Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 07/30/1992BUILDING REVIEW BOARD July 30, 1992 Regular Meeting - 9:15am Minutes The regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, July 30, 1992 at 9:15am in the conference room at 281 North College Avenue. Roll was answered by: Cornell, Johnson, Sutton, Goldrich. Board members absent: Allison, Cotterman, Froseth Staff Liaison: Felix Lee Council Liaison: Susan Kirkpatrick Staff Support Present: Felix Lee Steve Roy Ann Reichert The minutes of the May meeting were approved. Myan Spear appeared before the Board requesting a Class D license and certificate. Ms. Spear stated she has been working the past couple years in Cheyenne. She was hired as a designer but works in the field and does all aspects of construction. She stated she works on large commercial projects as well as smaller projects in the field. Board member Sutton asked what her future plans were. Ms. Spear stated she has been contacted to build homes for Aller-Lingle Architects. She stated she had her own business doing high production educational wooden toys. Board member Sutton stated her experience was very broad but there were not enough experience/references returned. Board member Johnson asked Ms. Spear about her experience in engineering. She stated she was very strong in engineering and she considered that her expertise. She stated she has a passive solar degree and is currently taking classes at CSU towards a construction management degree. t Building Review Board July 30, 1992 Page 2 Board member Sutton stated he would like to see additional references from Cheyenne added to her file. Ms. Spear stated she would do that. Board member Sutton moved to approve Myan Spear for a Class D license and certificate with two additional references, Felix Lee will review, that show structural experience. Board member Johnson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Harold Candela, construction supervisor, for Melody Homes appeared before the Board requesting a Class C-02 license. Board member Johnson moved to approve Melody Homes for a Class C-02 license. Board member Goldrich seconded the motion. The motion passed. Mark Thorburn of DMT, appeared before the Board requesting a Class B license and certificate. Board member Sutton stated he had known Mark for many years, known of his work and had no problem with this application. Board member Johnson agreed. Board member Goldrich moved to approve Mark Thorburn for a class B license and certificate. Board member Johnson seconded the motion. The motion passed. Jordan Coray, Corporate Secretary for Starker & Co., appeared before the board requesting a Class A license and certificate. He stated the company held A licenses in other jurisdictions and they wanted to maintain that level of license. He stated they had plans to do tenant finish work for a restaurant in Fort Collins. Board member Sutton asked Mr. Coray who would hold the certificate and be the supervisor on the job. Mr. Coray stated that Gregg Shelton would be the project supervisor. The Board decided there was no problem issuing a Class A license to Starker & Co., but Mr. Shelton would need to provide experience/reference checks and test for a Class B certificate. Board member Johnson moved to approve Starker & Co. for a Class A license and Gregg Shelton for a Class B certificate upon review and approval of experience/reference checks by Felix Lee and successful testing. Board member Sutton seconded the motion. The motion passed. 0 Building Review Board July 31, 1992 Page 3 Wolfe-Lyon's application was submitted before the Board. The representative from Wolfe -Lyon was unable to attend. The project this company will be working on is re -modeling the old Columbine Cafe and they are requesting a license to do such work. The company has applied for a class C-1, but has consented to any class license that would allow them to do the remodel job. The Board discussed the experience/reference checks received. If there is no structural work in the re -model job a Class E license would be sufficient to do the work and the application supports E work. If a Class C-1 license is required, the Board felt they needed four additional references showing Class C-1 work. Board member Johnson moved to approve Wolf -Lyon for a Class E license and certificate. Board member Sutton seconded the motion. The motion passed. Felix Lee presented Case #92-02, Hickory Hill Village Apartments, 3425 South Shields, Shields Street Corp., owner. Appellant: Staff referral for interpretation of ANSI 117.1 1980. Summary: Staff is seeking a decision on the interpretation of the above standard as it relates to kitchen accessibility requirements; specifically, wheelchair access to the proposed floor -level oven. The Building Permits Division Director, Felix Lee, and the project owner disagree as to the dimension requirements in the above standards as referenced in state law and by City ordinance. The project is well into construction and kitchen cabinets are ready for installation. Mr. Lee explained this project began approximately one year ago. Mr. Lee stated about that time the contractor, the designer and Building Inspection staff met. They discussed accessibility issues and the design and came to some