Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 05/27/1994rA BUILDING REVIEW BOARD May 27, 1994 Minutes The Building Review Board was called to order by Chairman Mike Sutton. Members present: Sutton, Cornell, Cotterman, Goldrich. Absent: Kruel-Froseth, Hansch. Staff Present Staff Liaison: Council Liaison: Felix Lee Ann Chantler Paul Eckman Felix Lee Ann Azari Guests Present: Tom Sibbald, RLS Frank Vaught, Architect Mike Sibbald, Shields Street Rusty Collins, Neighbor to Neighbor Tom Sibbald appeared before the Board representing the appellant, Shields Street Corp. He stated he did not agree with the Building Official's interpretation of the Uniform Building Code, chapter 31, Section 3105. As the builder of this project, he felt he was meeting the code requirement by providing ground floor apartments with at least one bathroom that was completely accessible. He cited the Fair Housing Act and HUD codes. Sibbald indicated that to make both bathroom toilet facilities fully accessible as specified by City staff, would force him to eliminate the shower in the second bathroom. Frank Vaught, architect for the project, stated the wordage in this section of the code was the problem. He presented to the Board a copy of the blueprints for the proposed units. He stated the Fair Housing standards require that only one bathroom in an accessible unit need be totally accessible, and the proposed plans comply. The proposed project has units with two bathrooms, one completely accessible and the other partially accessible. Mr. Vaught reviewed the requirements for making a bathroom accessible. Paul Eckman, attorney for the City of Fort Collins, explained the process and reviewed the charge of the Board. s Building Review Board May 27, 1994 Page 2 Felix Lee, Building Official, stated the code was specific when referring to the type of building regulated. Quoting from Section 3105 (b) 2 he read, "Toilet facilities located within accessible dwelling units, guest rooms and congregate residences shall comply with U.B.C. Standard No. 31-1.11. Felix stated he contacted I.C.B.O. for additional clarification, verifying Felix was interpreting the code correctly. Mr. Lee stated a person with a disability may have a choice of where and when to bathe, but may not have that choice when using the water closet. Lee reiterated his position that the code states all toilet facilities within accessible dwelling units are to be accessible. Rusty Collins, Executive Director of Neighbor to Neighbor, addressed the Board. He stated he has done research on rentals in Fort Collins that are accessible and is the Vice President of the Task Force for Handicapped Citizens. Collins said he has done extensive research on the ADA and Fair Housing Act, as part of his post graduate studies. He voiced support for the appellant and supports this appeal. Felix stated he sent the packet for this appeal to the staff liaison for the Commission on Disability, but did not receive any response from the Commission until the day before the hearing, when the Chairperson, Shirley Reichenbach said she could not attend the hearing but would ask someone else to attend. Board chairman, Mike Sutton, stated he agreed with the Building Official's interpretation of the code. A lengthy discussion followed debating bathing facilities vs. toilet facilities. Board member Cotterman asked Mr. Vaught if any compromise was possible by re -doing the shower facilities so that some had showers and some did not. Mr. Sibbald stated this project qualified as low-income housing and they needed to abide by certain standards. He noted that in the management position for the renting units, having some with and some without showers would put him in a difficult position and could even cause legal problems. Sibbald concluded by saying if the appeal were denied, none of the units with two bathrooms would have a shower in the second bathroom. Building Review Board May 24, 1994 Page 3 Mr. Vaught stated he believed this was an issue for the Board to consider relief from the code rather than interpretation of the code. Board chairman Sutton stated he still agreed with Mr. Lee's interpretation of the code but would consider "relief from design", as allowed in Section 204 of the City Building Code. Board member Cotterman moved that the Building official's interpretation of Section 3105(b)2 of the Building Code was correct. Board member Goldrich seconded the motion. Yeas: Sutton, Cotterman, Goldrich. Abstain: Cornell. The motion passed. Board member Goldrich moved to approve "design relief" to allow the second 3/4 bath (toilet stool, shower and lavatory) as proposed by the appellant in lieu of a half -bath (assessible toilet, stool and lavatory) and eliminate the requirement for full length grab bar backing and required full clear floor space at the toilet stool. Sutton invited further discussion expressing concern that all other accessible features be in place, including the removable vanity under the lavatory and backing for a modified grab bar, and the accessible route is maintained into the second bathroom. Concluding the discussion, Sutton restated the motion for clarity to allow design relief for construction of a second bathroom which does not meet the specific requirements for floor space in front of the toilet and a full grab bar for backing dimension, but all other accessibility requirements are to be designed into the project. Board member Cotterman seconded the motion. Yeas: Sutton, Cornell, Goldrich, Cotterman. The motion passed. Doug Audley contractor appealing to the Board for a Class D license and certificate, was not present. Board member Goldrich moved to deny license and certificate for Doug Audley because of lack of job verifications. Board member Cotterman seconded the motion. Yeas: Sutton, Cornell, Goldrich, Cotterman. The motion passed. 