HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 03/27/2003Minutes approved by the Board at the April 24, 2003 Meeting
FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD
Regular Meeting — March 27, 2003
1:00 p.m.
uncil Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Felix Lee (221-6
airperson: Charles Fielder Phone: 484-0117(W), 207-0505
A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday March 27, 2003, in the
Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins,
Colorado.
BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT:
Leslie Jones
Bradley Massey
John McCoy
Michael Smilie
BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT:
Charles Fielder
Gene Little
Jim Packard
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Felix Lee, Building and Zoning Director
Delynn Coldiron, Contractor Licensing Administrator
Stacie Soriano, Staff Support
AGENDA:
1. ROLLCALL
The meeting was called to order by Vice -Chairperson Massey, and roll call was taken.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Boardmember McCoy made a motion to approve the minutes from the February 27, 2003,
meeting. Boardmember Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed.
Vote:
Yeas: McCo_y,_Massey,Jonesand -Smilie. -
Nays: None.
BRB 03/27/03
Page 2
3. Building Code Appeal — Ted R. Locke, Architect, #04-03
Massey explained the procedures for appeals. Lee provided an introduction to the appeal. The
appeal pertained to accessible units, particularly hotel guest rooms. Lee stated that state law
requires a one and seven ratio of accessible rooms, and the City of Fort Collins local
amendments are tied to the state law.
Lee stated the Appellant was Mr. Ted Locke, an architect from Colorado Springs. Locke
represented the Hilton Garden Inn, which is to be located at 2921 Harmony Drive. Lee stated the
issue is the number of required guest rooms. The ADA requires 5%, and the Building Code is
consistent with the ADA. The local amendment requires that one and seven (about 14%) would
have to be accessible. In Appellant Locke's case that would be approximately 12 rooms.
Lee stated he just received a state bill (regarding accessibility) from the Appellant that passed
both the house and the senate recently, and advised that the Board should take that into
consideration.
Ted Locke, 455 Buckeye Drive, Colorado Springs, addressed the Board. Locke stated that the
bill has been passed. The proposed hotel is a total of 88 guest rooms, and the local amendment
would require that 12 be accessible, but the ADA would only require 5. The building has been
designed and has been through plan check. Locke stated that the project has been approved. The
Appellant was concerned with the regulations from the City of Fort Collins local amendment,
and the Hilton's policy of making an accessible room two feet wider than what is required by the
ADA (in a regular guest room) would cause an increase in building size (length). The problem is
that the building enveloped, due to an easement condition, would hamper the effectiveness of
increasing the building size.
Appellant Locke was informed by Nancy Snow of the Department of Regulatory Agencies in the
Civil Rights division told Locke that the bill was in committee, and the language was struck
pertaining to transient housing (hotels, motels, etc.). Locke found out yesterday that both the
House and the Senate approved the bill under a unanimous vote. The original statue would not
exist anymore. Transient housing would have to comply with the federal requirement that 1 out
of every 21 guest rooms would have to be accessible.
Appellant Locke stated his hardship was changing and adding additional length to the building,
and obtaining a proper fit among the existing conditions. Locke has worked with several hotel
franchises in Colorado, California, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Kansas, and the City of Fort
Collins is only the second city where he has had to encounter the 1 and 7 requirement of
accessible rooms. Locke felt the City of Fort Collins local amendment was rare, and felt that the
ADA standards are adequate to provide necessary facilities.
Lee wanted to confirm that the Appellant was proposing one roll -in shower facility. Locke
stated that was correct, and if need be he would be willing to add more roll -in showers.
BRB 03/27/03
Page 3
There was a discussion held regarding the procedural aspect of the
appeal. Lee read the local amendment pertaining to accessible units. Lee stated there was one
procedural snag —that the Appellant would have to an extraordinary, substantial, and unique
hardship.
Lee noted that the Board is constrained, but the building official is not, if the Applicant were to
withdraw the request. There was a discussion held regarding when the bill would become a law
and how it would enforced. Enforcement of the law is the responsibility of the building official
of each jurisdiction.
It occurred to Lee that the Commission on Disability has not been notified (as it is a procedural
requirement), and he did not do that. Lee stated that the hearing was not able to continue, and
the Board is not free to make a decision without the Commission on Disability's representation.
Appellant Locke withdrew his request.
4. Other Business
There was no other business.
Meeting adjourned at 1:50 p.m.
Felix Lee, Building & Zoning Director
Charles Fielder, Chai erson