agreement about accessibility to the kitchen. Since that time construction has begun and other factors have been revealed related to the access to the oven. City Attorney, Steve Roy, explained the procedures that will take place in this matter. Building Review Board July 31, 1992 Page 4 Mr. Lee had on display a non -scale, hand drawing of the kitchen in question. He stated City codes references, by adoption, State Statues, which in turn reference American National Standards Institute requirements for accessibility. He explained kitchens are required to be "adaptable". In the Standards it refers to the purpose, "the specifications of this standards are intended to make buildings and facilities accessible and usable by people with such physical disabilities.." . A meeting with the contractor/owner looked at the design and how this would be accessible. Mr. Sibbald purposed the design the U shaped kitchen (attached to these minutes) with 48-inches between cabinets and appliances. During those discussions, Mr. Lee stated he felt that the stove in, that position and removable base cabinets that were proposed, would allow access with a turning radius of a front and side access to the cook top. At that time the placement of the oven was not discussed. A field test was discussed to determine to decide that in fact it would be accessible and usable. The Commission on Disability has voiced some concerns to Mr. Lee about the access of the oven. With the oven door lowered it does not allow for a turning radius. Mr. Lee stated this did not meet standards of 60- inch clearance between counter tops. Mr. Lee wrote to Mr. Sibbald approximately three weeks earlier and mentioned COD's concerns, and told Mr. Sibbald he did other alternatives needed to be considered. Mr. Lee suggested moving the counter an additional foot or adding an adaptable feature in the form of an oven. Board member Sutton asked if in fact this has been tested. Mr. Lee stated this particular design has not been field tested. A combination stove is available in the city soils lab at 281 North College and Shirley Reichenbach attempted to use it in a wheelchair. The oven door is approximately one foot off the ground and projects approximately two feet. Without a side approach, it is obvious it is very difficult to use. Another point Felix noted was, in addition to the 60-inch space, that standard also requires 30 X 40-inch clear space in front of appliances for either a frontal or parallel approach. Mr. Sibbald stated he was the owner/builder on this project. He introduced the architect, Mr. Frank Vaught. Mr. Vaught submitted some exhibits to the Board. He stated ANSI is specific in their definitions, adaptability vs accessibility. Mr. Vaught stated on this- project the owner and the architect have looked at accessibility from ANSI's stand point, Fair Housing's stand point and the new ADA requirements. He said that all the ground floor units in Hickory Hill Village are accessible. Building Review Board July 31, 1992 Page 5 Mr. Vaught stated standards clearly identify the difference between accessible and adaptable. He referred to "Accessible Elements and Spaces" Sections 4.2.4.1 Size and Approach, 4.32.2 Adaptability, 4.32.5.7 Ovens, 4.32.5.2 Clear Floor Space, and 4.32.53 Controls. Mr. Vaught quoted "A clear floor space at least 30-inch by 48-inch complying with 4.2.4 that allows either a forward or a parallel approach by a person in a wheelchair shall be provided at all appliances in the kitchen, including the range or cook top, oven...". He pointed out this standard stated "either" forward or parallel approach and does not state anything having to do with the specifics of the oven door. Vaught stated the oven is an appliance and it can be an adaptable feature and part of that unit. He drew attention the exhibit of the drawings depicting a parallel approach and a front approach. In summary, he stated the kitchen can be adaptable. Board member Johnson asked Mr. Vaught if this kitchen has been field tested. Mr. Vaught and Mr. Sibbald indicated it had not been field tested. Mr. Sibbald told the Board that since last August he has been in four separate meetings with Chief Building Inspector and concerns from the Commission on Disability were brought up at those times. He stated in each and every instance, prior to this time, the builder has acquiesced to modification. Last February the builder re -designed all bathrooms. Sibbald referred to the 1980 standards, page 53. He said that "sections 4.34.3 and 4.34.4" deal with bathrooms and kitchens, and everything after that point deals with adaptability not accessibility. He stated that as long as it is accessible and adaptable on demand, then the test has been met, "That's all you have to do," replied Sibbald. The base cabinets on the right side under the sink and dishwasher are removable base cabinets. According to Sibbald, as an adaptable feature, the radius can be expanded to be 60-inch wide. Sibbald said his project exceeds the state statues for accessibility and the COD now demands a higher test, one of practicality. Mr. Sibbald said practicality is not his burden. In conclusion, Mr. Sibbald said housing affordability has become a large issue and the biggest problem facing the disabled population is not