Maker", the Building Official has determined that it is 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", from the "Occugant Search Resort" of November 7,2006,prepared by the City Historic Preservation Office.That report reveals two separate conventional phone lines are listed for the dwelling — one attributed to the widowed owner/occupant, D. Evans, and another line attributed to two CSU students. It is also, reasonable to conclude that the lower apartment/dwelling unit could easily have been created to supplement the income of the widowed owner, D. Evans, with or without permits, before such permits were required by the City or even considered by a homeowner. Additionally, any extant City paper permit records for such work might easily have been lost, given their repositories being relocated many times over the decades.Further,it is easy to surmise that the owner would not necessarily volunteer such conversion to the Count Assessor's Office with a consequent increase in taxable value. With respect to concems expressed by the Appellant regarding City Building Code provisions and related permits,the Building Official has required the permit(issued November 30, 20061 needed for the installation of the new egress windows and handrail. The installation of smoke alarms and associated wiring are considered exempt from a permit, given the minor nature of the work having been performed by a licensed electrician.The Appellant's position on his interpretation that a"Fire-rated barrier" should be required as if the lower dwelling unit was created today is neither realistic nor required in for the existing use as determined by the Building Official. In summary, the Building Official maintains the Appellant has no standing to appeal to the Building Review Board any of the particular "administrative" matters referenced in the City Building Code and stipulated as "Actions which are the subject of this appeal" and which are contained in the Appellant's "Notice of Appeal" dated November 9, 2006. The unspecified "appropriate fees", which are located under "administrative" provisions of the City Building Codes, as such are explicitly precluded from the BRB's purview as referenced in the earlier citations. Staff further contends that BRB may hear on appeal in this case, the criteria limited to the applicable provisions found in ARTICLE IV, DIVISION 2. RENTAL HOUSING STANDARDS, Subdivision C. Standards and Subdivision D. Substandard Buildings, Sections 5-276 through 5-314. I 80522-0580 970-221-6760 FAX 970-224-6134 281 North College Avenue•P.O.Box 580• Fort Collins,CO . • 'Mike Gaoo- rw❑:RG. ,��ao,..,,r.. From: City Managers Office To: Darin Atteberry Date: Thursday.August 03,2006 8:25:13 AM Subject: Fwd:Re: illegal duple Yes,You asked Tess H.yesterday to follow up on this hard-copy letter. I'm tracking as SAR to close out when Tess and Peter Dames work out a solution and contact Mr.Schultz. S >>>Darin Atteberry 08/02106 1 D:05 PM >>> SK: I believe this is already in progress. Will you pis verify? D >>>Doug Hutchinson 81110610:44 AM>>> Peter, I am COPYing City Manager Darin Attebery on this response, and asking that he take action on this situation. Thank you for your email. -Doug Doug Hutchinson Mayor of Fort Collins POD 580 Fort Collins CO 80522 Office: 970 416-2154 Cell: 970 2V-3813 FAX: 970 224-6107 »><Unthethered(rDaol com> 07129 5:04 PM>>> Dear Mayor's Office: I am writing seeking your assistance with regard to my landlord neighbor. I have called the zoning department and spoke with Peter Dames and the building dept. (Ron Carol.) I am asking for you help to remedy this unfortunate situation. My landlord neighbor Jeanne Bolton-property address 5D5 Locust-is breaking the law on not one but two fronts. First,she is renting the single family residence as an illegal over and.under duplex-and Is violating the,3 person occupancy rule. The home has four bedrooms and she rents the upstairs as one 2 bedroom unit and the same for the basement Secondly,the basement unit does even come close to meeting building code. There is only one entrance and exit and it is shared with the main floor tenants. The windows do not meet city egress standards.And finally there are no hard wired smoke alarms in the basement. Ms. Bolton has skirted the law and city code for the entire last year and 1 am hoping that your office can prevent that from happening again In this it _. Mike Gebo- Fwa: upcoming rental (semester) cycle. Clearly this property arrangement is a huge detriment to the neighborhood, and to my peace of mind. I feel that Ms. Bolton not hertenants is responsible for these issues above. Any assistance from your office would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Peter Schultz 495-1839 CC: Tess Heffernan "Tti�' �-�w ✓fie /il/ 9 AV 0 gfyy�oG - 147 --- - j- V/ � fort collins Bne oghborhoodZ �o building 7services 3a 281 K. College August 8, 2006 Ms. Jeanne Bolton 970— 532 Z573 PO Box 497 1 Berthoud, Colorado 80513 I Reference: 505 Locust Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Ms. Bolton, The Larimer County assessor's office lists you as the owner of the above referenced address. This letter is to inform you that a complaint has been made to my office, alleging that the property is in violation of City ordinances in regards to your renting to more than 3 unrelated individuals and/or that the property is being used as an illegal duplex. In order to process this complaint I am requesting that you notify me as to how this address is being used. If this is a single family dwelling you are limited to no more than 3 unrelated persons. If the building has been converted into a duplex, the City has no record of such a conversion and we will need to discuss how to resolve this issue. Zoning for this address does allow for the conversion into a duplex, however it is not zoned to allow a boarding house. There are building code items that must be addressed as well as City fees for converting into a duplex. The bigger question would be when the conversion was and what has to happen now for the City to consider this address a legal duplex.,if that is how it is being operated. Please contact me at 970-416-2619. With regards, I I c e W. Gebo I Codes&Inspections Administrator I I i I City Attorney ` I t City of Fort Collins September 12,2006 Bill Kneeland,Esq. Gascoyne,Aylward &Kneeland 417 W.Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Re: 505 Locust Street Dear Bill: I spoke with Mike Gebo regarding the complaint that Peter Schultz has lodged with the City Manager's office, and which you discussed with me this morning, and, enclosed is a letter that Mr. Gebo sent to Ms. Bolton on August 8, 2006. In response to that letter,Mr. Gebo has informed me that Ms. Bolton is presently in the process of modifying the basement windows at 505 Locust and also adding smoke detectors, all as requested by Mr: Gebo. Once that work is completed,he will inspect the premises to be sure that the City's Building Code and rental housing code have been met. He will also inspect to ensure that the property is, as Ms. Bolton asserts, a legitimate duplex. If it is not a duplex,then the maximum number of occupants allowed in the building would be three. If it is a duplex, the number is six. if Mr. Schultz believes that those maximum numbers have been exceeded,he would need work with this office to prosecute a case in Municipal Court regardingthe excessive number of occupants and should contact our office to work with the appropriate prosecutor. He would most likely need to be a witness able to testify as to his own knowledge of the fact that the maximum numbers have been exceeded. By copy of this letter to Mike Gebo, I would request that-Mike keep me informed of his activities with regard to this matter so that I may report them to you. Sine el , l W. Paul Eckman Deputy City Attorney I WPE:pec cc: Mike Gebo,Building CodesAnspections Administrator II i 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O.Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80527-0580 - (970)221-6520 • FAX(970)221-6327 fart collies neighborhood & building services i Box 580' Fort Collins Co 80522-0580' Voice:970 221 6760 FAX:970 224 6134 cyn of l,vicoln 4 281 N.Coll a Ave. P.O. September 26, 2006 Ms. Jeanne Bolton PO Box 497 Berthoud, Colorado 80513 Reference: 505 Locust Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 I Ms. Bolton, This letter shall serve to notify you that the basement apartment with ted tat the above referenced addresE, currently adopted Non-Owner R was inspected on September 25, 2006 and found comply Occupied Housing Standard, otherwise known as the Rental Code for the City of Fort Collins. The City's files shall reflect that this address is a legal conforming duplex, housing two (2) separate single family dwellings. Thank you for your time and efforts in making the needed egress window corrections as stated in the Standard. *th ,Gebo Codes&Inspections Administrator I III MiKe Lebo-manvel.poC September 28,2006 Dear Mr.Mayor, 1 am writing you as my,elected representative to call your attention an issue that affects us all. I certainly hope you can assist in fording a resolution to this unfortunate situation. In late July I wrote the city manager's office to inform them that the house 3 ext person r(505 Locust)to mine was being used as an illegal duplex;and was viola topic and was ordinance. 1 have been closely following the local news regarding this t under the impression that the city was actively enforcing rental housing code and occupancy limits. I have resided at 501 Locust for the last five years,and the house next door(505)has for the last five years exceeded the occupancy limits by having four or more tenants. Upon viewing the city website which states that complaints of over occupancy would be thoroughly investigated,and in cases where over occupancy was validated the city would then issue a"notice of discontinuance Prior to purchasing my home;as part of my due diligence I had contacted the county and the city and in both instances was assured that the property at 505 was a single family occupancy.This was taken into account as part of our buying decision. Can you imagine my utter dismay when I received an email from Mike Gebo at the city; stating*9 based on my complaint,rather than issuing a notice of discontinuance and enforcing existing law/code he was going to change the classirmation of the property at 505 Locust from a single family occupancy INTO A LEGAL DUPLEX RETROACTNEL'Y. This is completely unacceptable for the following reasons: 1) Fort Collins residents have been lead to believe that the city was aggressively pursuing instances of over occupancy and prosecuting violators. 2) The owner of 505 Locust has broken the law for the past 22 years and now the city is in effect rewarding her breaking the law by allowing this occupancy change retroactively.This is in complete contrary to the very spirit and intent of the code/law. 3) The proposed change benefits one person(the landlord)but is detrimental to the neighborhood,the health and safety of the local residents,and our peace of mind. 4) The property at 505 is 937 square feet on a 37 foot wide lot, and 4 bedrooms total, and Mr.Gebo's proposed solution to my complaint is to now allow 6 people to i I Mike Gebo-manvet.00c reside in a 4 bedroom single family dwelling. The city website clearly states:the City addresses occupancy to help ensure the health and safety of residents and to help protect the quality and character of neighborhoods". Clearly in this instance nothing could be further from the truth. As a supporter and constituent I am hoping that you can find the time to discuss a potential solution to this unfortunate situation. Sincerely, Peter Schultz 215-1533 i s f t i i Community Planning and environmental Services Neiglibor-hood and t3uiwing Services C.ih,of 1`�°i�� F MEMORANDUM DT: October 5, 2006 TO: Mike Gebo FM: Ron Carroll RE: 505 E. Locust St. E. Locust St. entrance to the On September t9,200 a back door and down he steps the basement dof the dwelment of ling.The windowsen the bedrooms have ar en is t r been altered to hinge at the top to allow for egress. Hard wired smoke detectors were installed in the bedrooms and living area. Ron Carroll iBuilding Inspector it I J I !I1I �I North College Avenue—F'.O. Box 5L30—Fort Gllins, CO 80522-0560—(970) 221-6760—FAX (970) 224-G134 281 i Mike Gebo -505 Locust i From: Mike Gebo To: Paul Eckman Subject: 505 Locust Hi Paul, I� Mr, . er of the above rental and I did identify that we missed 2 items on I did meet Ms.Bolton, own Schultz's list.Ms Bolton agrees to correct: 1)Provide a handrail to the stairway. 2) Install egress windows in the bedrooms.In the interim,it is acceptable that she install a 12 inch deep step under each bedroom window,so that the window sill is no more than 60 inchs from the top of the step.2 steps required. These 2 items will provided within 30 days and the window step is allowed until such time that she and contractor availablity.Note that the step could be install new egress windows,depending on weather considered a permenant solution. To the rest of Mr.Schultz's questions: 1) No firewall between units.N/A,that is new construction requirements. 