Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 09/25/1997BUILDING REVIEW BOARD REGULAR MEETING September 25, 1997 1:00PM II Council Liaison: Ann Azari II Staff Liaison: Felix Lee II Chairperson: Mike Sutton 490-2161(w) 221-5641(h) The regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, September 25, 1997, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building. The following members were present: Brown, Cotterman, Meleski, Sutton, Kreul-Froseth Members absent: Hansch, Fisher Staff members present: Felix Lee, Building & Zoning Administrator Elain Radford, Building & Zoning Admin. Support The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Sutton. The minutes, with revisions, of the June 26, 1997, meeting were approved. The minutes, with revisions, of the July 31, 1997, meeting were approved. The minutes of the August 1997 meeting were approved. APPEALS: 1. CECO Constructors requesting a variance to permit not all ground floor apartment units be accessible based on the 1994 UBC. Appellant addressed the Board and introduced himself. Bob Campbell, 6405 Westcott, Houston, TX 77007, with the development group for the proposed development of 280 apartment units on the south side of Fort Collins. Campbell stated that he is requesting a variance on the current accessibility requirements for the City of Fort Collins. He explained that the City of Fort Collins currently utilizes the 1991 UBC codes, and their amendments, for accessibility called The Basic Building Accessibility Requirements. Campbell continued that both the amendments and Basic Building Accessibility Requirements are consistent with ANSI, American National Standards, accessibility standards which the City of Fort Collins interprets as required for 100% of the ground BRB September 25, 1997 Page 2 floor units of multi -family projects. Campbell explained that 1991 was the first year accessibility requirements were entered into the UBC, and explained that prior to 1991 there was not a chapter for accessibility. This particular chapter was modified in 1994 and 1997. Campbell stated the change in 1994 for the individual dwelling unit still utilized the ANSI standards but qualified it by identifying a quantity of units, two percent of the total project, required to be ANSI accessible which would be 6 or 7 units of the 280 in his current project. He added that it was intended that the balance of the first floor units would comply with the FHA federal and state standards. Campbell stated that the municipal regional building departments utilized the Uniform Building Codes adopted at the time and the federal and state laws were not incorporated in the balance of the units, which was part of the change for the 1997 UBC. He commented that he understands the City of Fort Collins will not adopt the 1994 UBC but will review the 1997 UBC for adoption and amendment. He explained that in the 1997 UBC the accessibility requirements are identified for two unit types for the ground floor units: Type A and Type B. The Type A unit requirements are consistent with the 1991 and the 1992 accessibility requirements to the individual units and consistent with the 1994 requirements of only requiring two percent of the total project be ANSI accessible. The Type B unit was created to incorporate the federal and state laws under Fair Housing which have seven accessibility requirements. Campbell stated the 1997 UBC has edited accessibility requirements and covers all these aspects for ground floor units, therefore, he is requesting to utilize the 1997 accessibility standards for his current development of multi -family apartments on the south side of town. Campbell referenced three exhibits he submitted for this appeal, i.e., the 1994 UBC, the 1997 UBC, and a letter from the International Conference of Building Officials. Chairperson Sutton asked Building & Zoning Administrator Lee for comments. Administrator Lee stated this appeal request is a fairly complex issue. He added that the City of Fort Collins is in the process of reviewing the 1997 UBC which may be in effect by mid-1998. Lee stated he cannot anticipate what might be changed or amended, if anything. Lee asked Mr. Campbell to clarify his statements regarding the Fair Housing Act since the Fair Housing Act pertains to all ground floor units. Campbell replied this is correct and explained that the 1994 and 1997 codes require two percent be ANSI accessible and, in the 1997 codes the Type B refers to the balance of the first floor units be required to meet federal and state Fair Housing accessibility standards. BRB September 25, 1997 Page 3 Campbell explained the Fair Housing standards have seven specific requirements. Lee asked clarification of Campbell's proposal. Campbell replied that he is proposing that 100 percent of the ground floor units will comply with FHA and Colorado state law and that two percent of those ground floor units will be fully ANSI accessible units. Sutton asked Campbell to describe the difference between FHA and ANSI standards. Campbell explained that the FHA federal and Colorado state laws require accessible building entrance, or an accessible route, which are ramps from the parking area to the front door of the unit. At the front door there cannot be more than a half inch difference in elevation or a ramp will be provided. Also, all interior doors will be a minimum 32 inch clearance which requires a 34 inch door, and all switches, outlets, thermostats be between 15 and 48 inches. He continued that wood blocking is to be provided in all bathrooms for the future installation of grab bars. Also, a clear space in the kitchen of 30 inches by 48 inches is required to allow for a parallel approach, and the front