Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 04/26/1990MEMBERS PRESENT: BUILDING REVIEW BOARD April 26, 1990 Minutes Harry Cornell Dennis Sinnett Vincent Guerrie Chris Allison Ron Baker Tony Bontz Doug Johnson Charles Cotterman MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Felix Lee Debbie Zeigler Paul Eckman The minutes of the March 29, approved. 1990 meeting were unanimously Class B applicant, David K. Brinker, Peak Professional Contractors, Inc., was approved for a license/certificate. Testing will be waived based on reciprocal testing in Colorado Springs. Michael Rossi, Rossi Construction, submitted additional references for the Board's approval. Boardmember Johnson made a motion to approve the application. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Allison. Motion carried unanimously. Warren Jones with Poudre Fire Authority asked the Board to grant a 90 day continuance on the Prospect Plaza appeal. The owners of Prospect Plaza have decided to install the alarms. The Board approved the request. 1988 Code Adoption - Felix explained any plumbing changes proposed were not in the Board's purview to change. The plumbing code allows no latitude for local amendment. Boardmember Cotterman questioned height requirements were. Mr. Le 1988 UBC, not an amendment. He mitigation requirements were in after hearing public input and tt. withdrawing Chapter 29 (radon inconclusive, guesswork at best. where in the amendments the sill e said they are in the body of the also questioned where the radon the newest draft. Mr. Lee said e Board's concerns he recommended mitigation) because it was too Boardmember Bontz made a motion to forward the proposed amendments to Council for consideration with the exception of Item 30. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Johnson. Motion passed unanimously. BRB Minutes April 26, 1990 Page 2 Boardmember Johnson made a motion to eliminate Item 30 (reducing open space in guardrail from 6" to 411). Mr. Johnson felt the requirement is excessive. Boardmember Cotterman seconded the motion stating Fort Collins should wait until the Uniform Building Code requires the guardrail spacing. All members voted in favor of the motion except Ron Baker, who was opposed to eliminating Item 30. Appeal #90-01 - Frank Vaught requesting Willow Grove Village, a 72 unit multi -family housing project be granted a variance to the city of Fort Collins Accessible Housing Guidelines with 3 designated accessible housing units instead of 10. Frank Vaught appeared representing Shields Street Corporation. He said the project consists of two story buildings. Some of the bedrooms are in an upper level above the second story. There are thirty-six units on the ground floor. Twenty-eight of those on the ground floor have the ability to be adaptable. Mr. Vaught said he and his client feel having 10% of the ground floor accessible is more reasonable than 10 units which would be 30% of the ground floor. Mr. Vaught indicated 14% of the population is disabled, therefore their request for providing accessibility in 10% of the ground floor units is realistic. City Attorney Paul Eckman told the Board they will have to consider two findings; one, is it impractical to comply and is it an unusual hardship to comply, or are there problems with construction that make it difficult to comply. Lori Gehricke, a realtor and member of the Commission on Disability, said she helps people find accessible properties. When she first started she quickly found, there is nothing to buy. There is a big gap between rental properties and custom homes which seems to be the only options. She has 2 to 3 requests per week for accessible housing. Condos are really needed. Nancy Jackson, Executive Director of the Office of Disabled Resources and Commission on Disability member addressed the Board stating disabled does not mean low income. The amount of people becoming disabled increases with the aging process. There are not enough units available in rental and sale units. She feels the State law is part of what's being done to make this a city for everyone to live in. Frank Vaught said these units are not condos, but rentals and they propose to make three units totally accessible. Ron Baker pointed out the law allows flexibility if the requirement is impractical and an unusual hardship or if the lay of the land presents a hardship. What he is hearing Mr. Vaught say is it's too 0 BRB Minutes April 26, 1990 Page 3 many units to require and wouldn't rent like a normal apartment. Mr. Baker doesn't see the hardship. Mr. Vaught said the bathrooms need extra room, materials and doorways to be accessible, plus all door openings have to be made larger. When you are working with 500 to 600 square feet in an apartment and trying to make the most