2) No permit to convert.N/A due to City's records not accurate before 1965 and zoning has always allowed duplex use. requirements. I 3) No GFI outlets.N/A,that is new construction 4) No permit for electric smoke detector installation.N/A We don't require a permit to extend an existing circuitwhen installed by a licensed electrician. Gregory Electric installed the detectors. scheduled for Thurs,saving us some time and Mr. Schultz it would seem that we could cancel the meeting j any additional cost,with our thanks of course. I f Maybe you can convince them The property is considered a duplex with 2 items needing attention by the owner. Mike 1 0/2 012 0 0 6 about:blank fort collins neighborhood & building services Cin-�f krrccnN„� 281 N. College Ave. P.O.Box 580• Fort Collins CO 80522-0580• Voice:970 2216760 FAX:970 224 6134 October 23, 2006 Ms. Jeanne Bolton PO Box 497 Berthoud,Colorado 80513 Reference: 505 Locust Street j Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Ms.Bolton, Thank you for meeting me at your above referenced address on Friday 10/20/06. The purpose of the meeting was for me to inspect for stairway handrails and egress windows height in the lower dwelling unit. I identified that the stairway does need a handrail and the bottom window sill height is 70 inches above the floor. My inspector should have identified these items as needing correction in order for the dwelling to be in compliance with the Non-Owner Occupied Housing Standard (NOOHS, rental code). If I remember the conversation correctly, you will have the handrail installed within 30 days. Additionally, a step will be constructed under each bedroom window which will bring the window bottom sill to within 60 inches of the top of the step. These steps will provide the tenants with easier access to the window in the case of an emergency and are to be constructed within 30 days. Please notify me at 416- 2618 and confirm when these items are corrected. Since the window steps can be considered an approved alternate method of satisfying NOOHS Section 5- 281(b) (2), once installed, the unit will be in compliance with the Standard. We fii ther discussed, that the installation of new code compliant egress windows in each bedroom would better serve the tenants in the long run and are desirable from a life safety perspective. Should you choose to proceed with the installation of the new windows, a building permit would be required.Please contact me should you need any assistance in that process. I With re ¢s, c el W. Geho Codes&Inspections Administrator I i I i I i City Attorney i City of Fort Collins ,I October 27, 2006 I Rick zier, Esq. Zier Law Offices P.O.Box 770 Fort Collins; CO 50522 Re: 505 Locust Street Dear Rick: I want to thank you and Peter Sc with Mike and me yesterday to hultz for taking the time to meet will not consider any decision discuss the above-referenced issue. As I promised you, the Cityave a new bit having been made on this matter before yesterday; and,To e I It 7,ate to considerth t the of f appeal time provide you regarding the City's decision, I think it app p should begin to run as of today, October 27,2006- The new information that I have is that Felix Lee;Mike Gebo's supervisor;has oven-uled Mike with alternative.that would be appropriate to resolve the regard to the idea of the "step" as being an d that a step would pose a tripping hazard and that the window height problem. Felix has determine entire floor must be raised or the window lowered. As to the jurisdiction of the Building Review Board,I believe that the Building Review Board under Section s-259 has jurisdiction to provide final interpretations regarding the provisions of Article VI of Chapter 5 which pertains to "housing standards'. However,l do not believe that the Building appeal that Peter Schultz might wish to make regarding Review Board has jurisdiction to hear any the Uniform Building Code because in Section 5-27 of the City Code (amendment and deletions to the Uniform Building Code) Section ]05.2 of the amended Uniform Building Code provides that person can appeal when a but]dinp penni plicant or holder o�tnei ep rr a boil i building peiemit]a applicant or a holder 1 to the Building Review Board. Since Mr. Schultz is neither a building p PP of a building permit with regard to 505 Locust Street, I do not believe that the Building Review 1 Board has jurisdiction to hear an appeal of his if it pertains to the UBC. Therefore,if he desires to e should appeal an interpretation that was made under the housing appeal an interpretation, h standards which are found at Article VI of Chapter 5. i i i 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O.Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6520 • FAX(970)221-6327 Rick Zier; Esq. October 27, 2006 Page 2 Of course.l hope it doesn't come to that because it appears to me that most of his problems have to f do )%)ith noise, vandalism and other issues that are entirely outside of the range of the City's rental housing standards. I Sin re) Paul.Eckman Deputy City Attorney WPE_pec cc: Mike Gebo, Building Codes, Inspection Administrator Felix Lee,Building and Zoning Director I I i i fort collins neighborhood & building services can•of 7oAc mm�s 281 N. College Ave. P.O.Box 580• Fort Collins CD 8D522-0560• Voice: 970 2216760 FAX: 970 224 6134 I October 30, 2006 Ms, Jeanne Bolton PO Box 497 i Berthoud, Colorado 80513 Reference: 505 Locust Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 I Ms. Bolton, I would like to thank you again for your time at our on-site meeting of 10/20/06. Since that meeting, I have discussed your case with Neighborhood & Building Services Director, Felix Lee, and the City Attorney's office. The discussion settled on the Non-Owner Occupied Housing Standard (Rental Housing Standards) Section 5-281(b)(2) which requires additional egress windows or doors if the bedroom window sill height is greater than 60 inches from the floor. I have been advised that RHS Section 5-291(b)(2) should be enforced strictly as written and that the RHS do not specifically allow me the latitude to accept alternate methods in this case because the provision was written as an "alternative" to the standard health and safety requirement. Although the step beneath the window could assist an occupant using the window in an emergency, a step is considered a temporary measure. After the discussions mentioned above, I am to inform you that the installation of the new egress windows will be a requirement of the continued use of the basement as a separate dwelling unit and that further, these windows are to be installed within 60 days of the date of this letter.Failure to comply can result in a summons to Municipal Court for the commission of a criminal misdemeanor. ! At our meeting you mentioned an interest in installing current code compliant egress windows in the two lower level.bedrooms. Please advise me as soon as possible if this timeline cannot be met. A building permit is required and I would be glad to help you through the permit and inspection process. I i Thank you for all your efforts in bringing this case to closure. Yr., raw. Tebo Codes &Inspections Administrator i I i Nov 06 06 09: 49p Novermber 6, 2006 Mr. Gebo, I I am writing concerning our meeting on September 26"in the city attorney's office. u clearly stated that you would reconsider your interpretation that During our meeting Yo i 505 Locust was grand fathered as a converted duplex if we submitted additional independent evidence to the contrary. Please see attached letter from former resident at 516 Locust,who was also with the Latimer County Assessor's office for over 20 years. Additionally,all of the county records in the assessor's office indicate that the property at 505 Locust single family dwelling/Occupancy- Sincerely, P. Schultz I �I li i I NOV-06-2006 MON 03;55 PM FT COLlINS CIIY Hi1ulnvci EELS I'll I.— BOGE ASSOC- PAGE e2 11/06/2006 14:12 970-224-5188 vo Sig . Lac��r �. �r 5 d L Cal !„avi awn a? as gn5 Z vs` Wct / U ly Up II i ve ct 33 �T I 505 East Locust ',(ln November�20006, is 'c Preservation staff conducted a city directory search for 505 East Locust Street from 1954 to 2002. City Directories identify ths owner-Occupants irectories ill r as opposed to Ass f the occupant accords is the owner or a rentefy the re generally specify The home at 505 East Locust was acquired by Mrs.Dorothy Evans in the early 1960s,and she is shown as the owner and occupant of the property through 1984. (In 1959,the residents were Lloyd E. and Georgia E.Burrus. The directory identifies the Burrus' as renters;the property owner was not identified). Mrs. Evans was the widow of Charles N.Evans. She apparently moved to Fort Collins after her husband's death daughter wasattending CSU;the ily is net listed in 1963 directory lier es. 1t is likely that she moved here because her . Diana is Di _ identifies two family members living with Dorothy at this llocaatiion, as na and Williamse or as a student at CSU. Mrs. Evans apparently supported apparently operating an in-home business. By 1967-68,neither Diana nor William are living in ortion of the the home. At this time,Mrs.Evans supplemented her income byrenting indication that these home to two CSU students,Glen A.Johnson and Brad hone line had been installed,with a were not relatives of Mrs.Evans is the that a separate Dorothy Evan's son,William,had different number from that used by moved back home. lie applied for a new phone number,again different from oY lives here alone. Fle remained here through 1979. Between 1980 and 1984,Mrs.Evans apparently On August 1,1984,Mrs.Evans sold the property to Jeanne C.BOUltnn, and in 1985 is listed as the owner and resident of a unit at the Rangeview Retirement Village,4450 LM. Leach, Drive. The home at 505 Locust Street was occupied by two individuals, Steven M. Leach a Self employed general contractor,who also operated his business,Boardwalk Buildersfrom wholived here location for appro imately three Years w'lule residing here;and Robert Murphy, and ur Leach were approximately two years. The directory indicates that Mr.Murphy renters,rather than owners. Again,Mr.Murphy and Mr.Leach have diff ereesnt ptana e numbers, suggesting two separate units. By 1987,Robert Murphy replaced nt by Cheryl Simpson and John Trujillo,both students at CSU. It appears that the two shared one unit, as they shared the same new phone number;Steven Leach is still listed at his original phone ems ters Roger P.Kavanaugh number. es Ring, who moved here in 997,sharene pho998,four new residents are listed,all CSU ne number,and Paul Carr d Matt and Charles Ring, n Thomas share a different line, again suggesti B two separate units. By 1991,the Fort Collins City Directory actually denotes two units,one on the main floor and the other unidentified but presumably,based upon the direazto> i gs for other nearby based upon the the basement. Roger P.Kavanaugh and Charles Ring occupying aunit, hone listing. hi shared phone;the other is occupied by Maureen KZ.Maxwell,who has a separatephoneotes two units,one 1993,the directory lists Roger P.Kavanaugh,and Charles Ring, and 1 identified as"Floor Main" In 1998-1999 the occupants are Joseph Doyle,416-8558 (here since 1995)407-865599(here since 1999)and Kris Johnson, 416-0339 (her482-6046(here since 1996);followed s ince 2 0000)by Jack Andersen II i i 505 East Locust Street 1954 Fort Collins City Directory: hone 1959 Benjamin F.Robinson (wife Arma),rancher,resides at and owns 505 E.Locust ph one also listed at this address are Dale Robinson,a student at Colorado A 8 M(now CSU), and Dean Robinson, a student at Denver Law School 1 1963 Fort Collins City Directory: By 1963,Mrs.Dorothy E. Evans (widow Charles N.)beauty counselor,resides at and owns 505' E.Locust,482 b895;also living at 505 E. Locust are Diana K Evans, student, CSU,482-6895, and William Evans,482-6895. (Neither appears in the 1967-68 City Directory) 1967-68 Fort Collins City Directory: ess,Laos Draperies,resides at and owns 505 E. Mrs.Dorothy E.Evans(widow Charles)seamstr Locust,482-6895;also living at 505 E.Locust are: Glen A. Johnson,student,CSU, 482-6979; and Brad Murphy, student, CSU,482-6979: (Note:phone number shared by Glen and Brad is different from the one used by Mrs.Evans.) 