door hardware be lever type hardware. Campbell commented that these seven requirements are the fundamentals of every ground floor unit. Campbell further explained that some of the differences in the ANSI accessible units is that the toilet is required to be located in the corner of the room 48 inches from the side wall and with 48 inches in the front of the toilet which gives a five foot turning radius and a parallel approach. Also, that the shower head be removable with a 60 inch extension on it so it can be hand held. These are the differences between the state law and the ANSI accessible. Campbell stated that, as a developer, one concern of the two percent is the requirement that front knobs of the oven or range be located on front of the appliance as opposed to on top. He commented that conventionally these knobs are put on top so a child could not easily turn on the stove or oven. Sutton asked about counter tops, clearances under sinks, etc. Campbell responded that the two percent requirements are that the floor covering extends under the cabinet but the cabinet is considered an adaptable item, not a handicap cabinet, that would be removed and installed. Campbell reiterated that the difficulty is the safety issue of the knobs on the front of the oven and the location of the toilet as awkward and confining to the design. Board member Brown asked what the difference is between the Type A and Type B units. BRB September 25, 1997 Page 4 Campbell responded that it is important to know that until 1997 the concerns of the state and federal law were never incorporated into the UBC. He explained that the difference between the Type A and Type B is that Type B is reflective of the requirements of the federal law for all first floor units. Type A is the two percent requirement from the American National Standards. He commented that currently the City of Fort Collins takes the American National Standards on 100 percent of the ground floor units. Brown asked for clarification of the variance request and is it to make all first floor units adaptable to become accessible. He inquired about a tenant wanting to move into one of these when only two percent of them are that way to start with. Campbell replied that this is the intent currently by the 1991 codes in Fort Collins. He explained that they are built accessible to become adaptable. So, he continued, the real clarification would be that, in being consistent with the 1994 and 1997 code, they are requesting to build two percent that would be accessible to become adaptable. Board member Cotterman requested total number of units of the current project be specified rather than percentages. Campbell replied that in his particular situation of 280 units, and assuming that 40 percent of the 280 units are ground floor units, the two percent would be approximately six units required to be ANSI accessible. He commented that he would round up and do seven units. He explained this is the purpose of his request for a variance, the six units (two percent) rather than 120 units (40 percent). Campbell commented that money is not the reason for his request. He explained that the drive for his change is design, appeal, and function because as a nationwide apartment developer, his objective is to create a desirable unit for the public. He explained that in a similar project in Colorado Springs a disabled person, in a motorized wheelchair, preferred an apartment not within the two percent on the ground floor. Campbell commented that this design type is not as desirable to the public. He stated that in the Colorado Springs project there have only been two handicapped individuals interested in renting an apartment. Cotterman asked for information on the sales and whether there was appreciation or resistance by non -handicapped people wanting a first floor unit. Campbell responded that there is no resistance by non -handicapped persons. He explained that the federal and state laws make the property fully accessible. Board member Kreul-Froseth asked if it is possible to built 280 units that are accessible with those same building footprints - the 40 percent. BRB September 25, 1997 Page 5 Campbell responded that, yes, he can but on the first floor the bathrooms and kitchens are larger and the corridors wider, however, the bedrooms are smaller. He stated that this design type is more subject to mistakes. Board member Brown asked if the shrinking of bedrooms make them less desirable for a non -handicapped tenant. Campbell replied that tenants tend to choose an upper level unit over the first floor units. He commented that he has never been confronted with this problem of building 100 percent of the ground floor ANSI accessible and is not really sure how they will be received on a rental community. He explained that tenants in other projects he has built take other units over the ground floor units. The project in Colorado Springs is 93 percent leased with two handicapped tenants. Sutton asked what the configuration is in the Colorado Springs project and if this same configuration is what Campbell is asking for in Fort Collins. Campbell responded that out of 258 units there are five units, two percent, on the ground floor required to be ANSI accessible, and because Fort Collins bypasses the 1994 codes, the two percent comes into play. He stated that this same configuration is what he is asking for in Fort Collins. Sutton commented that over the past 2-3 years this is the most common type of appeal the Board has seen. Sutton asked Lee what the state currently requires. Lee replied that the state currently requires 1 in 7, but starts at 8, which is approximately 14 percent. Sutton asked if the 1997 code brings in, for the