HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 10/25/2001FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD
Regular Meeting — October 25, 2001
1:00 D.M.
A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday October 25, 2001, in the Council
Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins.
BOARDMEMBERSPRESENT:
Charles Fielder
Thomas Hartmann
Allan Hauck
Gene Little
Bradley Massey
John McCoy
BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT:
Cameron Ryland
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Felix Lee, Director of Building & Zoning
Delynn Coldiron, Contractor Licensing Administrator
Stacie Soriano, Staff Support to the Board
Fielder:
I would like to welcome you to the monthly meeting of the Building Review Board.
Um our first order of business would be to approve the minutes of the previous meeting.
Everybody have a chance to look them over? Do we have a motion?
Hartmann:
I'll move to approve the minutes.
Fielder:
Okay do we have a second?
Little:
Yes, second.
Fielder:
Okay um Delynn, roll call.
Coldiron:
Hartmann
Hartmann:
Yes
Coldiron:
McCoy
McCoy:
Yes
Coldiron:
Little
Little:
Yes
BR6
October 25, 2001
Page 2 of 24
Coldiron:
Fielder
Fielder:
Yes
Coldiron:
Massey
Massey:
Yes
Coldiron:
Hauck
Hauck:
Yes
Fielder:
Okay, I would like to explain um -hearing procedures for appeals since our first item is
an appeal. Um okay first the Building and Zoning Director, Felix Lee, will present a
brief introduction. Then the appellant may present his case, calling witnesses,
presenting relevant evidence. Uh then the Building and Zoning Director may ask
questions of the appellant. He may also testify and call any witnesses and present
testimony or present testimony rather than witnesses of his own. Um the appellant and
the appellant's representative or the appellant's representative may then ask questions of
City staff and City witnesses. Um at that point in time, the appellant will be ask to
present any final testimony or evidence in a closing statement. And the Building and
Zoning director will then have an opportunity to uh make his own final closing
statement. Um at that point in time the Board will make a determination as to whether
the appeal should be granted or denied or if other relief is appropriate. Um decisions of
this Board may be appealed to City Council however City Council cannot hear any new
evidence. It is very important that all evidence be presented here during this meeting
today. Appeals must be filed in writing with the City Clerk within fourteen days of this
Board's decision. Um let's see ...also statements made during this appeal may be used
by the City as well as other parties involved as part of a separate legal proceedings such
as Municipal Court Code violation and prosecution, but I don't think that will come up.
So, Felix how about Kenneth Edwards, Quality Concrete, L.L.C.
Lee:
The first uh, yes you'll, you can. I'll introduce it uh Mr. Edwards and then you can uh
speak to the issue.- (Talking without microphone). That's fine. Um the appellant is uh
as stated is Kenneth Edwards, representing Quality Concrete. The appellant is
requesting an exam waiver um based on experience um this is in particular for uh cast -
in -place concrete license. And the appellant maintains that he has worked in this
business for many years --since 1975, in fact. And the basis for his request uh other than
his experience is that the appellant uh apparently uh believes that uh he cannot perform
well with written exams. I would just uh add that the appellant has provided the
required project verification forms and has listed some projects that uh some large
projects, that uh he and his company has been involved with. I think with that uh I don't
really have much more to add and I'll let Mr. Edwards take it from there, uh if you
would just identify yourself for the record.
Fielder:
And be sure to speak into the microphone.
Lee:
Yes, please.
Edwards:
Ken Edwards. I seen somethin' I guess the address ...6662 Road 76, Windsor. I think
the zip code is 50550, but don'tquote me on that. Don't write home much anymore.
(The Board chuckles). What else do you need?
Lee:
Just kind of ...if you would Mr. Edwards just give some background why you're
requesting the exam waiver uh so the Board understands why, why, why you have a
unique situation.
Edwards:
The biggest thing I don't know in a written exam, I don't know if I went clear back to
my grade school, I don't know if I ever passed a written exam of any, any type. I guess
this is somethin' you guys hear quite a bit but uh-same way with spelling. Don't know
how arithmetic, don't know how to take and add and subtract fractions, write 'em down,
*tts
October 25, 2001
Page 3 of 24
but I'd beat you on the computer in my head --self-taught. Come from old school and
I've never done good on any kind of a written test. In fact I ended up in the Marine
Corp transports cause I was too dumb to get in the choppers, but I flew a lot of miles
and I don't know how to explain myself. I don't want to go down and take uh written
test. I think it's kind of like people goin' and votin' and after they vote they, they say I
didn't vote that way it's the way stuffs wrote down. I think everybody has been through
that. Experience as far as concrete work I go back to'48 that's a little bit back in years.
Some of the bigger buildings right here in town. Started out with Reevebert (?) and I
am sure some of you guys remember Reeve, he's dead and gone now, but uh started out
with him right over at the Fort Collins Post Office when I first came here. Reeve was
one of the better engineers that probably ever hit this town. Sharp man. Sharp man. I
guess if you guys want to turn me down, that's up to you, but then I have to go to your
Civic Center next door and I'll have them put the red tags on it telling them don't go in
there cause that's what they'll ask for when their done for yahs. (Board chuckles). And
I don't do housework and I don't do any, just commercial work. The only guy I am
workin' with and have for the last few years is Dave Neenan. Everybody in this town I
think knows Dave. That's only man I work with. The only reason I am here today to try
to get a license is a job --The New Belgium job that's about to go. If I get the license I
guess I do it, if I don't, I don't do the job. But it's uh, if the jobs right for pay, if the jobs
right for me to where it's good for both of us, I do the job otherwise I don't. Fortunate
enough 1 don't have to work anymore if I don't want to. The wife says you need a job. I
don't know if that was for a milk ticket or get me out of the house.