1972 Fort Collins City Directory: Mrs.Dorothy E.Evans(widow Charles) employed by CSU,resides at and owns 505 E.Locust, 482-6895;also living at 505 E.Locust is William C.Evans,493-4265 (Note.again, different phone number) 1973 Fort Collins City Directory: Mrs.Dorothy E.Evans(widow Charles)employed by CSU,resides at 5 and owns 505 E.Locust, 482-6895;also living at 505 E.Locust is William C.Evans, r 1975 Fort Collins City Directory: Mrs.Dorothy E.Evans (widow Charles)employed by CSU,resides at and owns 505 E.Locust, ` 482-6895;also living at 505 E.Locust is William C.Evans,493-4265 1976 Fort Collins City Directory: CSU,resides at and owns 505.E.Locust Mrs. Dorothy E.Evans (widow Charles) employed by 482-6895;also living at 505 E.Locust is William C.Evans,493-4265 1979 Fort Collins City Directory: Mrs.Dorothy E.Evans (widow Charles),food service,CSU,resides at and owns 505 E.Locust, 482-6895,also living at 505 E.Locust is William C.Evans,493-4265 1980 Fort Collins City Directory: Mrs.Dorothy E.Evans,food service,CSU,resides at and owns 505 E.Locust,482-6895 1 1981 Fort Collins City Directory: Mrs.Dorothy E.Evans,food service,CSU,resides at and owns 505 E.Locust,482-6895 1982 Fort Collins City Directory: Mrs.Dorothy E.Evans,retired,resides at and owns 505 E.Locust,482-6895 1983 Fort Collins City Directory: Mrs. Dorothy E.Evans,retired,resides at and owns 505 E.Locust,482-6895 I� 1994 Fort Collins City Directory: 482-6895 Mrs.Dorothy E.Evans,retired,resides at and owns 505 E.Locust 1985 Fort Collins City Directory: Boardwalk Builders,484-2797 Steven M. Leach,general contractor,self employed,484-2797 Robert Murphy, 484-1456(note:different phone number) Drive(Rangeview Retirement [Mrs.Dorothy E. Evans,resides at and owns 4450 Larkbunting Village) 1986 Fort Collins City Directory: 484-2797 Boardwalk Builders, Steve Leach,building construt contractor, Robert 484-2797 ' Steven M.Leash, owner,Boardwalk Building ,general Robert Murphy,484-1456 1987 Fort Collins City Directory: Steven M.Leach,{office),484-2797 e 484-2797 Steve M.Leach,general contractor, self employed, Cheryl Simpson, student,CSU,484-7236 John Trujillo, student,CSU,484-7236 1988 Fort Collins City Directory: Roger P.Kavanaugh,student, CSU,490-1360 Charles Ring,student,U'224 90-1 60 i Paul Cam stuff -4829 29 Matt Tho'mas,student CSU, 1991 Fort Collins City Directory: I Roger P.Kavanaugh,490-1360 Maureen K.Maxwell,482-0454 Floor Maui Charles Ring,490-1360 1991-1992 Cole Directory. ROjer p yavanaugh,490-1360(here since 1987) Maureen K. Manlvell,482-0454(new listing) Charles Ring,490-1360(here since 1987) 1993 Fort Collins City Dreotory: Roger p.Kavanaugh,490-1360 Floor Main 1 Charles Ring,490-1360 1998-1999 Cole Directory: Joseph Doyle,416-8558(here since 1995) Tania Ellis,482-6046(here since 1996) 2001-2002 Cole Directory: lack Andersen, 407-9659(here since 1999) Kris Johnson,416-0339(here since 2000) I i Nov 15 06 11 : 53a Elizabeth Lamn-nears •- -- - - - ELJZABETH LAMB KEARNEY, P . C . i ' M FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET 1... FROM: ' ;\U1 c Gebo ELK �.OAII•ANI: DATr:: Neighborhood Services 11/15/2006 . ^.�fC:NIRM, To'tAL NO.OP PAGPS INCLUDING COVER: 970-224-6134 4 JI It KKIi NC a1BIYR: 5LNDFR'5]IEFCRENCIi NCMBIIR 970-221-060 1t1., YOUR RFrM- ENCL NUMBER: 505 I.00USt I:I:G I%.NT 0I+oR xr.VIL''W ❑PLEASE CON ENI ❑PLEASE IMPLY ❑ YLr A51: ItECYCI.u. rl rr,:S1 C U:.:kt)EN'1'5. Nfil:c, Faxed are copies of the l\4ulti-list page for the property which appeared in the residential income section of the book and the appraisal for the property,also done as a rental duplex.. thanks I'3.K 549 FOURTH STREET, P.O.BOX 386, BERTHOUD, COLORADO 80513 PHONY: (970) 532-3594 FAX: (970) 532-3603 i i Nov 15 06 11 : 54a Elizabeth Lamb'Iceal-,: 97 t 'S"� 5 ra4 i�•RX I LOT . R15H GRE N A va CV• n2 FrESIDENTIAL INCOME 7OX9 RE A„ fuN b.bDO ter. 551 : TNO 2 1 bOD 300 7uN 634 �••ES.DN A ..FOP u.e WORLD CL x s.,..rOP Iwr D > TP e.aa 9.D00 l5 r Tp ...w 1 r.9T . .. ..n PR s 1971 y.r.A C.CV.F PVT.79 ww�FN LA OA 0.f RO ST ar5 9E0. DUP Ex FOR 16 90D.DD E%C ELL EPIT 1ST RTG ' POSSIBLE ONC E%CEL _OCCUPnwCY F1CT00. EWER THE a6s ' INFORMATION HER DEEMED RELIABLE BUT NOT GUARANTEED ` I e D �.:. ., 46. DU A 26.wA22 N V RLPNO 962W+716 ALEM1' N 4 . 4D DO .2-FA Ld C00. OF NEb-7-69 a�a CY 309 Y,2 L.y LL IT ] R % 1 ALP RTS UB LV n3 1 DDXL3 e. '0 .ODD M nF 3L 45K32B yr ,.%_. A: ra7r2 D Ar2.9i %faR.D.0 420 A. ON mwa�TP 9CM u.e 84 ALP E D 99D 5 wNOM FFEP �� 1 ✓ WORLD x O fe.w. 0 304 30 r�7P fw p a.... P v0P _ a. TP CN ws12,020 TP R V 19R•Fa w� p' T P SS RLE TRADE UP T P : ILA _E B RP. RCw PL 3 ARAGES fOR EK ,.�1,,�: pA T IN U NE CARP T AND^ N - g Non AE 9. •M Tr TEE D111s F T Pp11t:.11TR:X REREIN DEEMED PELIAB E BUT NOt GUARANTEED INFOPMATIN OE�D�L._ RANT y . L L L r.. a65.9 •1 199. 01• E LOCUST 51 •.. 13 a 71 DO PI PERT 14 xr. RR 1. LDTS 192211 R 0 N 16 Vl yT ]6 BL% ALPERT SUB ,+a CV.000 n3 Lw ♦71102 - rw 12.000 ra GLOVER aem: Pu r: r . s.: Fr: n.^ Tul.a 3 rw• -i ro rFr, n.:I i9n T 3 w.R 494 � 1 2 i 936 — b Aw WORLD 45 w..: P I.r WORLD 2 s.�.• 1'^v r. 2 .6 5 Tp R rrs cwI gR ww ]930 Hr G.HV LE LISTDk ur rnNF PPOPER Y 0. NOR R.•.. 6Ed UTI F. OL NEI6 HB pAHDOD.ExCELLEIa P2NT SL FO n nL AlP L 00Wx ODUBtEIOV RI'r T NEA LAST 22 RATE HOUCFs. T _ Y PR5 2 FIRE PI ACF HURRY: PP6 2 BT XIIRFRT 1..n. EI1L EULLRPO >.2 3-45 o...e nR Eve HY ^� cr�iT�n_pT Y N oro_iHE GRCU HEREIN DEEMED O ^INC m221-UTDLIe UWDSF cb'3.5 cwiaa. i ARLE BUT NOT cUwRANTEED I Nov 15 06 11254a Elizabeth Lamb-Kearn '- - APPRAIS< M °DRT--SMALL RESIDENTIAL INCH PROPERTY Fit.No. a I wrrAatlrw 505 Locust St. S Sort Collins C.-,v Larilmr sDmnPtmv East 4T ft. of North 100 ft of Lot 19 a 2D Hlo POlt NA D.r.vl$e4 'Lwn TYIm Yn. PmwnV Rr9h"11-1 Enna Lxry 5 R2 Iwl Lwn nvrrnvN wre bV vlkri Ou.Hoxe Pederal 5 �n 9 )nmumrvn,w Ap unm Ten nt Aopr.rx. L m OVERALLRATIND wtl AVD- F, Pun L¢.npn . .0 Urtxn. .. . . .. QsYeYrwn.. . ❑Auml x Bduup .IJ Ow TS%. . ... ❑55%m)5% . .QUN.r2E% AIkQu Yel S.Pl x PewYvcY vl Unllnx., Prmrnr Imd ux . .._%Cendomimumt —%LFweY —%T-1 F.m11Y Envtevmrpr DOPvnunitin.. . . . . x _ILAwnrn:m. _%Lemm..[f.l %va•nr 'A .. : : : x _ GNnpe in n[xnl lane Yw. . Npt llk[IV .. .. . L kely I'I... .C7 T.41q PIKII'I P°Ir[[ne Fn[by 1.. Fx . . y IT 111 PI Frvm TO R[nurronll ililix... .. . . . PrvwrtY unuel .. . ... .�{ncnlnn9 •.Q SnNe.. ....�DK.inln4 PrvwnV LrrmNlleillW .. . .. .. .. x Hvu[inp elmanehupPlV Q In I. ..... D Sh."w .. . .O OY[nuYPIY Prvtlen°n Lvm Dlmm[nnl L°ntlitlon x Oern... . .Cir T[wnl . �%Va[vrt GM.nI qp Nk", PI PrvPnbf . . _ PrvtlOmiNn1 PZIW[ncY "' A 1e MNkel - sinpnFamilY;Panrmw S"D•nDD m5 lRO.ODO Pretlwnu.mi TR OODtO:funn w¢nr br eonernunc. qy ��Wt.tc_SDYrF Premmrmnr��`n Pualic Trwupwwiun TYplxl mWtibmily bid.. TYw Dmy Ne.Stwiu��Ne.Unlwn A, sn yY - C°neluen '--^^a Er1rPIPVm•M Gmev Typical nnn S 20D IPS 40 0 1,, In0 Q Slebl. ❑DKllnlnp Sneppin0 FKllitln 61.rognevrkerre.pl.xn... I % O DecnYMD n2 SIaM• [] Irwn.r:n0 Gronmrr Scnrt9l[ Rmt wmwlt .Q No ❑Yet Q Nm likely ❑uk.h f nvMY Anen Neer:%N MC/FNMA!e rot evnitl•r ra!.ek![rill ramPk[illen e1 nx rMUNPwh°vtl LP N IeI1W a eppr•iW IKton DncAwtn°n lrten.tww[tl.yr vnl.YvnWe,dbninp mlrkeubililYRKl.mkr.am P°puluivn Nzs 811NnLIM ab11nVL e�La'i�nmP.�hV_,,,_ is located in central Fort Collins enoroxixatCl 1 2-4 from do+ntlran 'L -" o t e city and consists of eves a to V.-Y ODCd sualit, homes. Hainten a ¢n th -e good an no adverse Conditions arc avoazent. 4,994 sa,FLXYJ:.:!. ❑rcrx.Lw Drrwnnw. 47x102 2otdn➢tlmilMMran RM Residential Ortrnum¢Pu.rronn [3'tiv ❑tle net Fenlortnm[Pnlrrp mpu4dona —.- Nipirer me Iwr ur: Prexm uw OMlr It Cll 1 - _ Pubpc Wl,M ID.wriba OFF41TE IMPROVEMENTS Tap° AVer e s — EIK. K) freer AI nM ©PYMic Prirr.n Six --- Gr B Yrf.Lr Aenhalt sNw waar ® rnnnenn �PYMI[ ❑PIIYIx Vxw r - amsrWr® [3SllIl.Srrer QCurb)Gulwt OrMn.w Add d JY.r Sbrvnik Q S[Pt Li Mr I k me P°IxnY bawd m.MUD WrMal[tl Slxlrl Fbsd Hxme AN.? Dpn ® UnarprwN EIK.bT[I. R Lo-TTAtL llwvlPOIe pr Jrllv+Mple NntlitiPni inclYGnDlnY epwr•nr.drerr rrreTlnl[°r an°r°KMr[nn) L— Dozaal utillty easements. No saver a ond't not alley bETind xooert - Ns 9rw;r _1-�_ ❑ur•wrCwrlruclian TVw: C]El.retw �WMkuP Cil Dra. ❑SIm:.Drt. CIAnv EaE4M ❑Prl9nrd Nv.Bxkt�_Prrk:n➢Swnr: Np��Tylje—• N°.Blem. N.Uniu 9— ,e —RrMl Lpretlnp�� :ac,,., ➢ra Strunws SYlwm'_rnmp _Exwdpr War r-�— _9 Fvunx.ivn wsa Conc—, BNrnPrll=[Ji AMrretl )nn%DlKrs are aflk Flpor and Wrlu$i.`.yiu si Mt-e.3y.._ ..Rr.nna Invro'WHIt flewt�n A°OYrV pl SpYr•d9rvPt1PE nnA mwNtun AdtovacY •-�+r.u'���� -. Fu[I_JG a Ad.purya Cy"Ir" Hxenp: QCsrttnl 0IndivitluN TVw ` "' gtlr Y.cvb CtlprWltlpn , ss���---- Aircenl➢uminp ''�C•rrinl ❑"N"A001 FullN!n M.kr Gvbtl Aw. Fain OVERALL PROPERTY RATNG KilLxn LWMeU,Craw[n.M Cvumer[pace® peenu.l.� InregY.lr . TPwI PIP.APNIanw 2 NIAe/Dwe��.FnrMead��Dlthr[[nor OuMBv°Icv illrIl en I'll..l.... D'YpawZRrbipmv._Wnnx��Dnlr��.C°mPKlor 6pneit"N.Mmv.mmmn. . Wra HxmrW lrrok..nPrirv.lus -:'�-ab. ] ..t Co..pm nnr.rw xYout .. .. .. ....... . . .. PlumbiN fatwM Im.al a - D xe ain.¢.-,. .. .. . I F, Plum6nYe!!°uacY Mrd C°ntlilien...... ENcninl Sm:n lemw car urritl , , , Mus, ,.. • . SKuntY Fxlum n Y ElKirkal-lbpuKY lhtl fen.. SveculFxunl BroWeiM...W.HmIM11mmd d .KiteAen rAuiorrrem-1delueY erle mrrdblm;; Iv Amanil'n[me wrkln0 lkeiGtMl •. .. . . ... •t a DWr.n OvW:HW . r[.I° �l-M" ° C[ E: Min If ten 1Nn I.pa•Tem Ar'.ACIDII �uar.�.-WL. elfin I ._].�1�Y21°i�-YrI.Ea[.P•rwininp Ecmvmie Llle.i��v COMMENTS: IIrrCuMrrD lYeC11er1el Pr O'Noll irwdePUKItF.IeP.lrl n•ldN.mWerniinipn,![[,1 - — n ESTIMATED REPPODUCTON LOFT NEW I oqp .ft.. S t RTa_w.n.x y-IAedarl eA n) Rn _15...1Jt0— ?_�w.fo.�3--IAe.:ed - 702 Fn.h.A S� K.ft.! ISry rl • rp.1Le i���— rih _ A.,.91ID_� ' DINER IMPROVEMENT511n[IuvinD�rValerorgV ellldrnf lleTl) v f c _ LBra a �TE•tIa"'- scE1MPRDVEMENTS ' S1il 70D.- TDTAL ESTIMATED COST NEW Of IMPROVEMENTS . 1E55 DEPRECIATION; •kyirul s 6,400 Functions S Emncrric S - .. •.• - •. •..-•' . S ST it Q__y DEpRFCI.TEDv^LUE OF IMPROVEMENTS .. :. .. . ... .. . 1 AObESTINATED LAND VALUE 111 wenkPW.Nn1,EE SIMPL tl C L-S1•.Yn INDICATED VALUE BY THE COST APPROACH FEE SIMPLE OLEASEHOLD -FNMA F°rrn 1025 T '. F H:MC Pvrm TI Tp9 ATTACH LAYOUT SKETCHES SHOWING UN ITENTRIES.LOCATIONES SCENE :.,�W.v 2)c Vnw DESCRIPTIVE PHOTOGR/✓HS Of SUE�ER PROPERTY ANO STREET SCENE Nov 15 06 11 : 55a tllzaoI ^•- Ne. I L,MPAR ABL EII7 COMI/P<BLE J ITEM I COMPARABLE No.t --II- 1623 Whadbee 609 l Smith i Adil 425 E. Loomis St, b oek9 Sevth Dm.imlry m----- oc a Vr.Sir.:1B21L $ 9$ Yr,BIL:1913� xr.Unhr 1_Nv.Vac.�- gmuur•av 9 Ne.0 Np.vec I. Similar units p e:rnvne�al Nn,on". nlv�.�Ne.Vrt.�-Yv BI[.:19�.8.. ^Ra r:v . units Similar units ma al Hanlon[ t^ mLawt 91ty MPn[n1V Rant 1 Men1MY Rrnl grrr rn Rm,Ceunl Zne MenlnlY Pam RmCw+nl 5't• qrn Tol BRa Ze.GL S Rm, Tm BR b se.Ft. S 5 2 1 R04 365J�AS73ndR b Sa,FL 4]•r,T25 Al 81.2 5 2 '1 912 350 .7B 7D 1 1 BOd 19D 4 i 1 624 225 .36 SE.2 5 2 1 04D 250 30 50 Mnteawn enants a+ heat and Tenants a heat and leetzicit•. u{lint.,lu,. Tenan t4 pay Haar and ele ctzi eit n:wteM a ¢C-r5[lty ^ ie tnl.tn `m tv eimi laY camw•• Vcry sDa[11aZ ve • similar me+to abL Heal Eavnk All ContlillPning ar IXl w.ur Ga+ O Heal ❑Elanrk All ConetilkedIng Utllnin withded in dn're"d ®wnn ❑Gn FORECASTED RENTZ UOIHw mclupr In lentmel onu gCTUAI RENTS pn Teul IndlvieuN Na. Tonl PO Unit Rnnl No.ol nq Rm tv�nt Totn Spat U�IR Per Unil Reny Unlurnbned Fmnirxd So.ft.or Rohn unli[ a Roe P Un8 V UnrWni[nee Fambnea - s a ? $ 2 1' 9 R36 D.n $4 S d 2 1 2 s 2 TOTwt 9 D S 6 S—�' Hone d05 TprN Grut Mon+hlY Fbrgsmd Rent Z R9P Dlhcr Man1nIY IKOIM Inamlt• t yprJnq';AcrvU Mar W-2% PrM.V %F."t+gi n-S—Ye q1 htl - Dc[uura:alcvnmdenr.laMamJ,e WMPARAE No.2 M11ARAII Nc.J t0 remain at these 1Ne13- G.pM,A,Ad LE Nv.1 ITEM SUB q24 LaPorte JECT 1623 Whadb ae 505 Lxvst St, BOB Smitb unt OF- ' Antlrer+ Unl. di. S Pmeimbv to cupiea UN, ❑G. Z Prim s N C7 unl. C7 F. i 2 ] Y..Blt:19 No v.cr. pair DI Mw N A ♦ No.Vae in YL e1e 19 Ne Vac: IntiI I Yr.III 19 I •wou Na.n! m Coam YI.Blt:ID�R-Ne.vacJ.l-• - I. Inna•vbv�l um Nn.of n• m nt Lay at. No.of L V Unhr vi Unite md,,..del Unin Iat, 2 5 2 4 brereerr•n 4 2 1 nd 'Vn` Ce Rg_ C[xn nt re-i 1[rl. SV inelutline ronN[iM. E"', Bid,Arinmeln .1[, p•IL e ' 1.639 Been BIaF.Area IG9A1 T5 - Grnt Mentply mern S Ormt Mp.Pnm Almr.nl N S S Pi III Unit $N A PI Par Room SN A Irn.h.0 A he.h.G9A Prise Per S.F.09q N A lar.n.O9A III SeRP2e= . rntM Fen• VNue fnaleniw tm6ubau 41.01) eav Sf.BIr9Ane•267.2 D 7D.000 Val,Per S.F.GAA9—�• rt Per Unit 35 000 X_2 —Unlit•S 70 JIQD—, R.M. 105 X 673 TrtN Monthly all 70.9DD vM. nRmZ 7r80D X 9 RmF•S £ e e P -ve G Fly - n e. The 1 RKocdivem: '1 ne 9 rket.indicators vel used dve tp the cD az le tlnies bein rtnted t 1p+ee^ _ S r" ANNUAL EXPENSE 61JMMPRT- I for FNMA•Lepmr mun pntNm oMrarwe ran on aa9.lean I9r apnlnr tp reYx••C cKnmem an a•tM" N ropruna+l ACTUAL GORECAST GALCU LATION60cp�8M:xT5 t. Uee[iee �NOlS Tenant �EIIs n nt S 3 4 B ct - Te watrresewnrS 160 Teul: E) S Dr-L3 22 1-0 be Zeaeon bl'mr 1 dinea,teS 36n Treat: 2 R<n Em+TanS2r6L.d.- n ,- Teml: e, Menal%'mtnl S, 0— pent 36O RielinnS�C-Tptab 50 E. Mrnl,a Oenor.S�.0L_Reoein5 TODI: C. Other TOTAL E%PENSESa REPLALBMENT RESERVES 32 782 SI Tna Dprabd b m�ae 'L3-er Ir Oaabi.rt IP Ins[pain.tlunbom,a mnelt{ana Imea Inlow O eemP Hen per aMn and apnlnntieA Cemrrenn.Conolanrlr,and Flml Re[onGllStl9n: d ecal't• of sIN ales ar C t 92 wa'} Ilemann.lnj'Elrtil:uNOM1 mn6ngnl and Ilmlllnp cendtnona,end Mann vtl�a ae�—IMJn�n We`�a•+•d'n -nia^Pxa•rrl i[bree(Ili'-Oli'arrqu I'd. y FMLML Form eJ9lRey fn/Tml NA Farml (Rrv.tO(T¢l Idea w{IM1 CIAn<�m�Z I ESTIMATE THE m VA �EFI ,OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AS OF M�_R Ja.