first time, federal and state statutes for the Type B ground floor dwellings, then the two percent falls under ANSI standards and the remaining ground floor units fall under the Type B. He asked Lee if the state statues have a percentage requirement and if these requirements are adaptable, accessible, or what. Lee responded that he assumes the state statue requires fully accessible which would be parallel to the ANSI requirement, Type A unit. Sutton commented that his understanding is that, from Mr. Campbell's statements, ANSI is accessible to be adaptable. So, there would still be the removable cabinet fronts, no insulation on the pipes under the sink, and no grab bars are in place unless some BRB September 26, 1997 Page 6 handicapped person wants to rent one of those units. Sutton commented that his impression of totally accessible to mean there already are the grab bars, parallel accessibility, fronts off the cabinets, and insulation on the pipes. He asked if this is correct. Lee responded that he believes the ANSI standards only require backing for grab bars, and it requires kitchen dimensions. Lee introduced his staff, Sharon Getz and Mike Gebo. Sharon Getz stated that what is being referred to is the Fair Housing Act of which there are two different versions. She explained that there is a federal Fair Housing Act and a state Fair Housing Act, and they are two sister laws to the ADA. The ADA is other commercial structures and the Fair Housing Act only has to do with housing. They have totally different guidelines that they use for accessible design than the ANSI. Getz commented that she is not real familiar with the Fair Housing Act guidelines and dimensionally, does not know what they use. Campbell interjected that they are less stringent than the ANSI. He explained that the ANSI has a higher level of requirements than the Fair Housing which is why the two percent are capable of becoming fully adaptable. The balance of those units have accessible features but could never become fully adaptable. Sutton asked if two examples would be the vinyl underneath the cabinet and the shower head and in Fair Housing they are not required but in ANSI they are required. Campbell confirmed this is correct. He explained that why they could not become fully adaptable is due to the location of the toilet is not something that can be changed after - the -fact, which is why the Fair Housing, the state and federal are less stringent. Campbell commented that of the two handicapped tenants in Colorado Springs, one, in the Fair Housing unit, asked for no changes and in the other unit only grab bars were installed but not the cabinet modifications. Board member Meleski stated that he had a discussion with Sister Mary Alice of CARE trying to get her input as to the problems they are running into on affordable housing rental units. He commented that she called her architect at this time. Meleski stated his impression is that accessible requires a greater number of items than does adaptable. He commented that he presumes the reason is accessible applies to wheelchair situations whereas adaptable does not. Meleski asked if the door opening has to be the same under accessible and adaptable. BRB September 25, 1997 Page 7 Campbell confirmed that is correct and commented that he has a different understanding of adaptable and accessible. He explained that adaptable is the full blown handicap level, so it is more demanding but it is the ability to conform, i.e. install grab bars, pull cabinets out and put in handicap cabinets, etc. Campbell commented that the term adaptable means to modify. Meleski asked if grab bars are not required under accessible. Campbell explained that in either case grab bars are not required, only the blocking for grab bars are required on the entire first floor. Meleski asked Building & Zoning staff if in each case, the door opening width has to be a 34" door. Lee confirmed this is correct and that a 32" clearance is provided. Campbell explained that what he would do is for 100 percent of the ground floor units is as follows: an accessible ramp will be provided for the entire first floor, through the threshold lever hardware on the front door will be provided, all doors will be 34" in width, the kitchen will have a clear space of 30" x 48", blocking will be installed for the grab bars, and all electrical devices and thermostats will be between 15 and 48 inches, as well as one or two more items. He emphasized all these will be done in 100 percent of the ground floor units. Campbell continued that in the accessible units, seven or eight units, the toilet will have the space around it to pull a wheelchair up to the side of it to give the 5 foot turning radius, the controls on the oven range will be on the front. He stated the large difference is on the two percent of the units, there is the ability to create a fully adaptable unit. Meleski asked about the state requirements and if these were used on Campbell's Colorado Springs project. Campbell replied that the state requirements were followed on the Colorado Springs project, and explained that Fair Housing accessibility is very different from ANSI accessibility. He commented that to do 100 percent of the ground floor units is to, by far, surpass the 1 in 7 requirement. He reiterated that the Fair Housing accessibility requirements are less demanding than the ANSI accessibility requirements. BRB September 25, 1997 Page 8 Cotterman asked for clarification stating that out of the 280 units, 112 units will be on the first floor, and all 112 units will be either accessible or adaptable. He asked if there are handicap requirements above the first floor. Campbell confirmed this is correct and