Fielder:
Okay.
Edwards:
The difference, I think, between education and knowledge, I think uh the over education
just got exposed in New York about a month ago by a few commandments. And
knowledge they lack it. I don't have no education. I couldn't pass a fourth grade test
today. Cause I've got grandkids there so I can see what the test is. That's about all I've
got to say.
Fielder:
Okay.
Lee:
Thank you Mr. Edwards, I don't have any questions.
Fielder:
Um I have a quick question. Is this um, is this licensing requirement as a result of our
new
Lee:
Yes.
Fielder:
licensing requirements.
Lee:
It is.
Fielder:
Okay.
Edwards:
Is it all right if I ask a question?
Fielder:
Yes, it's your tum to.
Edwards:
I don't what the City fathers are trying to accomplish with getting' a license. If it's the
uh better the field and do quality work I am one hundred percent for it. But I don't think
this is going to get that accomplished. See my work is checked my engineers.
Everything I pour is checked by a licensing engineer. And uh I think this is somethin'
that should be and I don't know if I'm in the right place but I've always thought this is
somethin' that should be getting' into house work. You see nobody checks your City
inspectors check the work. The quality of the concrete, the strength of the concrete,
there ain't no test running anything. And I've been against that for years. Everything I
pour is tested everyday, everyday. Fifty yards and there's got to be a test, fifty yards or
less. And then you get your not only your slump test, you get your compression test,
and there ain't a house in this town that's got concrete, that matches anything
commercial --nowhere. I guess that's about all I got.
Fielder:
Board, questions?
Hauck:
I guess a question for Felix. As Charles is asking that this is a result of the new
licensing requirement that anybody constructing structural concrete will now have to
carry a license and that's the reason uh why Mr. Edwards has never had to pass the exam
before and never had to have a license before?
BRb
October 25, 2001
Page 4 of24
Lee:
Exactly so.
Hauck:
Okay. Now Mr. Edwards you say that now you, you serve as a subcontractor now,
primarily to Neenan Construction.
Edwards:
Yes (out of range of microphone)
Hauck:
Pardon me.
Edwards:
I said I am way past (out of range of microphone),
Hauck:
Okay, but you say, as of now the work that you're doing is all with uh Mr. Neenan's
company?
Edwards:
(Out of range of microphone). I don't go to Denver at all anymore. If it's on this site,
just done one, right, it's about 104th, between 104th and 120th. I'll go that far, but I
won't go across town anymore.
Hauck:
The job descriptions that they have here describe what you provide on the job
site is primarily labor service for setting formwork. Uh
Edwards:
Exactly.
Hauck:
Okay.
Edwards:
Don't buy material that's up to the Neenan Company.
Hauck:
So you don't buy the material. Do you supply your own formwork?
Edwards:
Yip. I supply labor and forms.
Hauck:
You come with labor and forms Neenan buys the concrete.
Edwards:
Right.
Hauck:
How about setting the rebar? Does your crew set the rebar?
Edwards:
Very seldom do I set the rebar. They're pretty will set with spring steel out of Colorado
Springs.
Hauck:
Okay.
Edwards:
We've got a pretty good team there and uh I can't compete with those guys.
Hauck:
Now is there anybody else who works for you? Who carries a superintendent's license
or anything?
Edwards:
No. No. Bob Poblish, I think was in here not long ago, and probably got a license uh. .
.he was my foreman for a long time. Bob kind of uh, got his own business up in Estes
Park now. And uh I use his men most of the time and uh
Hauck:
So you don't have a full-time foreman that works for you ...
Edwards:
No.
Hauck:
at this point.
Edwards:
No.
Hauck:
Okay.
Edwards:
On uh I got a question. Uh Bob said all the guys now have to carry a card or somethin'.
Everybody uses temporary help in the construction field. How we handling that now?
Lee:
Uh we can, we can talk in further Mr. Edwards but basically if you're, so they are not
employees they are temporary help.
Edwards:
Right.
Lee:.
Um you do have to, the new regulations do require that you list temporary workers with
us so we know who they are and they do get an id card.
Edwards:
See this ain't never gonna work out because when you call down there you have no idea
who you are getting, you know what I'm saying? This is uh, this gonna be a technical
situation I can see it comin'.
Lee:
Are they are the workers, what kind of work are they doing? Are they just trucking the .
Edwards:
They can be general laborers you know it depends on what you've got. Most of 'em
that's all they are is general laborers. But still they're workin' in my crew and they are
on my payroll. I want to know how I handle this.
Lee:
Well if they are not doing um --if they are not installing rebar and they are not actually
uh, uh, are they doing, setting primarily just setting forms is that what ...
Edwards:
Yeah, they do that, lot of it's in the strippin' field, you know, after you pour, but uh
Lee:
Yeah those
C ber25,2001
Page 5 of 24
Edwards:
That be moving forms around even when you set.
Lee:
Yeah those, those workers, are I guess I would consider those uh they are non-structural
workers, they are just laborers. They don't have to be ...
Edwards:
They don't have to be.
Lee:
Identified. Right.
Edwards:
Because I don't want one of your guys coming out there if I am working in a middle of a
pour and say hey get this guy off the job. I run that question by Dave this morning and
uh he didn't have an answer neither. He hasn't run into it yet.
Lee:
Um huh.
Edwards:
It's going to happen.
Lee:
Right, we'll clarify that.