•.••�t - FtvNwAoonbM ill polirebe r -(� ®pid Nrt PM1YaluI1Y ImMIPreWr1Y {y;gppnberh) — Mh'.r LF�A D=ya��ri� w, Naril2nr �^ oyd T.FPrice ➢ennis _J FNMA Germ 102:i 7113 A-1 unln '•MC Fom 72 7119 �nin Attachment 5 Attachment 5: Verbatim Transcript of Building Review Board Hearing - 2/22/07 VERBATIM MINUTES - BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Appeal of SOS Locust St February 22, 2007 1:OO13161-3:OO13M City Council Chambers 300 LaPorte Avenue Member moved to approve the minutes as written Member seconded the motion Coldiron, Packard, Little, Smiley, Cram, Smith, Gust Board Member: Next item of business will be explaining the procedure we will be following for today's meeting. Public Hearing is held before the Building Review Board of the City of Fort Collins, hereafter referred to as the Board. When an appeal under the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Code for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Uniform Code for Building Conservation, The Rental Housing Code and Housing Standards, Contractor Licensing Regulations or the National Fire Code as adopted by the City of Fort Collins has been brought before the Board for one or more of the following reasons: When specific materials required under the Building Code to determine the suitability of alternate kinds of materials, when specific kinds of constructions are required under the Building Code or Fire Code, determine the suitability of alternate types of construction, when the director of Neighborhood Services, Neighborhood and Building Services has disapproved any application made to him pursuant to the Building Codes, When the director has refused to grant a permit applied for under the Building Codes, when it is claimed that the provisions of the Building Code, Licensing Regulations, or the Fire Code do not apply, when the director has disapproved a Contractor License application submitted in accordance with the Licensing Regulations, when an exam waiver is requested by a Contractor License Applicant pursuant to the Licensing Regulations, when it is claimed that the true Intent and meaning of the provisions of the Building Code, Licensing Regulations or Fire Code have been misconstrued or wrongly Interpreted, when a variance from the literal terms of the Building Codes, Licensing Regulations or Fire Code has been requested. That would also apply to todays um Rental Housing Code issue. Hearings are conducted pursuant to the laws of the state of Colorado and the City of Fort Collins. The Board Chair Person or active Chair Person will reside over the hearing in accordance with the adopted rules and procedures. The Chair Person may limit discussion to what is deemed relevant and further he or she may impose reasonable time limits for presenting such information. All um decisions made today are appeal able to Gty Council and evidence presented 1 today and most issues will have to be presented fully and only those issues that are presented today and all the evidence presented today will be appeal able to the City Council. Felix. Felix Lee: This would be um actually the first um case of the Residential um, um Housing Code ever for the Building Review Board and um I want to take a moment just um, um to introduce It, but first um try to sift out the protocol and uh, uh Paul has agreed to help with the process and advise you about the procedures and your authority in this case. So it's uh, Because it didn't exactly fit in the typical hearing procedures as outlined by the Chair today, um we uh, uh used a model in the City Code base for appeals to City Council by a decision maker, so it's a template that was used and it seemed to make the most sense and uh I think all of you and I assume the appellant and the applicant who I believe are both here have seen that and understand. We will briefly go through that. Firstly uh, um that is Identified as modified procedures for the Building Review Board Hearing Appeals of the Rental Housing Standards. That document is dated December 13"' of last yea, so there are some definitions there about who's who and the process. That would be me representing the City as the Neighborhood and Building Services Director and as the Building Official as the decision maker who made the decision that is being appealed. The appellant is the individual and adjacent property owner of the subject property in question who is appealing to you today seeking a reversal of my decisions and the applicant is the owner of the property the subject property in question. Um in terms of new evidence and there is a provision about new evidence not being admissible, but because there was no other hearing before this time, as I understand it, evidence, any new evidence can be presented at this time. Is that correct? Paul Eckman: Well, the rule that we have would prohibit that, but since we didn't really have a hearing to start with and we've had evidence kind of trickling in over time, it seems to me that it would be best if, if both the appellant and the applicant and the staff agree that for today's hearing any evidence that any party would like present to the Board should be admitted, but after that, if this hearing, if this decision is appealed to the City Council then of course this record that is made today Is what goes to the City Council. Now if anyone objects to that either the appellant or the applicant I'd certainly like to hear that. I don't see any objection to that. Is there sir?Can you come down to the microphone? Board Member: And if you would Identify yourself sir. Peter Schultz: Good afternoon Board. My name is Peter Schultz. I am the appellant in this case. The point I was trying to make with Mr. Eckman here is, due to the, due to the length of this dialogue that I have embarked upon with the City starting back in October of 2006, um I would like to consider all material that has been brought to your attention, not just at this hearing, should be appeal able to the City Council. Paul Eckman: Well, if I was proposing that, you have a packet before you that 2 is evidence that you can certainly consider. If there is anything in addition to that, that any party would like to present I was thinking that the Board could be more liberal and accept it. Although If there is objection to that or if that gets complicated then perhaps what we ought to do is just base it upon the evidence that you have in your packets and prohibit new evidence just as the rule prohibits. Peter Schultz: I feel that's only the fair way to proceed. Paul Eckman: Very well, there will be no new evidence presented then, beyond what has already been considered and given to you in your packets. You can make argument off of that evidence, but no new evidence should be presented. Peter Schultz: Fair enough. Felix Lee: Ok, um thanks for that clarification. So in terms of the process then, I will begin with an introduction about uh and offer any information and evidence um, um that has been, that you should have In your packet already, but I will highlight that and you are free y to ask questions about any or all of that at any time. I will also present a witness who was onsite and met with the uh, uh applicant onsite who also has met with the appellant in conference. Um, and following my opening and presentation um the appellant um will present his argument and any party in interest in support of the appellant. And then the next opportunity would be for the party in interest um who is an opponent of the appeal um and then the next step this, I am following the outline on um page four that procedural document um which actually is a recitation of section 2-56, so that's the process we will follow Mr. Chair today. And then following the presentation of a argument of a party in interest who is an opponent of the appeal, there Is also an opportunity of a rebuttal presentation by the appellant and any party in support of the appeal. And then finally a rebuttal presentation by any party in interest who is an opponent of the appeal and following that will be a motion discussion and a vote by uh the Board. So uh does that engender any questions or comments on anybody's part? Paul Eckman: I might add that, that as Felix said, he goes first, Mr. Schultz goes next along with his supporters, Ms. Bolton goes next along with her supporters, then, there is rebuttal on each side. Finally you get to deliberate. No one can cross examine anyone. You may ask questions of uh anyone that you would like, including Felix, or me or any witness or anyone that is testifying to you. Not so much In the context of witnessing, but rather making argument as we have already discussed, argument off of evidence that you have in your packets that has been presented to you by either the appellant or by Felix or by the opponents of the appeal that you already have received. Uh your vote should be one to either uphold uh Felix's decision to overturn it or to modify it. Uh, you can remand the matter back to Felix, but uh in, in the context of you think he denied them a fair hearing, but as I understand it, from what I have read of the notice of the appeal, it is not a question of a fair hearing, it Is a question of whether he properly interpreted the code and that's not a remand able matter. 3 You could remand it back to Felix if you thought he needed more information to make his decision, but again I think all of the parties are here hope, hoping that you will make a decision yourself rather than to remand. But I will wait to hear the, argument on that. Um the one of the issues before the Board is kind of a threshold issue as to what your jurisdiction is. Uh and so after you have had a chance to hear the argument of the appellant about, uh no doubt of that and other things, I will be happy to help you uh explore the question of the extent and nature of your jurisdiction in this, in this appeal. Thank you. Felix Lee: Excuse me. With that I will offer my presentation and arguments and uh, uh witnesses that um support that. So um, in, in that interest, I've, I have prepared a draft or uh, uh a Flow chart of the appeal and a chronology that I hoped would help guide you through the decision making process and offer the information um, without actually reciting that verbatim I will probably just uh stick to excerpts of that and respond to any questions you have and then. Yes, everybody and Mr. Schultz you should have gotten that I believe. Great. As well as the uh, uh applicant. P Paul Eckman: It's called at the to of the a it says A al Hearin before P page Ys PPe 9 o e the Building Review Board" dated December 21, 2006. Next line says appellant Peter Schultz. The next line, Subject premises, property 505 Locust. Do you have It?And all the members of the Board also have that? Felix Lee: Good. Its, it's a map, it's a template, its not a, it's not etched In uh granite. It's merely and effort to uh sort out the Issues as I saw them. So uh, the issue really is um, um and again without reading the chronology, uh, uh the summary chronology kind of outlines the exchange of phone calls and memos and notices to correct and actions that have occurred throughout the process. And I guess I don't intend to spend a lot of time on those specific things other than as you have questions about them. So to get to the salient point of uh of the issues and arguments um as I see them, I am gonna to skip to the Appellants basis for the appeal as, as I understand them and certainly the appellant uh can argue and uh, uh embellish those as, as he sees fit. So the thing that triggered this meeting is, is the notice of appeal uh dated December 9, 2006. Paul Eckman: That also is in your packet. Felix Lee: And yes. And if you have any questions about that, we will certainly elaborate. I am sorry. What did I say? I am sorry it is November 9, 2006. I stand corrected. It is correct in the uh, in the uh evidentiary uh packet. So the appellant asserts the following issues, that more than unrelated occupants all of whom are not related, are living or were living In the, what the appellant believes to be a single family dwelling, which Is not legally allowed to house more than three unrelated adults under current and, under current City Land Use regulations. And even though the Zone District does allow two family dwellings (duplexes), uh neither City records Building Permit records III say, City Building Permit records nor County uh Assessor records uh have information Indicating 4 the building is a duplex. It's listed, still listed as a single family dwelling with the County records. The appellant uh asserts that the respondents being uh myself and staff have erroneously determined that the subject premise, premises is a legal existing duplex without the benefit of requiring a building permit for such