of the space, every inch becomes important. Boardmember Baker asked if all of the units in Chestnut Village were occupied and are they occupied by disabled people? Mr. Vaught said he didn't know. Mr. Baker asked if other units in town are in demand. Mr. Vaught said if so, contractors would build these units that are in demand. Mr. Vaught said UBC requirements are different that the ANSI requirements and the net effect has increased the number of units over the last five years. Roy Beauchamp, a member of the Commission on Disability, spoke to the Board and said he would like to see units made adaptable rather than totally accessible. This would make it less expensive for the contractors and the units could be used for all. Boardmember Cotterman asked what the big disadvantage is of making the units accessible to the handicapped. He said he had stayed in motels that were accessible and it didn't bother him. Mr. Vaught thought motel stays vs. living would make a big difference. He said 6 to 8 inch reductions of space makes a big difference in a 10 x 11 foot room. Mr. Cotterman asked if it is possible to rent a handicapped unit to a non -handicapped person. Mr. Vaught said yes, but adaptable would suffice also. Mr. Bontz said he thought although it was possible to rent these units, people would choose them as a second, third and even fourth choice. Boardmember Guerrie said his concern is that these rules were made to provide the same opportunities to the disabled community, to offer them a choice. He felt the standard has been established and would hate to deviate from that. Mr. Vaught said in working with other contractors, they had problems renting the units and after the certificate of occupancy was issued, they remodeled the units so that they could be rented. Nancy Jackson named several apartment projects that have waiting lists for their accessible units. At the Landmark Apartments they have two units that rent for $400 and leases are renewed yearly so they are not available. People are desperate for accessible units. There is a demand. Boardmember Bontz asked Ms. Jackson if her office could subsidize the units if there is not a need for them and they sit empty. Ms. BRB Minutes April 26, 1990 Page 4 Jackson said no, her office could not do that, but they do keep a bulletin Board available advertising accessible units. Mr. Bontz thought if Ms. Jackson was wrong, the developer would be hung out to dry. He thought specific numbers to support her claims for accessible units should have been provided. Boardmember Guerrie asked what the cost difference was between handicapped units and non -handicapped units. Mr. Vaught said the cost differential comes from the unit sitting empty. Boardmember Johnson said a pre -lease agreement could be worked out with the contractor and wondered why Lori Gehricke or Nancy Jackson hadn't worked this out for people. Mr. Vaught said they could probably live with more than three accessible units. Boardmember Guerrie made a motion to approve five accessible units which would be 14% of the ground floor units, which he felt was a nice compromise. His finding was based on impracticality and the fact that 1:7 is an unusual hardship. The motion was seconded by Charles Cotterman. Boardmember Cotterman agreed with five units thinking that 10 units was too restrictive and impractical. Boardmember Johnson voiced disappointment in attending Commission on Disability members and Frank Vaught for failing to give needed information. Neither side had proved their point. Boardmember Bontz said he would not vote in favor of approving five units. He felt five is impractical and that the developer is being exposed to unrentable units and that it would complicate construction. Boardmember Allison said he would like to stay with the 1:7 ratio but felt requiring that on the second floor was impractical. if you use the 1:7 on ground floor units only it equals 5. Boardmember Sinnett thought 10 was impractical and would cause undue hardship. He voted for five. Boardmember Cornell suggested all interested parties prepare information to support the market, which would benefit the disabled community. Chairman Ron Baker said Mr. Vaught did not do a good job of presenting the variance request, nor did the audience have any facts and figures to back up their statements. He would like to see hard statistics BRB Minutes April 26, 1990 Page 5 It would make it much easier to make a decision on. Based on the information given, he will vote for five accessible units. Vote - Yeas: Cornell, Sinnett, Guerrie, Baker, Allison, Johnson, Cotterman. Nays: Bontz. Felix reminded the Board Council will consider amendments at their May 15th meeting. Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Ron Baker, Chairman Feli� e, Staff Liaison