Fielder:
Okay, um Mr. Edwards do you have uh do you wish to uh make a closing statement?
Edwards:
Pardon.
Fielder:
Do you wish to make a closing statement?
Edwards:
I think I explained where I am.
Fielder:
Okay.
Edwards:
Like a book leamer, I wouldn't have to be here.
Fielder:
Felix, do you have anything?
Lee:
I would just say that um obviously the uh the regulations are in place, and testing is
there for a reason, and on the other hand that's what the Review Board is for with the --to
weigh the experience and whether that's equivalent uh the experience and um special
qualifications.
Little:
Felix, can we uh could we grant the issuance of a license then uh without the taking of
the exam?
Lee:
Yes, you certainly can.
Fielder:
Yeah.
Hauck:
I guess my only concern is, you know, its concern that I've expressed often is the setting
of precedence. You know that uh, you know I have every little question in this case so
somebody whose you know has, has the uh, the experience that Mr. Edwards has and
the qualifications that he has based on the jobs that he has worked on that he is qualified
to continue to do this kind of work. You know, my only concern is setting a precedence
you know for someone who we would be concerned, you know, about their
qualifications more so, you know, and start to make exceptions in this case. Uh you
know especially with crews that aren't setting the rebar, that aren't responsible for the
layout and the engineering, you know. I'm, I'm not concerned so any decision we make
I think I want some kind of qualification on it either recognizing twenty-five years plus
experience. You know, there was some, some type of a relatively high hurdle that we
don't have somebody who has been doing this for six months to come in and say you did
it for Mr. Edwards, you need to do it for me.
Fielder:
Right. And It hink you were absent. We ran right through this hoop once before.
Hauck:
Okay.
Fielder:
And um, I think Paul was here and Paul told us that it would be good to um almost do a
finding of fact kind of a scenario. Where we actually included the amount of
experience, and the years of experience, and things like that as part of the
Lee:
Exactly.
Fielder:
Do you remember that?
Lee:
Yes I do. The point being that each case to some extent is unique and um I understand
member Hauck's reservations on the other hand that's, that's the whole point of the
process.
Fielder:
Right. Right. I think that's how Paul was saying we should deal with that, if we're
going to deal with it.
Lee:
Right.
Fielder:
I have a question for you. Um we've had some similar things come up before us um and
we've talked about having somebody there um to help interpret the exam or whatever.
And if I remember right at this point in time the City is not really able to modify the
BRL
October 25, 2001
Page 6 of 24
exam to that degree. Is that correct?
Lee:
Yes, that's right.
Fielder:
So we're sort of between a rock and a hard place. We're either yes you test or no you
don't have to test --so
Little:
Well also I think Mr. Edwards is under the authority of a corporate structure that's
highly managed and highly structured and highly supervised. Um and so I feel it's not
just an issue of experience here, but it's an issue of the fact that he is working under the
authority of a company that is highly managed. Um, so there is some accountability
that Mr. Edwards would have with the Neenan Company under these contracts.
Fielder:
Accountability but not responsibility.
Little:
Right.
Edwards:
I think the responsibility comes uh in my fieldwork like I said the tester tests every --all
my concrete that goes into that. The engineers check everything I do. Uh you talk
about overhead and lookin' down there's a whole lot of people look down at
subcontractor, whole lot of people.
Little:
Well I'm, I'm prepared to make a motion here. That um we would um that we would
approve the licensing of um, would the licensing come under the name of the company
now or Mr. Edwards, individually?
Edwards:
(Talking without microphone.) Underneath Quality Concrete now, L.L.C. and I think in
the eyes of the court that's where it would have to be.
Lee:
Yeah, that's the way the application is completed.
Little:
Okay, thank you. I would like to move that um, that we would approve the issuance of
a license uh, uh to Mr. Edwards through um his company, Quality Concrete, L.L.C., um
and um waive the requirement for testing because of um, of proven experience in the
field of structural concrete installation and um the fact that he is working under um a the
authority of um of uh , of uh a corporation, a uh construction company um, uh, who he
is um accountable to um as a um as a fact of the motion and also that um, uh, that he is
um, operating under um, uh direct um, engineering approval from the um, the structural
engineers that are assigned to the projects um as well as uh I believe the City of Fort
Collins also has to um inspect, is that correct Felix --on these projects or is that
Lee:
No. This would be done by a third party inspector --typically a licensed engineer.
Fielder:
This is special inspections and testing.
Lee:
Exactly.
Fielder:
Yeah. So it's even more rigorous.
Little:
I am just kind of trying to make a finding of fact here on this motion that um allows us
to be able to approve this waiver.
Fielder:
Well we should add an amendment that he's been doing this since 1948.
Little:
Yes, well I think that was the primary position that I was taking on the, on the motion.
That uh Mr. Edwards has um, has certainly shown us that he has um been in this career
field for a Ion-, number of years and has successfully completed prior projects that um
that we've been able to verify.
Hartmann:
You want to make that say fifty years, Gene cause he said 1948 that is a threshold in
this case.
Little:
Yes, fifty years is a good threshold. My motion is a little convoluted, but uh how much
of that Delynn, would you like to have repeated.
Fielder:
All of it.
Coldiron:
Do you want me to tell you what I have?
Little:
Please.
Coldiron:
Okay. I have a motion to approve the license for Mr. Edwards through his company,
Quality Concrete. Uh and waive the requirement of testing because of his proven fifty
plus years of experience in the field of structural concrete installation, and the fact that
he is working under the authority of a construction company who he is accountable to,
and that he is operating under the direct engineering approval from structural engineer
assigned to the projects.