conversion and the creation of a second dwelling unit, with the attendant uh current fees as they are um required as of today. And that we staff have in- properly allowed certain alterations, such as the installation of stairwell handrail, smoke alarms and wiring and basement um and enlargement of egress windows on the lower quote unit, which is currently the basement and that the respondents we have in-properly not required the installation of fire rated barriers and of the applicable permit. So from that position, Um I on behalf am representing staff and uh myself as the Building Official, by, by ordinance I am authorized to adopt administrative rules, procedures and policies, including the administration of issuing and requiring building permits, determining when a change of use of a building occurs as described. And I list some detail here. And these are excerpts out of the various sections of the City Code or um Building Codes. The Rental Housing Standards do have a provision in there to provide um again re-stipulating that the authority to adopt and promulgate rules and regulations consisted with the provisions of the article to interpret and implement provisions of the article and to secure the intent. And uh, the, the currently ado pted International Residential um BuildingCode authorizes and directs h to enforcement of the code. And this is the code that would be applicable, the Building Code that would be applicable for this building, and the Building Official shall have authority to render interpretations again about policies, procedures and clarify the applications of its provisions, etc, and such policies with the intent and purpose of this code, keeping conformance with that uh intent and that such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code being the uh International Residential Code, the Building Code. A argument that I present to the Board is that your privy is limited in certain respects. I have identified in some of that correspondence and as excerpted below in uh in the further in this document. In Paul's letter of memo of October 27t' to Rick uh asserting that the appellant in this has no standing to appeal the provisions of the City Building Code to the Building Review Board and that the Building Review Board is empowered to hear appeals of the City Building Code relating to it's administration is not empowered to do that, uh under chapter one of the Building Code. And uh I list what chapter one contains there in the Building Code and that's the administration organization enforcement and modifications alternate materials, designs and methods of construction, um permits, application fees and inspections and use, change use and certificate of occupancy. And then I recite uh, and I think this uh will be, I hope informational if not Instructional for the parties and interest and the Board, is that, is that uh this is when the Building Review Board does have purview over the Building Code. When a Building permit applicant or a holder of the building permit, desires relief from any decision of the Building Official related to enforcement of this code accept as otherwise limited in section 105.4, such Building Permit applicant, Building Permit holder or representative thereof may appeal the decision of the Building Official to the Board stating that such decision by the Building Official was based on an erroneous Interpretation of the Building 5 Regulations, furthermore the Building Review Board shall have no authority with the respect to any of the following functions: The administration of the Code, that being the Building Code, waiving the requirements of this code accept as provided pursuant of section 105.105, modifying the applicable provisions of or granting of variances to this code or approving the use of alternate designs, alternate materials and or alternate methods of construction except as provided in this section. Based upon specific appeal from a determination or decision of the Building Official on individual case basis and for modifying this again Is no authority, interpreting or ruling on the applicability and the intent of the Zoning and Land Use Regulations or other laws of the City accept as expressly empowered otherwise. So in conclusion um, um of my opening argument, as the uh as the designated uh official decision maker In the eyes of the City Code, I have determined that it is reasonable to infer that the subject premises was more likely than not used as a duplex by on or before the late 1960's, which Is well before the City imposed capital improvement expansion fees or parkland fees. This was obtained from um, uh the search of documents um that historic documents that are form the Historic Preservation Office, that are um have a reverse listings and um offer some insight as to the likelihood of the occupancy. And one of these listings attributed the uh, the widowed owner of the dwelling unit in question, the subject property, 505 Locust and uh attributed a phone line to that owner/occupant and another line to uh two CSU students. And again I maintain that at this time It's reasonable to conclude that the lower apartment dwelling could have been a dwelling, another dwelling unit for some time. And it was it could have likely provided some income for that uh widowed owner of the building. And permits uh may have been issued, maybe not. Our records, as been uh, as you may have read in this material earlier, are not necessarily complete. The records have been moved around to several places along the decades of um, uh the City's uh offices locations. So um based on uh based on that, I determine that the, the that the building is, has been an existing If not legal duplex, but has been a duplex for many years prior um and likely prior to the uh the occupancy and ownership of uh, of the next owner, that um provided a letter indicating her um assertion that the property was single family when she took possession in the 70's I believe. In any case uh, um after reviewing the appellants um materials and the requirements initially imposed on the applicant to make certain corrections, um particularly with respect to the egress out of the lower dwelling unit, um I felt it was important that this comply fully with the Rental Housing Standards and uh not be modified. Uh it was earlier authorized, uh authorized by Mike Gebo of, of my department, in the interest of uh providing some interim egress to uh put a step in front of the egress window to allow uh easier egress in, in the event of an emergency. And I uh rescinded that and insisted on full compliance with the Rental Housing Standards or um current standards. Um, the uh, and certainly uh the handrail installation of the handrail to the lower unit Uh the installation of the smoke alarms as alleged um by the appellant were authorized without a permit. Um it was considered minor work and its uh an unwritten policy that work of that caliber as long as it's provided and performed by a licensed electrician, we will accept that and without a 6 i permit. And the uh in the earlier part, I mention about the fire rated separation, between the dwelling units, that is certainly a current modern requirement. As of the uh adoption of the Intemational Residential Code in 2005, but it certainly is not retroactive. Those provisions uh the Building Codes are not retroactive unless they are specific uh in that case. I guess this is a question I have Paul, um I have an update on the status of that permit and that work. Is that new evidence? Paul Eckman: Hmm, hmm Felix Lee: Ok. I will refrain. So in summary, um I maintain there Is no standing uh, uh for the appellant to appeal to you any particular administrative matters referenced in the City Building Code and stipulated as actions, which are the subject of this appeal and which are contained in the appellants, notice of appeal. The unspecified appropriate fees, which are located under the administrative provisions of the City Codes, Building Codes as such, are explicitly precluded from the BRB's purview as referenced In earlier citations. Further I contend that uh you are not in a position to hear on appeal of this case, the, the criteria and you are only allowed to hear in this case the criteria limited to the provisions of article 5 division 2, the Rental Housing Standards and um the sections 276 through um 5-276 through 5-314, which deals specifically with Rental Housing Habitability and Safety Standards. Um, so with that, I would like uh to call Mike Gebo to the podium here and Mike if you would for the record, introduce yourself. Mike Gebo: My name is Michael William Gebo, I am the Codes and Inspections Administrator for the Neighborhood and Building Services Department, working with and for Felix. Felix Lee: And if you would Mike, um would you describe your, your visits on the site and, and basically a general description of what you observed and um the process and uh, uh. Mike Gebo: Yes um. I'm the Administrator for the Rental Housing Code. And there are many times uh, usually what will happen is a renter will call having concerns or problems with heating, electric, plumbing, those types of issues and they will call our office requesting an Inspection um to satisfy the Rental Housing Ordinance, which is one of the codes that we enforce. This particular case um a, a complaint was, was sent on through the City Manager's Office that came down towards us and uh at that time, I was trying to identify whether this is a duplex, single family, how many people are really trying to live there and at that point, I made contact uh with the Owner, Ms. Bolton and requested that she answer some questions of mine. How is this being used? What is the purpose of this building, because the complaint was alleging more than three unrelated in the building. I was informed at that time that this is a duplex. It's an over/under duplex. It's in the part of town that has, has many over/under duplexes throughout that part and with that Information, my next step is to go to the Zoning Department and find out whether or not Zoning allows over/under 7 . .. _..._. . duplexes In that, for that address. We actually look address specific. I can have an over/under duplex allowed on one side of the street and something different on the other side of the street so it's always address specific that we look at. Uh Zoning did return yes. It has always been allowed to be a duplex ever since time and memoriam. That can be, that certainly answered that question clearly. Sometimes it gets gray and cloudy when, yes it was allowed. No it's not allowed now, the zone changed for some reason, but in this case it was very clear Zoning has always allowed that to be duplex. Uh In contact with Ms. Bolton she uh, uh certainly Indicated this has been a duplex for many, many years and at that time, I offered, that well what I would like to do is come out and do an inspection of the, of the property so that we can ascertain for ourselves the condition of the property and whether It complied with the Rental Housing. When we start looking at duplexes, we have certain concerns. The air distribution if it's a warm air furnace system. I don't want air circulating from one unit to another unit. I do have cases where uh an owner will say that it has been a duplex forever. Well, Zoning is the first half. If that has been allowed, now I have to satisfy the Rental Housing Code for life, health and safety so we will get on site and try to determine, first of all the forced air heating system. In this address this is a closed hot water heat system so yes I have one system, but it's, It's a closed system. I am not circulating um tuberculosis from one family to another family, say because it is a closed system. That's allowable. Um there is nothing In the Rental Housing that talks about separate electric meters or separate gas meters, so I can have single meters for all of these units. What I do look at is the condition of the rental that I am In concern with. I am not concerned with the upstairs unit so much, because that was always a house. It's the basement. When was the basement converted into a second dwelling, so that's what we were focusing on when we did our inspection and um I had uh my Inspector who does these now, go out and take a look at it and he informed me that it was missing smoke detectors, so we required those. Uh He informed that the windows in the bedrooms were really kind of small windows and that um smoke detectors would be appropriate. Where we, where we neglected I think on the Inspection part, is recognizing that the windows were too small for that section. This is, this is the piece that Felix rescinded um. So we required, let's get electric smoke detectors um, let's provide uh code compliant today, egress windows. The, the condition of the unit is very old. I have been in a lot of houses, a lot of old rental houses and you, you do pick up a sense, well, is this something in the last ten years, twenty