stated that there are no handicap requirements above the first floor. Lee confirmed this is correct. He commented that they were never given any plans to review. Lee referenced the handout on the City of Fort Collins requirements that, regardless of the quantity of units, ratios of features, types of bedrooms, etc. are required by state. He stated this is a local amendment. Campbell comments that he is more familiar with the UBC requirements than the local city requirements. Sutton asked Campbell to describe the units such as the number of bedrooms on the first floor. Campbell stated the project has a unit mix of one, two, and three bedrooms. Sutton explained that in the past a critical point has been that with a given percentage of two and three bedroom units on the second or third floors, then a similar percentage is required on the first floor. Campbell stated they do have this because they are stacked. Staff, Mike Gebo, asked if these are condominiums. Campbell stated they are not, they are rentals - multi -family apartments. Gebo stated that in reading the 1997 UBC where Type A versus Type B, his interpretation is that Type A is totally accessible and Type B are those that are somewhat adaptable. Campbell concurred and stated that he associated the Type A as being ANSI accessible. He commented that the UBC definition is consistent with the guidelines of ANSI and the Type B is less stringent and consistent with the requirements of the state and federal law. Gebo asked if the two percent Type A's are fully accessible with the lowered kitchen counter with a clear space under the counter top for working space, up -front controls. BRB September 25, 1997 Page 9 Campbell responded that these units would be fully accessible as defined in the basic building accessibility requirements. He commented that some of what Gebo mentioned could be adaptable items, things that could be modified. Cotterman asked about the location of Campbell's project. Campbell responded the location is off Harmony Drive at Timberline and Battlecreek. Cotterman asked if this is south of Harmony Road. Campbell confirmed it is. Cotterman asked if when referring to handicapped, does this always refer to persons using a wheelchair.. Campbell confirmed this is correct from his perspective and there are more specific requirements for other types of disabilities such as a requirement for a cage to be put in the space underneath a staircase so a blind person would not walk underneath it. He commented that they would build consistent with local amendments of the 1997 code. Cotterman commented that all the percentages the city and state require are based on all kinds of disabilities, not only wheelchair. He reasoned that some of the state required 14 percent accessible units won't be used by people with disabilitiest, i.e. a deaf person who may choose to be on the third floor rather than the first floor. Cotterman asked if such a situation creates problems. Campbell responded there may be problems depending on the type of disability. Cotterman commented that he is trying to grasp the 14 percent state requirement. Campbell emphasized that it is a very important point that the state requirements on accessible are different than the two percent on ANSI requirements. The state requirements are not as demanding and 14 percent is less than 100 percent of the ground floor. He stated that his understanding for the Fair Housing Act for state and federal is that they cover 100 percent of the ground floor - there are no percentages. Cotterman stated that 100 percent of the ground floor would be 112 units which is more than the 14 percent requirement. BRB September 25, 1997 Page 10 Campbell responded this is correct and to provide a ramp to every unit, lever hardware at the front doors, and blocking in the walls, to him, is to provide minimal requirements. He added that he believes the state requires 100 percent on the ground floor, not 14 percent. Sutton interjected that he agrees that the requirement is 100 percent on the ground floor, as long as that number exceeded the 1 in 7 ratio. Campbell asked for clarification on this point that the entire ground floor has to be accessible and exceed the 1 in 7 ratio requirement; and the 1 in 7 ratio comes into play when there are not enough ground floor units. Sutton confirmed this is correct., He stated that if the state statute, which is more restrictive, and the city ordinance, which requires features that are similar and is also more restrictive, are satisfied then the Board is close to what has been discussed in previous cases. He commented that the only thing he's not sure about is eventual adaptability. Sutton asked if, in the two percent, there will be installed everything that, if not done now, is not adaptable, i.e., toilet location, counter top height, etc. However, the rest of it that can be adaptable will have the features that allows it to be adaptable. Campbell confirmed this is correct. Sutton asked for clarification that the remaining 98 percent will not have any of this. Campbell confirmed this is correct and for the toilet and the showers there is blocking for future installation of grab bars. He added there is also ramp accessibility, lever hardware, and the outlets and switches are between 15 and 48 inches. Sutton asked if the Commission on Disability has been informed about this hearing. Lee responded that they have not been specifically been involved with this project and they were not notified. Sutton referenced Cotterman's question regarding the type of disability and stated this has no relevance to the Commission on Disability - that it is the number of available units that count. He went on to say that the number of