Little:
Did I say that?
*RB
October 25, 2001
Page 7 of24
Coldiron:
You did.
Little:
That's very good.
Fielder:
You're a good doctor.
Little:
My motion stands so does anybody, anybody want to second that?
Hauck:
Second.
Fielder:
Any discussion?
Hartmann:
I am going to abstain from voting on this because some of these specific projects are my
projects as engineer of record. So I don't want to give any impression of conflict of
interest.
Fielder:
Okay.
Lee:
Yeah, technically Tom you need to 'excuse from the dais and not participate in
the ...it's a, it's a formal procedure, but if you believe you have a conflict, you'll have to
file a statement with the City Clerk and um take yourself off the panel, here from the
moment.
Hartmann:
Can I just abstain from voting?
Lee:
That's up to you.
Hartmann:
Okay cause I don't believe that I have a conflict interest because there is no financial
relationship between ...
Lee:
That's your choice, that's fine then
Hartmann:
But I'll abstain
Lee:
That might be a simpler way to do that
Fielder:
Plus this is an appeal and not a license violation.
Lee:
Same.
Fielder:
Okay. Any other discussion? Okay, roll call.
Coldiron:
McCoy
McCoy:
Yes
Coldiron:
Little
Little:
Yes
Coldiron:
Fielder
Fielder:
Yes
Coldiron:
Massey
Massey:
Yes
Coldiron:
Hauck
Hauck:
Yes
Little:
Thank you, Mr. Edwards.
Fielder:
Thank you.
Edwards:
Is that it?
Fielder:
That's it. Wasn't too painful, I hope.
Edwards:
Appreciate it. Hate to go down and see grown people say hey look how dumb that
fellow is.
Lee:
You can't be dumb for ...
Edwards:
(inaudible on tape)
Lee
You obviously have thank you.
Fielder:
Okay, next item. Code hearing, which I don't have any procedures for.
Lee:
That's a code appeal.
Fielder:
It is all right, so it's the same.
Lee:
Yes.
Fielder:
Same procedures for KB Home Colorado Incorporated. Um, Felix do you wish to uh
address that?
Lee:
Yes, this um this would be case number 29-2001. Um Steve Klausing, on behalf of uh
KB Homes of Denver is representing the uh case today. This is fairly complicated. I'll
to try uh demystify it as, as best I can. If anybody has any questions along the way um
please uh stop me. And also acknowledge there are uh parties of interest attending in
addition to um Mr. Klausing um, I note several members of the Commission on
BRB
October 25, 2001
Page 8 of 24
Disability in the audience who may wish to speak to the issue. The um, the matter
basically comes down to the fact that Fort Collins has a local amendment with respect to
accessibility in multi -family housing. And it um, first let me say, to give some
background here. The, the um, the appellant is requesting a variance from a local
standard that requires that in particular that, that um, would require a specified number
of certain types of accessible dwelling units in this multi -family project. With that said
um fifty percent of the accessible dwelling units have to be constructed with the same,
with proportional distribution of uh bedroom types as are found in the non -accessible
units. It's an affordable project in partnership with the City of Fort Collins. And the,
the builder/developer is faced with the conflict of placing, pricing those units within the
required affordability criteria. The appellant maintains that in particular the number of
three bedroom units that would be required under the local amendments uh, which turn
out to be seven in this case based on the number of total uh non -accessible units in the
project. There are 141 units uh in this first phase. It's all part of the Affordable Housing
phase. And the appellant is suggesting or offering to construct additional two bedroom,
two bath units that are, meet the accessibility requirements in lieu of the three bedroom.
The three bedrooms that are proposed by the appellant are two-story. The um, the code
process works like this. Um I am going to give you an analogy here. It's like a sieve --a
three -layer sieve. There is uh Federal Fair Housing Act, and this project, because they
are two-story units does not fall under the Federal Fair Housing Act. The model
building code which we have adopted um basically for the same reason because they are
two-story are exempt from those standards. The next level of, in the sieve is the state
law, which requires in any, on any property containing more than seven units in a
multiple, in one or more multi -family buildings has to comply with the state law which
says that basically approximately for every seven units there has to be one accessible
unit. And then further down the screening process the local amendment says additional
those accessible units have to have a distribution. You have to offer essentially a
proportional amount of bedroom types and, and functional features as are offered in the
non -accessible units. So with that sort of backdrop um the issue comes down to uh, the
numbers that I've mentioned. Based on the 141 units and of those that are non -
accessible, the math comes down to 20 or 21 units that are required to be accessible, and
then there's a distribution of the bedroom types that uh for those 21 units and given the
fact that uh the non -accessible units, 14% are two bedroom, one bath; 18% are two
— - bedroom, two bath; and 68% are three bedroom, two bath. The math works out that
they are 50% of those required accessible units is ten so distilling that further, one that
means, there would have to be at least one two bedroom, one bath; at least two, two
bedroom, two bath; and seven three bedroom, two bath. And I think I will, unless there
are any questions at this point, I will turn it over to Mr. Klausing to, to explain the
dilemma that they face in terms of pricing and meeting the affordability criteria. I guess
before that I think its important to also mention that um based on uh, uh specific local
amendment as well there are, the Building Review Board is uh constrained on exactly
how they can rule. Um generally, the Building Review Board as an appellant body has
two avenues. It can say that the building officials interpretation is erroneous, number
one or be in considered an altemative design, alternate materials, or alternate methods
purposed that are equivalent to those prescribed by the Code considering structural
strength effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, safety or any other pertinent factors.