years, thirty years? When we start get back 30, 40 or 50 years there is really um, not so much a condition, but it's very, very old stuff. It's old flooring, it's the old tile flooring, its old bathroom fixtures and In this case, I am very convinced that this Is very old. This is 40, 50 years old easily. It's nothing that's within the last couple of centuries, couple of decades. Couple of centuries I should hope. Not within the last couple of decades, because that's you know you don't have avocado green ten years ago. You know that was 20, 30 or 40 years ago so that's old. In my opinion It's very old um. We, we did do some. My process is to identify whether Zoning allows it. If Zoning allows it, I move on. Check my files, check our City files. What do we have for documents that might address um any permits? Did we ever issue any permits that talked about 505.5 as an address or 505 1/2? Did we ever talk in our files about any 8 duplex use, and in this case, no. Um we do check Larimer County records and the house was was Constructed back in the 1930 s um. I I know doing a number of these over/under duplexes, that uh after World War II, there was a lot of City involvement in helping create housing for the returning soldiers. In a lot of these over/under duplexes were converted. We have no record of that. There is just nothing in our file that goes back passed um 1965. So if I have Zoning that said yes it is allowed to be a duplex, always has been, there is not a time frame for when that happened it always has been allowed and I tried to satisfy the life, health and safety requirements for Rental Housing. The forced air system, the egress window, we checked the electric, we checked the plumbing to make sure we are not leaking, to make sure it's in good sound condition and then I generally put a document Into the file so that my predecessor ten years from now, is not back at the same address trying to identify when and how and where was this a duplex um, so that's the file that we documented. I did declare it a legal duplex after um corrections were made um. We did actually do um further research, which I will probably use from now on, but further research from the Historical folks doing reverse phone lines and uh very convincing, I think that there were dual phone lines back in the early 60's. In, in my understanding of phone lines, that was probably pretty expensive back in the early 60's, because every house maybe only had one phone line, not two phone lines, but regardless there is multiple names. There's, other names not part of this family in that basement so uh with that I am pretty convinced that it, its been a duplex since the early 60's based on the age of, of the materials that are used in that lower level and just the general shape of it. It's very old. It's my opinion and that was, that was the process by how we get to determining whether It's a duplex or a single family, was it converted recently that we should have known about it um. Some of them are very easy. The Certificate of Occupancy was issued and it's right there and it`s a single family, always been a single family, never allowed to be a duplex. Those are really very easy. It's these that I cant go back far enough. What do I start doing then? Then I start best understanding of the records that we have. We move forward. Felix Lee: You're done Mike? Mike Gebo: I am if. Felix Lee: Now is the opportunity for... I forgot my own order here. So the um Mr. Schultz, it's your opportunity uh to offer your information uh that's uh no new Information or evidence. Peter Schultz: Fair enough. Good afternoon. Thank you for having me. I appreciate you taking the time to hear my story. Um, let's see. Where do I want to start? Um first of all, it all started as a result of what I believe to be a case of over occupancy in a neighboring home and I contacted the City and I said that there was four people living, and I called the Assessor's Office and the City's Office and they assured me that the house next door to me was a single family dwelling. Um prior to purchasing my home as part of my due diligence, I had also contacted the Assessor's Office and the City of Fort Collins and was 9 reiterated again that the house next door at that point in time was considered on record a single family dwelling. Um I contacted the City of Fort Collins, in July of 2006 saying I have a simple case of over occupancy. They are violating the occupancy limit. Um At which point, Mr. Gebo contacted the property owner and the property owner um gave some verbal statement to the fact that this home has always been a duplex. Um and I refute that. Um so basically what It boils down to here today, is the City is allowing the single family residence next door to mine, to be grand fathered if you will, 22 years retroactively. Um I would like to reiterate today that, the record contains no evidence prior to, prior to 1965, let alone 1958 that, that this was ever a duplex. Um and I think it is dangerous for us to Infer that it was a duplex in 1965, based on the evidence that it, that it had never been a duplex or recorded as such with the County Assessor's Office or with the City Building Department. Now bear in mind I have been in my home since 2000 and when I first moved In, there was a single couple living in the home. To the best of my knowledge, there was nobody in the basement and that was for the first three years so initially I believed it to be a single family dwelling. Um Subsequent to the dialogue that we created with the City regarding my complaint, um I was able to track down a neighbor of mine, who had lived across the street from the years of 1970 to 2004. Her name Geisl Adriggers. Um Geist Adriggers was employed by the Larimer County's Assessor's Office. She moved out of the house that she resided in, in 1984. Um I was able to join, to visit her at her place of residence, which is an assisted living facility and she wrote the following letter, which I submitted to Mr. Gebo and it says if I may: To whom it may concern, I lived at 516 Locust St, from 1970 to, until 2004. I worked for the Larimer County Assessor's Office from 1965 to 1992. The house at 505 Locust was a single family residence up until 1984 and was occupied by Dorothy Evans. The home was occupied by Dorothy Evans from the time I moved in, until the time the house was sold In 1984 to its current owner. While I lived, while I lived there 505 was not a rental or a duplex property. I just find this somewhat interesting. I also have um a recorded documents search. It's an archive data, indicating that Ms. Dorothy Evans sold the house to Ms. Gene Bolton in 1984 and subsequently bought a retirement condo at Rangeview Retirement Village Condominium Complex also In 1984. So today and I will try and keep it short, the basis for my appeal is one, more than three adult occupants, all of which are not related are living In what I believe to be a single family dwelling, which was also reiterated to me via the records of the City and the County Assessor's Office. Um this is not legally allowed to house more than three unrelated Individuals under current and upcoming City Land Use Code regulations. Now bear In mind, I understand that the Zone allows a duplex. I don't have a problem with that. No problem what so ever. Um however in this case, the subject premises allows two family dwellings, i.e.: duplexes, but neither the City Building Department records have found to date, nor the County Assessor's records can corroborate that the subject premises is in fact a legal 10 duplex. It is also my further, my further contention that the Building Department of Fort Collins, has erroneously determined that the subjects premises is a legal existing duplex, without requiring the benefit of a building permit for such conversion and creation of a second dwelling unit, including assessment of current applicable development fees. Number four: The City Building Department has improperly allowed certain alterations, such as the installation of a stairwell, installation of the smoke alarms, associated electrical wiring and the enlargement of the basement egress windows, without permits. Um I concede to Mr. Lee that the fire rated barriers are not applicable in this particular situation. After our initial meeting with the City Attorney's Office, I thought it might be interesting to pay a visit to the Assessor so I went to the Assessor and I told him that I owned a single family dwelling and I wanted to convert it into a duplex and I asked them how I went about doing so. The following Information was given to me: According to the Larimer County Assessor's Office, In order to change a single, single family occupancy Into a duplex, a permit is required. Once the permit is pulled and a letter of completion is, is forthcoming, it is subject to a City Review if the zone allows, which In this case, the zone certainly allows. So what this really boils down to in this case is, and if I may quote um "I have the building permit exemptions 2003 International Residential Codes section R105.2 revised in November 10, 2005. The following shall apply to single family duplex and property line town houses: Permits shall not be required for the following, buildings, structures or alterations, thereto listed below: Exemptions from the permit requirements of the this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or the laws or the ordinances of the City. Number 9 under this particular code, window awnings on group are: division 3 and group U, occupancies, projecting not more than 54". Fine, that Is not an issue here, however what Is an issue is, window replacement requiring no structural alteration and when such work is determined to not be historically significant. So what I am asking the Board here today Is to require a building permit and require the current home owner to pay the necessary development fees as of today. The convert, the upgrading of this particular property to meet the Rental Housing Standard was just done within the last 60 days. Clearly via the information that I have gotten from the Building Department exemptions, whenever there is a structural alteration, regarding the installation of a new window, In this case the egress windows for the basement shall apply. And that's the basis of my argument gentlemen. Felix Lee: No, I don't believe I have the opportunity to cross examine. Paul Eckman: You might inquire if there are any other persons here who are in 11 support of the appellant, who would also like to make argument. If not then you could move on to those who are opposed to the appeal. I don't see any. You can move then, to those who might be opposed to the appeal. Peter Schultz: Thank you for your time. Board Member: When will we have time for questions? Paul Eckman: After you have heard the next argument and then I would think, give the folks opportunity for rebuttal and after the conclusion of all of that, then you can inquire of anybody with questions. Board Member: Alright. Thank you. Elizabeth Carney: Good afternoon. I am Elizabeth Carney and I represent Gene Bolton, the owner of the property at issue. Um, I, I first of all would like to compliment all of you on your patience and the diligence of the staff in tackling this issue. Um and just very briefly, I would urge this Board to um consider the depth of investigation that the staff has gone into and their special knowledge of these issues. They see this stuff day in and day out and, and um trust their judgment on this issue. Ms. Bolton purchased this property in 1983 as a duplex. It was listed in the commercial, in the commercial section of the MLS. It was being used as a duplex at the time she purchased It and now we have additional information that as far, as far back as the late, early 60's there were several phone lines going in and it's hard for us to remember now, but It used to be really odd for more than one phone line to go into a house so the fact that there were different phone lines, suggest that there different residents upstairs and downstairs and that in fact is the case as reported by the woman that Ms. Bolton purchased the property from: Um certainly she is willing to upgrade the property to make it safe for the health and safety issues. That's not. She is not saying she doesn't need to do that. She is just saying that it has been a duplex a long time. Um, she is using it as a duplex and keeping it well maintained and is willing to make the um required changes that Mr. Felix requested. Um and I think In the interest of not over burdening a property owner who is really trying to do the best she can with her unit here in Fort Collins, um you should reject this appeal. Also I, I am not sure other than a letter from a neighbor and that letter didn't say that the neighbor had ever been inside this house. Um that Is the only piece of Information that we have in, um on the other side of the table to suggest that this was not always a duplex. So I think