handicapped tenants would have no relevance, i.e., the two tenants in Colorado Springs. Campbell responded that he understands this. BRB September 25, 1997 Page 11 Cotterman stated that he is leaning toward a vote of approval on this appeal. Kreul-Froseth asked clarification on the 1997 code to be adopted in mid-1998 and if this is similar to the 1994 codes. Lee confirmed the 1997 will be adopted in mid-1998 and stated he's not as familiar with this. He commented that the Code Review Committee will be reviewing this very issue with the 1997 code. Kreul-Froseth as what is the likelihood that these new standards, with the two percent being adaptable, will be adopted. Lee replied that it is hard to say until the Commission on Disability is involved in this and has some understanding of the issues. He commented that he thinks there would be opposition from that advisory body for reducing requirements. Kreul-Froseth asked how Fort Collins, as a city, would look compared to the rest of Colorado if these new standards are not adopted. Lee responded that the city would look more restrictive. Meleski stated that he agrees with Cotterman to approve this. He commented that he and Cotterman sat in on the Commission on Disability when there was this problem with a project near Spring Creek. Meleski stated there was no negotiation as to more units available than disabled people - specifically with respect to wheelchairs. He added that he called the city group involved with the disabled to ask how many people are in wheelchairs in the United States today. They said they did not know and referred him to a consultant. Meleski continued that, while waiting to hear back from the consultant, he got a book from the Library called The Death of Common Sense. The number of people in wheelchairs from this book was similar to the number given by the consultant: between 1/3rd of one percent and 1/4th of one percent of Americans are in wheelchairs - which includes nursing home patients. He stated that in talking with Sister Mary Alice at CARE, out of 40 units of which all first floor units are built for wheelchair patients, they have not had one person in a wheelchair. He commented that in the City of Fort Collins with about 100,000 people, this is about 300 people of which about 200 are in nursing homes. He stated there is such a hodgepodge of laws set up and no one gets into the numbers, which is irritating to him. BRB September 25, 1997 Page 12 Meleski commented that the Board is an autonomous body dealing with the code and do not have to worry about what the other committee feels about this. He added the Board should give their honest opinion about this and, if it is felt the appellant is meeting the requirements, should vote accordingly on it. Meleski stated he believes the appellant is meeting the requirements for the handicapped. Cotterman asked Mr. Campbell that if the Board approves this appeal and the Commission on Disability chooses to appeal it with the city commission, would he be willing to negotiate that two percent. Campbell reiterated that two percent of the total of 280 units would be seven units. Cotterman asked how many buildings make up the 280 units. Campbell responded that there are sixteen buildings, including the clubhouse. Cotterman asked of the sixteen buildings, how many of the two percent units would be in each building. Campbell replied that if there are only seven units, then seven buildings would have a handicap unit and the balance of the first floor units would be Fair Housing accessible. Cotterman asked if it would be easier to have one handicapped unit in each building. Campbell responded that if the city agrees to this, he would do this. He added that he would put one handicap unit in each building and make sure that of the seven different types (3 one bedrooms, 3 two bedrooms, and I three bedrooms), there would be a representative unit type of each that is handicapped; and the balance of the first floor units will comply with federal and state law. Kreul-Froseth stated that her understanding is that this is a requirement. Lee interjected that it is a requirement locally to do one of each unit type proportionally. Campbell stated he would have duplicates of them and that he would feel like a hero if he got one handicap unit in each building with the balance of the first floor being Fair Housing. BRB September 25, 1997 Page 13 Gebo asked Campbell if he believed the Type A units provide wheelchair access so the wheelchair can park along side the stool. Campbell confirmed this. Gebo stated this is not a requirement anywhere. Campbell responded that he believes the ANSI require the toilet to be in the corner of the room and four feet from the front of the toilet is clear and four feet from the wall side be clear. Gebo stated the requirement is the space of the stool and then fifteen inches from the center line to the lavatory cabinet. Campbell replied that his impression was it was center line of the stool and then thirty inches. He commented that, to him, this is splitting hairs. Lee referenced the last page of the handout he gave out today, page 69, for clarification on this point which is from the 1991 ANSI standards. Sutton commented that as long as the lavatory is behind the nose of the toilet the 48 inches horizontally can be used because, as it is, it is outside that 48"x48" square. He added this is only adding six inches to a standard minimum space for a toilet. Sutton asked Mr. Campbell what stage his project is in now. Campbell replied that he has completed the PUD approval and his plans are currently on hold pending resolution of this issue. He stated he is waiting resolution of this to complete the first floor units which