So that's fairly general, I think the uh, uh, my opinion is that the Building Review Board
does have latitude to make a decision on this based on that criteria. And secondarily uh,
the appellant must also demonstrate that the application of a particular standard or
specification relating to access for person with disabilities would impose an
extraordinary hardship on the subject property. And then it goes on further to describe
what that is, an extraordinary hardship shall mean a substantial and unusual hardship
which is the direct result of any physical site conditions such as terrain, topography,
geology, etc. Or which is the direct result of other unique special conditions
encountered on the subject property, which are not typically encountered elsewhere in
the City, and I guess that's where I would place this project. And then it goes on further.
ORB
October 25, 2001
Page 9 of 24
Constraints, complications or difficulties that may arise by complying with this chapter
and/or with the standards for accessibility but that do not constitute an extraordinary
hardship shall not serve to justify granting of an exception or variance. I guess withthat
I will introduce Mr. Klausing and he can further elaborate on the case and the issues that
the developer is faced with.
Klausing: Good afternoon, my name is Steve Klausing and I am director of government affairs for
KB Home. Um, Mr. Lee has done a pretty good job of giving you a bit of the
background on this project, but I think it's important that there is a couple of other issues
that you need to have an overall understanding. Um, this project is uh part of a large
project that the City and uh KB Home have been working on for a number of years.
Um, some of you may have even heard of it through other contacts and so forth.
However, part of the contract which KB Home has with the City requires that and this is
in the purchase contract where KB Home actually purchased this land from the City a
number of years ago. One of the provisions in that contract requires that 30% of all
units constructed be affordable. That's a definition that is within the City Code and that
is a definition that basically is based upon the area median income for the Fort
Collins/Loveland area. That, for purposes of just discussion um, if we assumed if that
area of median income is about $50,000 some thousand dollars, 80% of that is about
$40,000. There's then one more calculation that's applied against that $40,000, which is
38%, so if you took 38% of $40,000, that is what a buyer of one of our affordable units
has available to spend on their monthly housing expense. That monthly housing
expense must include principle interest, taxes, insurance, homeowner's dues, and
utilities. Um, after you take out some of the variable expenses like utilities,
homeowner's uh dues, um taxes and insurance are pretty much figure what those are.
But you end up with what's available for a PITI per month that's the maximum amount
that a buyer can spend on one of our affordable units. It's calculated then on a 30-year
interest or mortgage rate at a prevailing interest rate. Based on that when you find out,
for example, that what they can afford to spend is $1000.00 a month. We then have to
build and sell our product such that a person coming in could buy it, qualify, get a
mortgage at a 30-year rate and pay $1000.00 a month. We can't sell it for anymore than
that because the buyer per our contract with the City, the buyer is prevented from
spending anymore than that. Even if they wanted to they couldn't spend anymore than
that. If they came in and had more money, then they don't qualify. If they come in and
say well we don't have any debts um, none at all, no car, no nothin', we could afford to
pay more than a $1000.00 a month. That's too bad, they can't do that. They can only
pay that that's the maximum amount. That is a contract and it's based upon an ordinance
with the City, but it's a contract that we have with the City is to how we have to build
and sell these units. That is one of the two stones that we find ourselves caught
between. That price or that that is the maximum price that we can build and sell these
units for. The units that we are proposing to sell, build are townhouse style units. They
will be in buildings which have anywhere from four to six, maybe seven units in one
building. But they are townhouse style buildings they are not condominiums. They're
not stacked they are townhouse style. The code with the City requiring an accessibility
does not apply to townhouses. Townhouses are legally separate residences, even though
they may be attached --they are legally a separate residence. They don't, they would not
fall within this Code. If in fact, we were selling these as townhouses we would not be
here. We would have no accessibility requirement whatsoever. We could build all two-
story units. However because we are very concerned about preserving the maintenance,
and upkeep, and so forth of these units we have decided to sell them as condominiums.
That way are homeowner's association and so forth is responsible for all of the exterior
maintenance of the units, paint, and upkeep, etc. So a lot of reasons that went into this
business decision. But basically we wanted to make sure that the project was well
maintained, the best way to do that is as a condominium. Unfortunately, the definition
of a condominium places it within the multi -family qualification. So now, we fall as
Mr. Lee was explaining to you, now even though we could have built all two-story units
we are now a condominium. Since we are a condominium we have to build some one-
BRI.
October 25, 2001
Page 10 of 24
story ranches. And to be very candid with you that's fine with us. We're very happy to
build the one-story ranches. We're very happy to be able to serve an accessibility
community within Fort Collins. As a matter of fact we are delighted to be able to
provide within this project a housing opportunity that is probably missing in this
community and that we hope will be an enormous success. The fact that these are also
going to be affordable will we hope, make them more accessible from a financial
standpoint to the accessibility community. According to the calculation we need to
build twenty-one ranch units out of 141, which we have designed and which we are
prepared to build. Those 21 ranch units will have um certain accessibility features
required by the City's Code within them. They will have for example, blocking within
the walls in the event handrails and so forth are necessary. They will be wheelchair
accessible into the units. Um, they will have, and I am not an engineer so I don't know
all of the details, but they will have um a minimum number of accessibility
requirements. Each of the 21 ranch units, every single one of them will have that.