the overwhelming um weight of the evidence, balances on the side of a finding that this inconsistence with Mr. Lee is finding, that this was always a duplex. Although the health and safety issues need to be dealt with and they have been, um beyond that we can leave it alone. Thank you. Gene Bolton: I am Gene Bolton and I would like th speak on my own behalf thank you. Um it, this is uh as you know an under/over duplex and there are hundreds of them in these neighborhoods and they were all probably converted very dose to the time that this one was. If most of you aren't old enough to 12 remember what happened right after the second World War and during the second World War, I mean housing came to a stand still, along with cars and everything else and people had no place to live and so lots of really um, lots of old houses got converted and this, this um problem or this process of bringing property owner's, who in good faith are doing everything they can to provide some, cost effective housing in Fort Collins, through the process, through this process that I have just been brought through. I think is, is not up to the standards of Fort Collins. Um I had that property since 183, `84 and I couldn't ask for a better cooperation from the City from all of their, from the Utilities, to the Building people, etc and so this really surprises me. Um it uh, It isn't up to the, the City's normal standards. Thank you. Felix Lee: So I believe Mr. Schultz has the opportunity to rebut. Peter Schultz: Um in response to the previous testimony, Um I have an, I have the listing from the property when Ms, when Mrs. Bolton bought the property and I just want to point out, and it, It should be part of the record, it should be part of the information package I believe. It says um "regarding 505 Locust, at the point in time in 1982 when Ms. Bolton bought the property, it says, beautiful old neighborhood, excellent rental potential, potential as an up and down double. And then It also says in parentheses "last 32 years owner occupied% Um so, I just think that might shed some light. The other thing I would like to point out, Mrs. Bolton has owned this property since 1982. Um and I feel that the only reason that the corrections are being made, is because she got caught. Um, she got caught violating the Rental Housing Code, he three person limit and now as a result of my complaint, her property does meet code, but I implore you to require that a permit be pulled and the necessary fees be Imposed. Thank you for your time. Felix Lee: Um cross rebuttal there, on. Paul Eckman: Now you have your opportunity to ask questions. Board Member: Thank you. Board Member. Should these questions be limited to Items already In evidence or can these be a little be wider ranging than that? Paul Eckman: Well, I think you ought to uh ask questions on the evidence you've already heard, uh but you have also heard a lot of argument and the, so I would think that your questions are already opened for a fairly broad spectrum based upon the argument you have heard. Uh if you have any questions of Felix, you may do that. You can ask me questions uh or you can ask anyone who spoke to you uh questions. Board Member: Thank you. Well, I have a question for Felix. When did the City adopt its first Building Code? 13 Felix Lee: 1922 Board Member: What code was that? Felix Lee: The City of Fort Collins, Building Code Board Member: So it was a City code? Felix Lee: Yes Board Member: Ok. Board Member: Felix um, I am confused which isn't unusual but there is reference in here as a permit to convert. Is there such a thing or is the permit to complete structural modification? Felix Lee: Well, there's a, a building permit implies some modification of the building. Board Member: OK but is there a certificate that's issued that says you have entered into a process to convert this to a rental unit. Felix Lee: No Board Member: Ok Board Member. The home now, In its entirety, Is It in compliance? Felix Lee: I believe so. I defer to my colleague, but um a permit was obtained and it's in compliance with the Rental Housing Standards as of today. Paul Eckman: I believe Mr. Schultz testified to that effect, that it is in compliance now with the uh Rental Housing Code. Board Member: Felix, if I were to hard wire alarms into my home, would I need a permit? Felix Lee: Um typically our policy Is, if you are not, as long as you are not adding new circuits. Board Member: Ok. Thank you. Board Member: Uh Felix, does not a fire uh smoke detector system require its own circuit? Felix Lee: Um help me with that one Mike. I am not the electrician. Mike Gebo: That's ok. I am an old electrician. Currently it does not require its 14 own separate dedicated circuit. You can tie smoke detectors into an existing circuit that serves lighting, outlets. What it does say, is that smoke detectors must be interconnected amongst themselves, so Its not necessarily requiring a separate breaker to house those smoke detectors, but you can go from one smoke detector to another smoke detector as long as they all signal together. They draw very little, um the actual devices so a separate circuit by itself is not required. Board Member: The appellant made several references to structural issues revolving around the required permit. Were there structural issues involved with the permit that was issues and was it issued in error? Mike Gebo: No, no it was not Issued In error. The, the permit that was Issued was for enlarging uh existing windows so to bring it into compliance with egress. Uh the existing windows were wide enough, that we did not need to structurally widen the opening. We certainly cut down. We cut down, technically its, it's an alteration to the foundation system, which we had someone (an engineer) take a look at as a part of our permit process, but structurally it dldnt widen any headers and change any load paths down through the building. Board Member. What kind of uh fixtures were installed there? You mentioned refrigerator, which is fairly real easily Interchangeable. What kind of cabinets were in that existing lower lever duplex? Mike Gebo: Cabinets? Board Member: Where I am coming from, quite often older installations had like a metal cabinet that you could pick up rather than a wooden. Mike Gebo: I couldn't address that. The sense being in there is that this has been here for some time. I didn't pay attention to detail as to even colors of fixtures, but it, it just, it, I believed it to be old, but to tell you specifically what was In there, I could not do that. Board Member: Um When we refer to a dwelling unit, does it not require that there be a kitchen and that is defined as having sinks and stoves and so on and so forth, uh doesn't get into modem day stuff, but when you go back and look at historical records it does refer to stoves and sinks. Does this unit have those Items? Mike Gebo: Yes it does. Board Member. Ok Board Member: Um Mr. Gebo, um you might be able. I think I know the answer, but you can probably help me out with this. Uh the electrical panels are supposed to be accessible by all tenants right? 15 Mike Gebo: Yes Board Member: Are there two panels there or one? Mike Gebo: Uh, I don't believe there is two panels. I think. I don't know where the panels are. When we talk about, required to be accessible by the tenants, there is a number of ways that can be done. If the panel is in the lower unit, there could be an agreement with the upper unit that they can go down and turn the breaker on, so accessibility, Is you can achieve that in, in a number of different ways whether It's, it's down here and everybody has access to that, Its in a hallway that's common to everybody. Um I do not know where the location of this panel is. Board Member: Ok um so maybe I can ask the owner. Gene Bolton: Uh the breaker panel is inside the back door at ground level uh where the, the basement unit is accessed and just uh three feet from it is a door from the kitchen of the upstairs unit. Board Member: So it Is a common area to both? Common to both uh Gene Bolton: It's a landing area. Board Member. Upper and lower? Ok thank you. Board Member: I have a question for the appellant. Um there is some contradictory information in your letter to the Mayor dated September 28, 2006, in which you allege that the violation has occurred for five years, but in another section you claim that owner has violated this regulation for 22 years, which seemed to Indicate to me, that you have known that it was a duplex all along for the 22 year time period puts it into a very much different code condition, than what the International Residential Code is today. Peter Schultz: I am sorry, can you rephrase the question? Board Member: Well, you have alleged in one place that for the last five years she has exceeded the occupancy limits but in paragraph two, the bottom of that page to the Mayor on September 28"', you allege that she has broken the law for the passed 22 years, which would indicate that when she purchased the building or at least very shortly thereafter, it was, was already a duplex or she converted it to a duplex, 22 years ago uh. Peter Schultz: It is my contention that she converted the duplex when she bought it. Board Member: Well, that would, that would indicate that it has been a duplex for at least the last 22 years if not further, which probably puts It into an area which, I don't know why we would be considering this at this point. 16 Peter Schultz: I think, I think we are loosely using the term duplex. Um it might have been utilized as a duplex, but it wasn't utilized as a duplex in a legal fashion in that It did not meet code. So I mean, you can call it a duplex if four people live there and there is two entrances, one in the front and one in the back and if a realtor calls it a duplex, that doesn't necessarily, according to the standards with the City of Fort Collins, make It in fact a duplex. Board Member: Well I can recall living in boarding houses when I was in college, back in the 60's and early 70's that probably technically didn't have any record in the City or the County as being a Boarding House, but had lower level rooms converted Into sleeping rooms with absolutely Illegal egress and, and other requirements, didn't make it any less of a boarding house. Peter Schultz: Certainly Board Member. Um I, I don't disagree with you, that there is probably a ton of properties in Fort Collins, that dont meet the requirements of the Code for a multi-family living. Um I am not sure that our um Building Department is capable of policing every uh unit that exists in this Gty that is being used as a rental. Uh one thing that I do know, is that as soon as um a request for um construction or reconstruction on a home has um, um has been, has been applied for, um that all of the then current codes would fall Into a position of compliance. Um one of the things that I have been extremely impressed with, with our Building Department uh over the last five or so years that I have been on this board, is that it's hard to change a door in this town without getting caught and so I applaud the Building Department for that. I also applaud neighbors who find themselves subject to um, to uh existing rules or laws that are being violated and its, Its critical that you bring those to our attention, uh to the to the City's attention so that we can deal with those. Um, so It's a community effort. Peter Schultz: Right. I, I believe in, I believe I am a part of the neighborhood in which I live and for me, I feel it's my duty to stand up when I feel that something is detrimental to the health and safety and welfare of not only my home, but my neighbors homes as well. Board Member: I, I applaud you for that. Peter Schults: I appreciate that. Board Member: Um one of the things that I want to, us to focus on if we can right now, is that um, um our position is always dealing with the life, health and safety of the citizens of the community as it relates to housing and, and um living conditions and um so my, my position on the Board really into um is to ask the City, does this residents currently meet the full requirements of the Building Code as it applies to um the age and conditlon of this particular residents and um so I guess I would like Felix for you to, to respond to me and tell me whether that is the case or not. 17 Felix Lee: It complies with the Rental Housing Code as an existing duplex in our eyes. Yes Board Member: Ok. Um so therefore upon meeting the requirements uh for a duplex, uh I believe that the existing unit could be considered a duplex. Um and for that reason, I am not quite sure why we are here today because I think your objectives have been met, the City's objectives have been met, the property owner's subjectives have been complied with, um with the City and so um because of that um I think I would have to be, to take to the position that uh I can't support the uh the motion. Peter Schultz: Can I make a comment? Board Member: Yes sir. Peter Schultz: The reason I am here today is, yes it meets, it meets code, but I don't think that it's a level playing field when one individual is not assessed a fee to bring their property up to code. Now surely there should be a, its my belief that the Building Department has a judiciary Interest to the tax, a judiciary duty, to the tax payers and citizens of Fort Collins, ok to generate as much revenue via the building, construction trade in the City of Fort Collins and I feel that in this instance, the Building Department's duty to the tax payers of Fort Collins, has been completely overlooked. Board Member: And I really appreciate your position on that Mr. Schultz and that, it, it plays very plays very well into the letter to the editor type of a statement, but unfortunately this Board is not in a position to be able to dictate to the City, when they will charge a fee for a permit and when they will not so because of that we can't rule on that as a board. We can rule on whether the, the compliance has been met. Peter Schultz: There is no question that it has been met. Board Member: So, with that I have to basically take the position, my position that I can't support the uh, the appeal. Board Member: Felix, presuming this has been a duplex for at least 22 years, which has already pretty much been stipulated to, were there any fees other than those associated with normal process that have not been paid. Felix Lee: Well there are fees other than building permit fees. Um, but those um again Its my belief this is outside the purview of the Building Review Board, about what's because you are not authorized to deal with administrative matters, um but I will say that uh Parkland fees went into effect um sometime around the early 80's, but I, I honestly don't know when they became effective, but they are not building permit fees. They are assessed on new, new dwelling units that are created. 