entails a two week wait to submit plans for a permit. Meleski commented regarding the types of units and asked if 50 percent is now required for certain types. Lee read the ordinance, "When any building or buildings classified as Group R, Division 1, (which these would be) are constructed as a single project or phase thereof, and such project or phase contains one or more accessible units as required by this chapter or Colorado law, said building, project or phase shall be constructed so that all required accessible units in such building, project or phase provide the same functional features as are provided in the non -accessible units in such project, and shall be provided in the proportion as the non -accessible units." BRB September 25, 1997 Page 14 Lee referenced page 69 of the handout and read, "Not less than 50 percent of the required accessible dwelling units shall be constructed with the distribution of accessible dwelling unit types being proportionally the same as the distribution of non -accessible dwelling unit types provided that at least one of each dwelling unit type constructed in the building project shall be an accessible dwelling unit." He confirmed this is the 50 percent rule. Meleski asked the appellant is he understands this. Campbell replied he is a bit confused. Meleski explained that, for example, for a twelve-plex with six units on the top and six units on the bottom, and if all units on the top were two bedroom, three on the bottom would have to be two bedroom. Campbell stated that he complies with this. Meleski asked Cotterman if he wanted to make a motion. Lee interjected that before a motion is made there are some requirements for rebuttal and discussion. He read, "After the appellant's presentation has been completed the administrator may testify, present testimony. The appellant then may ask questions of the administrator, then the Board may ask questions. Then the appellant may present additional evidence to respond to the administrator. Then the appellant and the administrator may each make a closing statement." He commented that he did not want to have to back track. Sutton stated that they are ready for the administrator's response. Lee stated that he would again direct the Board's attention to a specific requirement in the Fort Collins code, in the handouts, which addresses the powers of the Board with respect to this issue. Lee read, "When the Building Review Board considers granting exceptions or variances to this chapter pursuant to or for this code, it shall require the applicant requesting the exception or variance to demonstrate that the application of a particular standard or specification would impose an extraordinary hardship on the subject property due to unique conditions resulting from terrain, topography, geology, or other conditions not typically encountered in this city. Constraints or difficulties associated with compliance with this chapter, and or the statutory standards for accessibility shall not be construed as an extraordinary hardship." BRB September 25, 1997 Page 15 Kreul-Froseth asked if there is a hardship related to this. Lee responded a hardship would be some unique topographical or geological features such as water or hills that make accessibility extremely impractical, or something of that nature. Sutton commented that in light of the last paragraph presented by Mr. Lee, the Board has very little latitude. He stated he is still struggling with where would they be reducing the standards according to the ordinances currently in place. He asked if it would be strictly the UBC standards that would be reduced. Lee responded that it would be a piece of it and the ANSI standards are somewhat more restrictive, i.e. up front controls, toilet clearances, counter tops and ovens in kitchens, etc. He said the state law specifically refers to the 1980 ANSI standards and he does not think it is less restrictive on the 1 in 7 ratio. He added there are some distinct differences between the Type A and Type B units that are referenced in the 1997 codes - that the appellant is requesting to use. Lee stated he believes the Fort Collins Code has adopted the 1991 UBC and specifically references the 1992 ANSI standards. Brown asked how many units would have to be accessible or adaptable under the current city code. Lee stated all the ground floor units would have to be accessible under the ANSI standards which are more restrictive. Campbell interjected that this is under the 1991 UBC. He stated that the 1994 and 1997 UBC change this to the two percent of the total project. Cotterman asked if this means all 112 units on the first floor would have to have the range control knobs in the front. Campbell confirmed this is correct. Cotterman commented that this seems to him to be a safety feature and comes under the heading of hardship. Meleski stated that he feels comfortable that the appellant's proposal provides for the health and welfare of the disabled or those who need accessible features in apartments. He commented he has no problem in passing on his proposal. BRB September 25, 1997 Page 16 Kreul-Froseth asked Mr. Campbell about a hardship. She stated the Board is looking at a variance based on a hardship. Campbell replied that he is the person liable if the place catches on fire. He stated that since children will occupy a large part of the first floor units, the controls up front on the appliances creates a safety concern - they could turn on the stove and no one ever know it. Lee stated that he would be willing to administratively vary that requirement if the owner/manager would install those at no cost to the person requesting them, when a disabled person requested these types of appliances. Brown asked for clarification that money is not the issue here, that the unit type is the issue. Campbell confirmed this and stated these are the less desirable type units. Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on where things are at this point. Campbell stated that he has not been able to fully explain all the implications of the ANSI accessible units. He explained that ANSI is more demanding and they affect the usability and desirability of the unit for a non -accessible person, it compromises the attractiveness of the property, and this is not done any other place in the nation. He reiterated that he is asking to comply with the 1994 and 1997 ANSI accessibility two percent requirement. He added that he would easily do four percent. Campbell added that with the nationwide average of one-third or one-fourth are handicapped or wheelchair accessible, he would do the two percent or four percent, which would be an unusually large population in one community. Campbell stated that he feels making 100 percent of the ground floor accessible is a hardship and is relevant to Fort Collins bypassing the 1994 codes and waiting on the 1997 codes - which is six to eight years behind the times. Meleski asked Mr. Campbell to state exactly what he is proposing. Campbell stated that he would like his project to conform to the 1997 code. He commented that he feels it is reasonable to extend the two percent requirement to four percent which includes one ANSI accessible unit in each building, and require the balance of the units to be the "Type B" units as specified in the 1997 UBC and BRB September 25, 1997 Page 17 which is consistent with federal and state law. Meleski reiterated that there are sixteen buildings and there would be one per building - which is in accordance with ANSI requirements. Campbell responded that those sixteen units would be reflective of a Type A unit under the 1997 codes, which is described as an ANSI fully accessible unit. Sutton asked Mr. Campbell to state what more he would do for ANSI than for a Type B. Campbell stated that one item is all the door hardware in the unit would be lever type as opposed to only the front door. Meleski interrupted that it might be better to hear what is being done in addition for the "Type A," or the two tofour percent. Campbell stated that he would provide the following: lever hardware on all doors throughout the entire unit as opposed to only the front door, the bathing facility with a clear floor space of 30" x 60" for a parallel approach or a 40" x 60" for a forward approach, the faucet controls would be lever type, a showerhead with a 60" extension would be provided (not in other units), a minimum of a 36" x 36" transfer style shower or a 30" x 60" clear space for the tub accessibility, the water closet located in the corner of the bathroom the center line from the wall a minimum of 18" and the centerline from the sink a minimum of 18", a clear floor space 48" from the stool and 48" from the wall, the lavatory with an accessible clear floor space of 30" x 48", the sink rim mounted at 34" high, which means all the base cabinets will be 34" as opposed to 36"; the mirrors above the sink will be mounted with the bottom edge 38" off the floor, the medicine cabinet 44" off the floor, the range and oven with front accessible knobs, the oven with a cleaning or adaptable work surface, the kitchen cabinets lower shelf in the storage room 48" off the floor. Campbell commented that these are the items he can pick out that are above the state law. Sutton asked if most of the items in Type B units have to do with height, and items for Fair Housing would be door widths, ramps, backing for hand rails, outlet heights, and blocking in the wall. Campbell confirmed this is correct. BRB September 25, 1997 Page 18 Sutton asked Lee where they are in the process. Lee replied they are ready for final summations by the administrator and the appellant with the appellant going first. Brown asked for clarification about all units being made accessible, and about the two percent. He wondered did this mean thatt none of them will have to be made adaptable unless he has a handicapped tenant that requests that. He asked if the City has any control over whether any of these are ever adapted. Sutton responded that his understanding is that ANSI requires all these to be done. Campbell replied that all these will be done. Sutton clarified that with all this done to make it adaptable there would be very little left to do to make it fully accessible. Campbell confirmed this is correct. Brown asked if the cabinet height was an adaptable item, not accessible. Campbell explained that it is front of the cabinet, where a wheelchair can extend under it. He stated that another thing that needs to be noted is that the kitchen, which does significantly affect the design, is required to have a 48 " clear space. Campbell explained that in order to make the kitchen fully adaptable it needs the 48" clear space in front of a 30" wide counter top, so, in effect, on the ANSI accessible unit that 48 inches needs to be 48" plus 6" to allow the 30" adaptable (after the fact item) cabinet. He added this is a pretty big compromise. He pointed out that these apartments are from 700 to 1000 square feet. Kreul-Froseth asked if the appellant has thought about the affordable housing issue regarding this project. Campbell replied that his project will be one of the nicest apartment complexes in Fort Collins and the cost of rent runs $0.90 per square foot. So if the unit is 1,000 square feet, the rent will be $900 per month - which are expensive apartments. 