Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout631 ENDICOTT ST - CORRESPONDENCE - 5/8/2003Community Planning and Environmental Services Building and Zoning Department City of Fort Collins May 8, 2003 Ms. Laurie Strand 1808 Flower Street Apt B Glendale, Calif. 91201 Reference: Storage Shed Permit # BO106650 631 Endicott Street Fort Collins, Colorado Ms. Strand, I am in receipt of your letter dated 5/4/03 expressing your frustrations regarding the installation and inspection of the above referenced shed. I regret that you were subjected to repeated inspections and seemingly un-ending requirements. As a department, my staff does strive to be service motivated. I am constantly stressing that "helpfulness" is a requirement and I'm not sure why your project seemed to be lacking this. Sometimes the simplest of projects can become bogged down in requirements. I will certainly look into the why's of this case. In the meantime, I see no need to hold this project up anymore. Based on the City's files it would appear that you have complied with the installation requirements and I am hereby approving and releasing this project. Enclosed please find the final document needed for your files. The issuance of this LOC closes this permit and is authorization from the City for its use. I would hope that your next experience with the Building Department will be much smoother. Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. With regards, Michael W. Gebo Codes & Inspections Administrator 281 North College Avenue - P.O. Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 - (970) 221-6760 - FAX (970) 224-6134 -?a34 1 of D ��- RECEIVED May 4, 2003 / A7-5 cow MAY 0 � 2003 Dear Mr. Gebo, Re: permit # B0106650 I am writing to you to express my frustration and disappointment in my dealings with the Department on the requirements and inspection on my storage shed and to request, in writing, what more I need to do to get this shed to pass and resolve this problem. I purchased the shed in July of 2001 from Rocky Mountain Storage Barns and was told that since it was under 8 feet tall, I did not need a permit. I greatly regret not having called your office at that time and learning about set -back requirements. After setting the shed I received a letter notifying me that I had violated the setback and giving me three options: (1) get rid of the shed, (2) move the shed further into my property or (3) leave the shed where it is and install fire insulated drywall. Since I have such a small lot I chose to install the drywall. I do not have a copy of this letter and I don't know if the anchoring requirement was listed or not. I did write and call the office to get more information about the drywall and applied for a permit. After getting the permit in October 2001 (which also does not list any anchoring) I had a contractor friend install the fire insulated drywall. He cut it to not block the window. When the shed was inspected June 28, 2002, it failed. I was told at that time that I had to anchor the shed and cover the window. An additional ground for the failure was also the lack of drywall on the alley side. When I went in to the office on August 15, 2002 and spoke with John Esterbrook, that requirement was waived and I affirmed with Mr. Esterbrook that I needed to (1)"rock over the window" and (2) anchor all four comers of the shed. I got my friend to come out again and cover the window. I paid Mark from Storage Barns to come out and anchor the shed. He was able to get the two auger anchors on the north side of the shed in but told me he hit concrete or something hard on the alley side and was not able to get them in. He advised me to call your office and get a waiver. I called in and talked to Kirk Moors. He told me that the requirement would not be waived and I would have to anchor it into the concrete. I asked him how I could do this and he said there were several ways, including bolting into the concrete and using a tie cable. He did not say that I must anchor into concrete with auger anchors, which seems impossible to me. Since Storage Dams was unable or unwilling to do the rest of the work, I hired Handyman Matters to install the last two anchors, the man who did the work was Kevin Hartley. He told me that he had indeed hit concrete and that it was no problem and would pass inspection. That inspection was on Feb 5, 2003. But it didn't pass. This time the comments say it failed because I: (1) covered the window and (2) did not use auger style anchors according to the plans. I am really at a loss to figure out how I am supposed to comply when the Department is either changing the standards or just applying them differently to me. Assuming the anchoring requirement is to keep the shed from blowing over or moving, I also fail to see how anchoring the shed into concrete is somehow worse than the auger anchors that are just drilled into dirt. As far as the window goes, it either needs to be covered or not. Since it has now failed for both reasons, I really don't know which you want. I would like to replace the fence on that side of my property (the fence is horrible) but I hesitate to do anything since I don't know if the shed will ever pass. If I knew this was going to be such a headache, I would not have bought the shed in the first place. As far as I can tell, I have complied with the requirements and the shed should have passed. This has not only been a waste of my time, but also a waste of yours in needing to read this and a waste of the inspectors' time and everyone who I talked to in your office to try to figure out what to do. I would have preferred one written notice with ALL requirements instead of being told of new requirements after it has failed inspection. I don't understand what kind of system is in place. The waiver of drywall on the alley side has never come up again, so apparently it has been accounted for in your computer system or otherwise, so why not the other requirements? When I called in and asked about the concrete, why was that not entered in or noted? I will be in Colorado from May 22-28th and will be moving back into my home permanently in around one year. My permit expires at the beginning of August. I have further plans to improve the property, but if each improvement is going to be a hassle like this then I won't bother. Please write me back and let me know what will happen next. I would like to take care of this when I am back in May. Sincerely, IA" ; 2, Laurie L. Strand 1808 Flower St. Apt B Glendale, CA 91201