accessibility, but affordability. Sibbald said he is the 2nd largest provider of low income housing in this community and all his kitchens, to date, have been built around the "U" shape design. Mr. Lee referred to the parallel and frontal approach to the oven, and again concluded the oven door precludes either one. l 0 0 Building Review Board July 31, 1992 Page 6 Board member Johnson stated he saw two issues here. One is how do you approach the controls with the oven door down and the other, what sort of accessibility is there to the controls. Lee said he felt the purpose of the standard is to provide usability. He stated perhaps there are some shades of grey in the regulations, but if a frontal or parallel approach is discussed, that presumes that encroachment of that appliance is intended to make it useable. Board member Johnson asked who had the original idea for the removable cabinets. Lee stated it was the builder's. Lee said that at that time, this option was an acceptable solution to this issue. Mr. Vaught stated the builder/developer has made every attempt to comply and meet with the governing bodies. Board member Johnson asked if it is possible for an individual in a wheelchair in a parallel position to use the oven properly. Mr. Lee said he felt it was not. Lee also stated that in his opinion, there is no way to get a parallel approach to the oven. Sibbald said the issues are: Does this kitchen have to have a 60- inch radius in it as a standard design feature, or can a 60-inch radius be offered as an adaptation? Sibbald stated all foundations are poured and 5 out of 6 buildings are framed. Shirley Reichenbach, Chairperson for the Commission on Disability appeared before the Board. She stated she has been reviewing building plans accessibility for over four years. She read the definition of accessibility from the HUD standards. She said the counter tops in this kitchen are not removable and do not allow a person in a wheelchair to turn about freely in the space. She said that in the standards it states, "a clear floor space shall allow for a forward approach to the counter at the work space". Reichenbach said on August 15, 1991, she received the preliminary drawings for this project. A meeting was held August 22, 1991 with her, Mr. Vaught and Mr. Tony Hughes from Vaught -Frye Architects and indicated that the kitchen design was not acceptable. Reichenbach said she was told, at that time, the owner wanted the kitchen this way and he didn't want to put the 60-inch radius in the kitchen because it would make this kitchen look different. Reichenbach addressed the affordability issue. She said HUD regulations address this issue and read the following, "all costs associated with incorporating the new design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act are borne by the builder." Building Review Board July 31, 1992 Page 7 "The compliance with these guidelines may also increase the cost of developing multi -family buildings and thus may increase the cost of renting or purchasing homes. Such costs that negatively affect families ability to obtain housing. However, the department believes that the benefits provided to families by housing that is in compliance with the Fair Housing Amendment Act, outweighs the possible increase cost of the building. Reichenbach said it's the Federal government's feelings that it doesn't matter if you have affordable housing," if you can't use it, it's worthless." She added that in December, 1991, Disabled Resources Services sent a letter to architects, builders, contractors and owners offering advise on the fair housing on a pro -active basis. (a copy is attached) James Reigles, building design professional and member of the Commission on Disability stated the kitchen is not accessible. Shirley Reichenbach stated the HUD regulations, in section 2.2.5C, require "a clear floor space at least 30-inch X 48-inch that allows parallel approach by a person in a wheelchair is provided at the range or cook top and sink, and either a parallel or forward approach is provided at the oven, dishwasher, refrigerator/freezer, or trash compactor. U-shaped kitchens, with the sink or range or cook top at the base of the "U" a 60-inch turning radius is provided that allows a parallel approach, or base cabinets are removable." Shirley recommended installing a wall -mounted oven in addition to a 60-inch radius kitchen. Shirley pointed out there were people present from the Housing Commission, DRS and ADA Task Force in the audience. Board member Goldrich and Mr. Sibbald reviewed the sequence of events leading up to this meeting. Steve Roy, City Attorney, explained if this matter is appealed to City Council, only what is on the record is allowed. He asked the Board to review what is required of the builder. Roy advised the Board to consider whether it is it enough to meet ANSI standards and, if so, has the builder done that, or, whether in fact, facilities must be accessible and usable. Roy read statue and there are two tests: 1) "Does it conform? and 2) "Is it accessible, meaning can it be used by physically handicapped people?" Building Review Board July 31. 