0 BRB September 25, 1997 Page 19 Lee stated there are some distinctions in the kitchen and bathroom that the appellant is requesting that would be less than what is currently required on the Fort Collins code. He reiterated that the Board has somewhat limited ability on this particular issue which is spelled out specifically in the ordinance with respect to what extent the Board can grant variances. He commented that he would endeavor to work with the applicant and try to clear up any details about issues to make sure there aren't misunderstandings, and also, would look at appliances in terms of a demand basis. Meleski asked Lee to confirm that what the appellant has mentioned is covered in the handout, PPM #61 page 3, Basic Building Accessibility Requirements of the City of Fort Collins. Lee replied that those are the current standards. Meleski asked if the Board can presume that one unit for each of the sixteen buildings conform to the city's adaptable requirements - and the remainder will conform to the accessible requirements. Campbell stated that the city's current codes require him to construct all ground floor units to the accessible requirements. He reiterated that what he is asking for is that one unit of each building to be done to these accessible requirements and the balance of the first floor to conform to the federal and state laws - which has accessible requirements that are less constringent. Campbell explained that "adaptable" will be installed on an "as need" basis which is the code. Cotterman reminded the Board that the struggle is in determining the hardship. He commented that he could consider some things to be hardship and grant approval, but he doesn't know if Administrator Lee or City Council would agree they are hardship. Meleski asked Cotterman if he considers the appliances are a hardship item. Cotterman responded that he considers the knobs a safety feature because children can easily turn the knobs on. Meleski asked Lee to clarify that once the Board makes a decision only the appellant may appeal the decision to the City Council, but not anyone else. Lee replied that he believes any party of interest can appeal to the next higher appellate body, which is City Council. BRB September 25, 1997 Page 20 Cotterman commented that the Commission on Disability may request an appeal but they cannot present any additional information to the City Council that has not been presented here today. He asked that since C.O.D. has not presented anything today, is there grounds for an appeal. Lee replied they could appeal on procedural error - that the Board was incorrect and made a procedural error. Brown stated that the applicant's hardship, as he understands it, is the fact that the city is using a code that is six years old and is more stringent than the one the appellant is trying to build under. Sutton stated he agrees this is the hardship and commented that it has been recognized by building officials nationwide, with a lot more experience than he has; and, that the 1991 code did cause a hardship which is why it was changed from 100 percent to the two percent. He added that if one looks at all the statistical evidence as to the need of the community at large and the specific community of the people with disabilities, the 1991 code far surpassed that need. Sutton commented this is the hardship the Board is dealing with, though it is not the hardship in the city's ordinance. Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on the definition of hardship and read, "... it refers to unique conditions resulting from terrain, topography, geology, or from other conditions not typically encountered in the city." She asked for clarification of "from other conditions." Lee responded that the definition is very broad on this point. Meleski motioned to approve this appeal. Cotterman seconded this motion. Sutton stated it has been moved and seconded to approve the request to vary city standards as far as accessibility and adaptability is concerned according to the information referred to today and as presented by CECO Constructors. He asked if there is further discussion on the motion. BRB September 25, 1997 Page 21 Meleski commented that Board members were appointed because of their experience and knowledge of codes, building processes, etc. and he feels there are ways a hardship can be found in this situation. He encouraged Board members to vote in the way they feel is appropriate in this situation and not be further concerned to specifically define what the hardship is. Sutton restated the motion: the motion is to approve the request for variance. VOTE: Yeas: Brown, Cotterman, Meleski, Kreul-Froseth Nays: Sutton Sutton commented the motion passes and stated to the appellant it is expected that they work closely with the building department because there are concerns and he suspects there will be more to this. Campbell replied that he has met with Sharon Getz twice and Mike Gebo once before coming to this meeting to fully understand the codes and requirements for the City of Fort Collins. He stated he will fully cooperate as needed. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Election of officers: Meleski nominated Charles Cotterman for Chairperson. Cotterman declined. He motioned to nominate Mike Sutton for Chairperson and John Meleski for Vice Chairperson. Kreul-Froseth seconded this motion. VOTE: Yeas: all voted in the affirmative Nays: None BRB September 25, 1997 Page 22 B. UBC update Lee informed the Board that the Code Review Committee will meet again on Tuesday, September 30, 1997. He mentioned that in October this committee will be discussing in detail Chapter 11 in the 1997 UBC which the accessibility chapter. Meeting adjourned at 2:55pm. Mike Sutton, Chairperson Felix Lee, B&Z Director