However, we all know that to truly provide the accessible units not that uh, that
individuals who um really need all of the features um that costs a substantially uh more
money. We have calculated that that could cost anywhere from $10,000415,000 uh to
make those units fully accessible. That includes putting in all of the other features like
actually putting in the, the, the handrails and so forth, actually installing roll in showers,
actually lowering all of the counters and so forth having those standards which make the
unit um more functional for, for uh accessibility. Here's the problem --units that we are
selling and building here we sell and build in Denver for $20,000 to $40,000 more.
There is, is for all intents and purposes almost no difference between these units, which
will be selling for probably no more than $140,000 and units which we sell in the
Denver metro area for $160,000-$170,000. Therefore when we sell these units here in
Fort Collins we're going to have to price them at the maximum amount that an
individual who could qualify could afford to pay. So if you go back to the first part of
our formula, you've got a $1,000 that you can afford for the PITI and, and that, and that
comes out to a $140,000 we're going to price them relatively close to that. Now what
we like to do with our products is to allow the homebuyer to have the option to go into
our home studio and pick out upgrades, options and things like that. Typically, on most
of our projects that would be anywhere from eight, to ten, to twelve thousand dollars per
unit that they could pick out. Obviously some of the things that people pick out are
upgraded carpet, countertops, tile, things like that. Well in an affordable unit that's not
as important, but there are some things that are very important for people to be able to
pick out. For example, we will finance a person's um washer, dryer, refrigerator,
window coverings, all of those kinds of things. So, we feel that the clientele that's going
to be buying one of our affordable units is very likely going to need some of these
things. They may, may not have ever had a home before, so they may need a washer,
they may need a dryer, they may need water uh, window coverings, and they may need
a refrigerator. If we price our unit right at the very top, that $140,000.00 there's no way
they can afford to buy that. They can't pay for it on the side, well because we can't sell
it to them unless it's in the contract. They could go to uh you know to you know I don't
know Best Buy or somebody like that you know and buy a washer and dryer, but we all
know that the best way is to buy those things and put it in your contract. You get
financed, interest deduction for it you know, it's much better way to do it. So we have
to at least price these units a little bit below that maximum price, to allow our
homebuyers to have the option to go and pick those things up that they're very likely
going to need. The problem though is that are accessibility community if they want to
purchase a home and have it modified and they ask us to do it. They are going to have
to pay for it. They are going to have to pay the additional amount. If there's $2000 or a
$1000 under the maximum price there's no way they are going to be able pay for and
have that unit modified. We cannot do it for them. We are under contract with the City
to only charge the maximum amount, which is let's say $140,000. To completely
accessorize, not accessorize that's not, to make it accessible, make it accessible, it's
gonna cost at least $10,000 to $15,000. The three bedroom ranch units that we are
•
•BRB
October 25, 2001
Page I of24
going to have to build under the City's Code are the most expensive units we are gonna
build. They would be by far the most expensive; they will have to be priced at the
$140,000 level. One of our members of the accessible community who comes in and
wants to modify that unit is not going to be able to do it. They won't even be able to
buy it. They cannot contract with us separately; they won't be able to buy that unit. We
feel that the City's (tape turns over) propose is to instead of making the three bedroom
units, will substitute those for the two bedrooms, two bath units. Those will be cheaper
for one thing, thus hopefully making them more available to more people. And
secondly there will be a greater cushion between the maximum price and the offering
price so that if they want to make those accessible by putting the counters in and that
type of thing they'll be able to do it. They'll be able to get it in their contract, and they'll
be able to be financed, and then, then they'll be able to purchase it. We're very
concerned for two things. We don't think the three bedroom, two bath ranches are going
to be sold to our accessible community. And, and the fact is, is that we are building a
lot of three bedroom, two bed -story, two-story units. If we didn't do that and we build
all three bedroom, two -stories, we wouldn't have to build any three bedroom ranches.
We just would be building two bedroom ranches, which we are fine with. So, we think
this is an unusual circumstance, we think that there's probably not another property in
the City that has the requirements for affordability that we have, that we've encountered.
We don't feel that this project truly is a multi -family project. If it weren't for the fact
that we were selling it as condominiums they would be townhouses --we wouldn't even
be here, and um it's only because they're being sold as condominiums. And again, the
only reason were selling them, as condominiums is that we want to make sure that the
exteriors are well maintained. Problem that we've, let let me explain one more thing
because I want that point well understood. The individuals that buy these properties can
resale them but under the same formula that we sold it to them originally. So that
means that if they go out and want to sell that property in two or three years they have
to sell it to a person who is qualified again. Well, the property itself may have gone up
twenty or thirty thousand dollars, but they can't get that appreciation out of it. The
agreement that we have with the City is that these properties will remain affordable for
twenty-five years. So an individual who buys one of these properties has no motivation
to put money or invest money into it. For example, if there were unfinished basements,
this is just an example, there would be no motivation to finish your basement because
you can't get any money for it. If a tree died in the front yard, there would be no
motivation to invest your money it because you can't get it back out. There is no
motivation to do anything with the property. We're concerned about that. We want to
make sure that if a person is living there that they don't feel like hey, I am just going to
stay for a year or two until I can afford to move and go someplace else where I can get
on the appreciation escalator. We want to make sure that regardless of whether a person
is there for six months or six years, or twenty-five years that the project looks as good
today as it did before. That's one of the years that we've decided to go as a
condominium because we can have a much stronger HOA, plus we maintain all of the
exteriors of the building --roof, paints, you know all that stuff. It's all under the HOA, so
uh, basically that's uh kind of the story. We feel that this is a very unique situation um
we are delighted to provide the affordable project to the City, we've worked extremely
closely with all the City officials. Um we're excited to be doing this. We're also very
excited to be offering and accessible project. Um we can't wait to begin marketing this
and hope that we have a project that um, here's one of the things, these 21 units that, that
are ranches they could all be bought by people who don't need an accessible unit, you
know. As a matter of fact, the three bedroom, two bath units are very likely that they're
gonna, they will be bought by someone else. Cause they can't be modified, they won't,
they can't keep them under the price level, they can't be modified. Um we're hopeful
that all 21 will be sold to folks who need accessibility. Um that would be wonderful.
am d
veto
BRL
October 25, 2001
Page 12 of 24
Klausing:
Pardon.