0 Building Review Board May 27, 1994 Page 4 The meeting was adjourned. Mike Sutton, Chairman Felix Lee, Bldg Official BUILDING REVIEW BOARD May 26, 1994 Building Code Appeal Hearing CASE No. APPELLANT: Shields Street Corporation AFFECTED PROPERTY: Rose Tree Village Apartments (Proposed 120-unit PUD) The appellant disagrees with the Building Permits and Zoning Division Director's interpretation of Section 3105(b)2. of the recently adopted 191 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE. This provision specifically states, in part, "toilet facilities located within accessible dwelling units,. . . shall comply with U.B.C. Standard No. 31-111, with no further qualifier about limiting the provision to only one toilet facility in any given accessible unit. Staff conferred with an official at ICBO headquarters and confirmed that the provision in question does not limit itself to a single toilet facility in a unit which contains more than one toilet facility. However, in "other occupancies", the provision does specify that, "at least one accessible water closet shall be provided." MITIGATING FACTORS: The appellant has provided the attached information describing their rationale for the request, citing the "intent" of the FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT and the ANSI standards. brb594.ap1 010940 • •CASE NO. Va Li dation Account Number 1014416E CITY OF FORT COLLINS REQUEST FOR HEARING BY THE BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Affected Property Rose Tree Village Apartments Owner Shields Street Copporation Address 2301 Research Blvd. Suite 204A Appellant Vaught Frye Architects Address 1113 Stoney Hill Dr. Phone 224-1191 Description of Request and Mitigating Factors: —The BUilding_Inspection Yppartment has interpreted Chapter 31 of the UBC to require that when 2 bathrooms are provided in an apartment, each of them have to be fully accessible. We disagree with this interpretation and offer the attached letter to request the Board to intervene. Applicable Code Sections:_ Chapter 3��fec.j9Z—_____� — 1 i . --- ------------ — Apr i l 21, 1994 Appellant Si. na i4re Date AppellLinf may appear in person, in writing, 'or by agent and should be pre- pared'Ca_ t qii -relevant details, specifications and plans, or ocher evidrnce' $Lancing of this petition at the hearing time indicated below.-tarings are scheduled for the Last Thursday of each montn at 9:15` Council Chambers at 300 Lal'urte Avenue. Applications accompa 50.00 docket tee should be tiled one week before the desired date to ensure considerat10n. OFFICE USE ONLY HEARING DATE AND TIME DISPOSITION AND CONDITIONS Authorized by Date Distribution: Original - Appellant, lst copy - File, 2nd copy -Office VAU9HT * FRYE ARCH*ECTS TRANSMITTAL LETTER DATE: ��r, 2 / ,4 PROJ./NO.: Axe Try VI//a9e TO: C//V o� R7/ C9//1n5 ATTN: Z);m ENCLOSED PLEASE FIND: COPIES OF: B wLdiAn Aevfew &wd 6 / Forward Prints _ Returned 7 Original _ Specifications _ Shop Drawings Computer Disk REMARKS: tea, T am Scsbrnif-fin� 93-32 For Approval —Mail _ For Your Use UPS _ _ As Requested !/Delivery _ For Your Files _ Pick Up _ Airborne Bus �h�s l�Dr�iflon flay kmairw doe fo a Sng pTk?fll _T (famof 6e of fire. qpf-il �ffi �finA , *errqire T Mix 1ho YM, P"f ykj 1fem on 'fG1e Ma v M ee.*nq UAUGHT FRYE architects April 21, 1994 Building Review Board City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Re: Rose Tree Village Apartments Gentlemen: The Building Inspection Department has concluded that if an apartment offers two bathrooms, both have to meet the requirements of ANSI 1992, that is to say they each have to be fully accessible. They base their conclusions on U.B. C. Chapter 31, Section 3105 (2), Toilet facilities which states "Toilet facilities located within accessible dwelling units, guest rooms and congregate residences shall comply with U.B.C. Standard No. 31-1.11 The paragraph just above this (b) 1. Bathing facilities, states "When bathing facilities are provided, at least 2 percent, but not less than one bathtub or shower, shall be accessible. There appears to be a distinction between bathing and toilet facilities that would be a clear conflict in an apartment configuration. It is our opinion that in an apartment, bathing facilities refers to a bathroom and toilet facilities refers to common facilities as found in dormitories, congregate housing etc.. Further research of past and current ANSI Standards previously and currently enforced by the City indicates the following: ANSI - 1980 4.34.2 (12) A reasonable number, but always at least one of full bathrooms shall comply with 4.34.5. A full bathroom shall include a water closet, a lavatory and a bathtub or a shower. ANSI - 1986 4.32.4 Accessible bathrooms shall be on an accessible route and shall comply with the requirements of 4.32.4. land planning • architecture 1113 Slonev Hill Drive • Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 • 303-224-1191 • FAX 303-224-1662 Building Review Board Page 2 ANSI - 1991 4.33.3 Bathrooms. Accessible bathrooms shall comply with 4.33.3 ANSI 1992 only refers to accessible bathrooms needing to comply with the standards and is unclear on the issue of how many, however it is obvious from previous ANSI standards and Federal Housing Design Guidelines that the intent is to provide one full bathroom that complies with the design standards. Regulation 7, Usable Kitchens and Bathrooms of the Fair Housing Design Guidelines, states "At least one bathroom in the dwelling unit complies with the provisions of paragraph (b) and all other bathrooms and powder rooms within the dwelling unit must be on an accessible route with usable entry doors in accordance with the guidelines for Requirements 3 and 4." It is unfortunate that Chapter 31 is confusing and unclear and that our local officials are subject to forming their own interpretation, however it is clear to me that the intent of the Fair Housing Act that in an apartment, only one bathroom is required to be accessible and that if two are provided then the second need only be on an accessible route with usable entry doors. Requiring a developer to provide two accessible bathrooms adds additional square footage to the unit, which only translates in to additional construction cost and higher rents to the consumer. I hope you will give careful consideration to our request and concur that the interpretation concluded by the Building Department is incorrect and goes beyond what is intended to meet the Design Standards. Thank you for your consideration. S' ly, Fran Vaught VAUGHT*FRYE ARCHITECTS FV/ rp