18 Board Member: I think it was '82 or '83 because I remember going "Oh my God how are we going to cover those and costs of multi family construction", so it goes back about that far. Any other questions? Board Member: Yeah. Did I misunderstand, was there not a permit pulled for the egress window? Felix Lee: Correct. Fees were paid and a permit was issued. Board Member: Ok. Thank you. Paul Eckman: Any additional questions?Any additional rebuttal? Peter Schultz: Thanks for your time. Board Member. Is it motion time? Board Member: I would like to make a motion that uh that we deny the appellant uh appellants request that the Building Review Board reverse the interpretations, actions and decisions of the Building Official as stipulated in the appellants notice of appeal received by the City Clerk on November 9, 2006 relating to the subject property. Paul Eckman: Before you vote on that or before there is a second, uh there Is a jurisdictional question that just I feel compelled to raise, since It didn't come up In any of the Board Member's questions and I think in the record you will see a letter from me to Rick Zeer dated October 27, 2006. Uh Rick Is the attorney for Mr. Schultz and in that letter I raised the question of whether this Board has jurisdiction to consider whether or not this Is a legal duplex, because the uh section of the code, section 5-259 that gives this Board jurisdiction to consider uh to provide for final interpretations uh regarding Felix's decisions, has only to due with this Rental Housing Standard. The Housing Standards of article 6 of chapter 5 and as Felix has uh shown you in, in his testimony as well as his written report, the uh, the uh question of the Interpretations that you give under the Uniform Building Code are only for those persons who are either applying for a building permit or who hold a building permit. Folks with building permits or with applications can come to you and argue about his interpretations but citizens generally don't have jurisdiction to come to you and take up your time with that kind of question under the Building Code. So my contention although is not agreed, agreed with by Mr. Schultz or his attorney, Is that your jurisdiction here today is limited and all you can do Is decide is whether or the Rental Housing Code has been complied with, which has to do of course with the egress windows, smoke detectors, banisters and so on. Uh and I think you would be as they say in the legal profession, ultra v rays outside of your jurisdiction to decide whether or not there is a legal duplex on this property or not. I just don'tthink that is for you to decide. I think you can decide whether or not the Rental Housing Code has been complied with or whether Felix properly interpreted the 19 Rental Housing Code enforcing it and uh that's it, however if your inclined toward giving uh, given that this decision could be appealed to the City Council, I would like it not to be appealed on the basis that you exceeded your jurisdiction. Uh on the other hand you have heard an awful lot of testimony from everyone about this question of whether this is a legal duplex. It's been there for, you have heard It's been there since the war, you have heard that it was sold as a single family, you have heard lots of different testimony, you have asked a lot of questions and are obviously into that issue in your, in your exploration today, so um I don't see that there would be anything wrong with you giving some kind of a non binding sense of the Board on that question, but I would recommend that it not be the basis or gravum in of your decision, because I think that the real decision is whether you have jurisdiction or not. Not whether it Is a legal duplex, but at the same time I am sure everyone would appreciate at least your non binding sense of how you would uh feel about that, just in case the City Council would be curious to know that, If this should go to them on appeal. Board Member: Well, I think I would agree with your notion that probably that portion of this is not relevant to our decision making and I think the evidence supports that the previous owner did keep It as a duplex for some time, that she apparently moved a relative in for some time and then for some time thereafter did not rent out the basement, maybe because she was old and infirm and didn't want anybody downstairs that was going to rattle her existence and I think I would agree with the point that we should limit our uh scope in spite of that evidence hadn't been presented to us and City Council wants to look at it, fine and if they don't fine, but I would agree that we need to limit our scope to basically rental housing issues and, and there on. Board Member: Um, before I withdraw my motion. Uh I was interpreting my motion that, I was supporting the decisions of the Building Department in that they uh made their decisions based on the existing Building Code and that this property according to their opinion, met the requirements of the Code for the unit as it's, as It currently exists. I was, I was denying the uh, the appellants request, because of, of the support that I am taking for the decision of the Building Department, so I don't, I am not quite sure Mr. Eckman how to reword that, but my motion is for the support of, of the City of Fort Collins, Building Departments recommendation that this property meets that code. Paul Eckman: I guess as long as. In my view the decision that you, you need to make uh at least in addition to that, If not first and that, I think that, that motion that you are suggesting has to do with whether or not uh the staff has interpreted this as a legal duplex. Whether, there is kind of two arguments. One argument goes well, due to the shortness of life, this is a legal duplex because It's always been treated as such and it ought to just be continued to be. The other is this person has gotten away with this for so many years and now it's time to pay the fee. Those, that seems to be kind of in my mind, the nut shell argument of the two sides of this. Uh and I don't think that Is relevant to your decision, because I don't think you have jurisdiction to decide that. I think you have jurisdiction to decide whether or not the Rental Housing Code has been 20 complied with and that ought to be your official motion, but if you would like to add to It with some supplemental finding of the, of Board that the City Council, if there should be an appeal, might appreciate hearing, I don't see any harm in that, but I don'tthink thWs the decision. That would be sort of a just a sense of the Board about non binding sense. If the Council wants it if not they can throw that in the waste basket. I think the decision should be a jurisdictional one, but that is just my advice to you and you don't, you can make your decision as you please uh, but I felt like I ought to focus try to focus you on the question of whether this Is even within your jurisdiction. Board Member: I would like to withdraw my initial motion and um I would like to resubmit on that, that uh I would make a motion that we would deny, um based on the City of Fort Collin, City of Fort Collins Building Department having met the requirements of the Code as it applies to uh this particular property or residence. Paul Eckman: Of the Rental Housing Code? Board Member: Of the Rental Housing Code. Board Member. Do I hear a second? Board Member: I second. Board Member: Discussion. Board Member: Do we want to state for the record that we're, we are upholding the interpretations of the Building Official regarding this, this matter. Board Member: I think there would be tacit indication that we are upholding that decision because in order for that to meet the requirements of the Rental Housing Code It would have to be an existing duplex In my understanding of how that Code is written. That us approving Felix's decision Is a tacit support for the notion that it doesn't require passing through the Zoning regulations to be converted into a duplex officially by Zoning and then require whatever upgrades were necessary at that point. Is that my understanding? It may be all wet. Board Member: Well that um along with the fact that Mr. Scholtz is not denying that the unit meets, he believes unit meets the requirements of a duplex, based on his understanding of the Code, so I don't think we even have an argument about whether this is a duplex or not . You know. It's whether there should be any additional fees charged and we don't have the capacity to make that. Paul Eckman: I am to understand that the motion that you made, that, that you are denying the appeal based upon the fact that you found that the building complies with the Rental Housing Code. Is it implicit In that motion , I just want to make sure this is on the record, is it implicit in that motion or perhaps can it 21 be made explicit that, that motion Is made on the basis that you feel your jurisdiction is limited to determinations under the Rental Housing Code. Board Member: That is my position Paul Eckman: Okay. Uh then there was this question about what is tacit and what is not and I am sure both sides to this argument would like to know your opinion on that. Um I am trying to think how it would best be communicated without it uh overreaching your jurisdiction. Maybe that's just as good a way as any. Board Member: I would suggest that if we want to make that determination that should just be offered as a support for our decision, but not entered into the decision Itself that maybe that additional information could be provided as backup support. Paul Eckman: And that way everyone who has participated knows what you think about that topic. Board Member: So, that is my motion. Board Member: The next question Is Delynn, how do we effectively impart that additional information outside of the motion to City Council. Should they pre to look at it, which they don't necessarily have to do. Paul Eckman: I think we can break that out in the minutes. Uh, if, of course you might have disagreement amongst the Board Members when you call the roll 9 too, uh and so maybe uh each member that might disagree with that should speak up and then the minutes can reflect as it goes to the Council, but the real decision is based on the motion as I think we have heard It, which is that you are Interpreting solely under the Rental Housing Code and then anything beyond that Is just for information purposes. Board Member: So anybody who wish to make a vote, could put a minority opinion in at that time that there might a disagreement with that notion? Board Member: So, can we move the motion and call for a vote? Yays: Packard, Little, Smiley, Cram, Smith, Gust: Yes, but I am agreeing with the um. I am not sure how to put this. I agree to the motion, but as far as the uh, seeing that It's a duplex by the City, I disagree with that. Board Member: So we basically we had one minority position that doesn't go with the majority of the Board and I guess the case is done. Board Member: Thars it. 22