Massey:
Do you have to you don't have to sell them. You just got to build them and then you
can sell them to whoever you want.
Klausing:
That's exactly true, that's exactly true. You know um and, and they will be pre -built.
Um and it's possible that someone could come in um you know ...what we would
encourage ...what we would hope is that the community that needs these units will hear
about them and will in fact come in and, and we can get them so there is more of the
accessible features within the unit. Uh as opposed to let's say it's already built and it's
sitting there, you know, sits there for two, three, four, five, six months, and somebody
comes in and wants to buy then, then you know, then, then, it's much more difficult to
make any amendments or adjustments. So we're hopeful of that, you know, they will,
we will, we hope to market to the accessible community and we hope that they will take
advantage of coming in and doing kind of like what we call a pre -sale. Put a contract on
one and so forth before the construction even begins, so. Um, I guess that's it. We feel
there's a real conflict between the goals of the two uh, uh ordinances here. Um we feel
that uh, uh, that it would serve both the accessible community and it would uh serve the
affordable community as well, which is what we are trying to do. Uh if we were
permitted to substitute these two bedroom, two bath units for the three bedroom, two
bath units. Thank you very much.
Fielder:
Thank you, Felix.
Lee:
I would offer anyone in the audience that uh wishes to speak in favor of the uh-proposed
project to come forward. Again, this is for those in favor of the project as proposed.
Just to make sure. Um, Mr. Klausing, um I have a couple of questions in ... uh first I
wanted to mention you, you indicate that if, that if someone wanted the needed full
accessibility or specialized accessibility would, it would require extensive work and
considerable money to do that and if they qualified then they wouldn't be in a position to
uh ...they wouldn't be not in a position to be able to do that with um those upgrades as
it were uh through the, through the, through the construction process?
Klausing:
Yes, if a person wished to fully um, I don't want ...I hate to use the words fully because
I think one person may think this is fully and another may think that, but typically to, to
make the unit accessible. By that I mean everything from roll in showers, uh to lowered
kitchen cabinets, uh countertops and things like that --different, uh, um, bathroom
facilities that type of thing um, our, our company builds thousands, ten of thousands of
homes a year. I can tell you that uh typically costs ten to fifteen thousand dollars. Um,
you know, in townhouses it might be a little bit less, but it's, it's gonna probably be at
least eight thousand dollars. If the price of the unit is a $139,000 right now, the
maximum price a person can afford to pay, that we could sell it for is a $140. They
have a thousand dollars --that's all. They won't be able to do everything that needs to be
done.
Lee:_ ..
If um, what about the situation where someone needing accessibility is just fine with
the, the minimum level of accessibility requirements that are ...
Klausing:
That's fine. That's fine. We'll have you know we're going to build 21 ranch units, uh as
you, as you indicated. We will have 21 ranch units that have minimum accessibility,
right from the get go that anybody can purchase.
Lee:
I think uh, I think it would be important to know though how if you can do that and if
you converted um, if you had uh three bedroom floor plan that met those minimum
requirements where, where that would be priced at around $140, 000 range.
Klausing:
It would be yes. As you, you know as I tried to indicate before, you know, these units
sell, not even the three bedroom ranches, you know, which is a more expensive unit to
build than the up and down unit. But right now the two bedroom, two bath units, and
the three bedroom, two bath townhouse style up and down units all sell in Denver for
well above $140,000
Lee:
When you mentioned you um and we didn't talk about this uh I wasn't aware of it when
we met uh a couple of weeks ago. Had you explored with the Current Planning
Department through the Home Program, there are grants they can award.
ORB
October 25, 2001
Page 13 of 24
Klausing:
Thank you, Mr. Lee for bringing that up. I forgot it. We made an application to the
Home Program, the CDBG program and every other grant program that was identified
to us. We made an application to the City for money that would go um, to modify these
units for the accessible community. Specifically we ask, specifically for money that,
that would be made available that would not disqualify them, not cause them to be
unable to um, to buy the unit. And um, and I made a presentation before the CDBG
Board and so forth. We received a letter a week ago saying that due to the
unavailability of funds all of our requests, every request that we made for assistance,
whether it was for accessibility, down payment assistance, closing costs assistance, etc.
Every request was denied. So we did make a request specifically uh, for monies to go
directly to the accessible community so that these units could be modified at no expense
to them.
Teij.7
But um, just to uh, taking an earlier thought I, I mentioned uh that further so n that
context of, of the constraints your facing you could still build the required seven three
bedroom units with the basic accessibility requirements and market those within the uh
income guidelines.
Klausing:
Well, that's, that question is the same question that I've probably been asked by the City
Council, Planning Commission and CDBG Board. Uh, basically is uh if we turn you
down um, will, will you comply with the Code and build the units. Well obviously yes
we will. Um, you know, we're, we're in partnership with the City. We've been in
partnership with the City for over four years through lawsuits and everything else and
uh, um you know I am not going to make a false threat or say no we won't build the
units or no we won't do this. You know we are. We are asking for help and, you know,
I am frustrated in that, you know, we've asked for help before from the City and we
have received none. Um, you know the CDBG Board could have easily given us thirty-
five or forty-five, fifty thousand dollars that we could have used to modify these units
and make you know. There are seven three -bedroom units. We could have modified
three, four or five of'em for that amount of money, you know, but they didn't do it.