1992 Page 8 Mr. Sibbald stated there was an alterative offered by Felix Lee in July of 1992. That alternative was to offer the same exact design with a counter top oven,. separate from the cook top. Sibbald stated the reason they did not consider the alternative is because they felt they met the criteria for accessibility. Lee said that what he required of the developer/owner at this time was one of two alternatives: 1) moving the counters to a 60-inch width or, 2) or supplying some other type of accessible/usable oven. Lee said there may be a third position being suggested here by the COD: Strict compliance with the 60-inch standard. Lee said that what he is asking of the Board is, "Does this design meet the requirements as modified by the removable cabinets?" Lee feels it does not. Mr. Sibbald stated this project is three weeks from opening the leasing office and five weeks away from moving people in. The design was approved, now it is disapproved. Shirley Reichenbach mentioned this 60-inch issue was raised by COD in August of 1991, before slabs were poured and cabinets ordered. COD was not invited to the meeting held with Mr. Sibbald and Mr. Lee when the variance was discussed. Reichenbach said that with regard to Fair Housing regulations, if a complaint is filed on this building the courts have an opportunity to make the builder tear -out and retro-fit this unit to make it meet guidelines. Mr. Vaught stated there are three different criteria, the State Statutes, the Americans with Disability Act and Fair Housing. All are similar, but all are different. Mr. Reigles stated the standards COD is requesting are only minimal standards. It will still be very very tough for a person in a wheelchair to work in that kitchen. Reichenbach said ANSI design standards are not new, and the ANSI standards being referenced are dated 1980. The Hud law was enacted in 1988 according to Reichenbach. Board member Johnson stated it will be extremely difficult to tell if this kitchen is accessible because no one on this Board is physically handicapped. From what was presented, he feels this kitchen does not meet strict requirements for a U-shaped kitchen by ANSI standards, however, he believes the Chief Building Official did approve it. Building Review Board July 31, 1992 Page 9 Board member Johnson moved to excuse the Board to an executive session with Mr. Roy. Board member Sutton seconded the motion. Yeas: Cornell, Sutton, Johnson, Goldrich. The motion passed. After approximately 15 minutes the meeting resumed. Board member Sutton stated the oven door cannot be divorced from the oven, and therefore there is no accessibility. According to ANSI standards, Mr. Sutton feels this kitchen does not comply. Board member Sutton moved that before a variance is granted to allow the 48-inch space, the builder, developer and Chief Building Official discuss options that may be available to alleviate the situation that limits the accessibility of the oven. If that can be arranged, then the Board grant the variance to allow the 48-inch separation. The motion was discussed. Board member Sutton stated at this time the intent of the ANSI standards for adaptability and accessibility are not met with this design. Sutton said the Board has no evidence that the kitchen is accessible, but do have evidence that the kitchen is not accessible. Board member Sutton stated he would like his motion to state that the Board will allow a variance 48-inch space to exist only after discussion has taken place and acceptable solution to the accessibility problem is found. Attorney Steve Roy advised the Board that it needed to make finding of fact for the record. Board member Sutton moved to accept the determination that 60-inch diameter is required by ANSI standards. Board member Johnson seconded the motion. The motion carried. Mr. Roy advised the Board that they needed to determine if a variance from the 60-inch is acceptable in this case, and if so, under what circumstances. Board member Sutton moved to amend his motion that a 48-inch radius would be acceptable under the following condition the accessibility issue be resolved between builder/developer and Chief Building Official with regard to the stove and range. Board member Goldrich seconded the motion. Shirley Reichenbach stated that by granting a variance the Board would be considering a hardship on the builder. She said the accessibility standards that are required have been in effect since 1980 and she believes there was an error of omission on the designer's part and the owner's fault for asking the designer to design such a kitchen. She said that to force disabled people to use a less accessible area is not acceptable and to make changes is not an unreasonable thing to do. 9 • Building Review Board July 31, 1992 Page 10 Mr. Vaught stated he understood the Board is willing to grant a variance based on the condition that the builder, designer and the Chief Building official work together to solve the specific problem with the oven door being accessible. Board member Sutton amended his motion to state the variance would be granted only if the accessibility problem can be resolved to Lee's satisfaction. Yeas: Cornell, Johnson, Sutton, Goldrich. The motion passed. All the exhibits and correspondence was collected and will be included in these minutes. The meeting was adjourned. HC/FL:aer Harry Cornell, Vice Chairman Date