You know, we have not received any relief from the City and it's frustrating, but Mr.
Lee I'm not gonna tell you that we're not gonna comply with the Code. We are! If you
tell me no, we're gonna go do it, you know. I'm, uh I'm asking you to help the, this
community and what we think will be more units made available to them. It's not just
that, you know that you know we don't want to build the three bedroom units. So we
don't think they are going to serve the purpose for which they are being built.
Lee:
That's all I have at this point.
Fielder:
Okay, um, Felix at what point to we want to allow the people that have something to say
-E—ej.7
um against the project or against the appeal
Yes, uh, so anybody that does anybody wish to speak in opposition to the request?
Fielder:
And please step up to the microphone and identify yourself.
Allen Apt:
Good afternoon, my name is Allen Apt and I am on the Commission for Disability and
um -former City Council member. And I was there during some of the Provincetown
brew -ha-ha. Don't know if you followed it in the papers and it was quite a messy
negotiation all the way a long. But I thank KB Homes for partnering with the City.
And I think the City and the developer withstood a lot of criticism and a lot of
neighborhood opposition and a lot of other things and um a as a result uh we're gonna
have some affordable units, which as you know are very precious and very rare in this
City. Um at the same time I think if your not familiar with the history I believe the City
has in fact substantially contributed to this development already and has subsidized it in
other ways and that the City's done back flips uh in, in that respect. So I don't feel that
uh there is any kind of extraordinary hardship here. I think uh KB is a good business
people, they obviously know what they are doing when they wrote this contract. They
stuck with it, with it because it is a good deal for them and it's a good deal for us. And I
don't believe there is any extraordinary hardship here, and, and I can tell you there is
extraordinary hardship on the part of the handicap community because there are so few
units, almost none, that are both fully accessible and affordable. So this is a rare, rare
BR1
October 25, 2001
Page 14 of 24
opportunity to let them do what they said they were going to do. And I can tell you
though I am, am fortunate that I am not in wheelchair, uh that in talking to people who
are uh, I'm sure they would prefer to have an accessible unit they could afford than
some upgraded carpet and window coverings, you know. So I, I just ask you uh to um
deny this request and proceed with the deal that's on the table, which I think is a good
one all the way around.
Little:
Allen, um, do you believe that the addition of 21 uh ranch model homes is, is more
significantly of benefit to the handicap community than um them continuing with their
townhome three bedroom, two level style?
Apt:
I do.
Little:
So if we deny this request there's a good chance we could lose those additional ranch
level units.
Apt:
That's not my understanding. Is that correct?
Little:
It's my understanding that as a compromise that the developer is choosing to um to build
additional ranch, two bedroom, two bathroom ranch level um, um, uh, handicap
accessible units in exchange for seven, uh three bedroom, two level townhome units.
So I'm, I'm sensing that and if I'm wrong I want to be corrected. But I understood him
to say that we are going to get additional two bedroom, two bath, ranch level units
which are more expensive to build than three bedroom, two level townhome units.
Lee:
I will, I will, let Mr. Klausing, but I think the proposal is to substitute and if I used the
word additional I, 1 was incorrect. Substitute the required code required seven three
bedroom units with two bedroom, two bath units.
Massey:
It's the state law that sets how many units there has to be. Then it's the City of Fort
Collins amendment to it that states that you get into the equity of fifty percent of those
have to meet the same amenities. Does that make sense?
Talking over each other.
Apt:
It's my understanding it's the same number of units that would be accessible but it's just
a question of the number of bedrooms.
Little:
Okay, thanks Allen.
Apt:
You know you know which we feel that, that the uh-handicapped community should
have the same opportunities for the additional facilities you know with bedrooms and
types of homes. Thank you appreciate it.
Fielder:
Thank you.
Lee:
Is there anyone else uh wish to speak in opposition. Mark,
Mark Beck:
I would is this microphone working here?
Lee:
Yes it is. If you would identify yourself.
Beck:
Um Mark Beck, member of the Commission on Disabilities. Um I would also
encourage um the review board to uh turn down this request. Um, in that having that
equity of three bedroom homes available uh on a uh affordable basis I think is, is very
important uh for the community at large and to only have the two bedroom units
available uh could be a hardship for those, for those looking. So uh I would encourage
having those three bedroom, uh, uh, homes available as per the contract also. Um and I
would also encourage KB Homes to uh, uh consider making some of the other homes
that they build wheelchairable. Even though they are not affordable so that uh
individuals possible in wheelchairs could be able to move into those regularly priced
homes. As well as having those homes um available for individuals to be able to
participate in other activities even though they couldn't possible live there, so that would
be another encouragement that I would, would uh give KB in building these. And we
really appreciate the fact that you are working with the City and uh making these homes
available. So ...
Fielder:
Mark I have a question for you. Um, are there any grants or and maybe, maybe you
know this maybe you don't. Do you know of any um grants or loans that would be
available to persons needing accessible facilities? For instance, um if they were to go
into this affordable uh housing and they were restricted by that by whatever the contract
is with the City on those --that these people could access on their own uh for instance
*1te
October 25, 2001
Page 15 of 24
through some kind of subsidized ...
Beck:
Uh, there's none that I am aware of.
Fielder:
Okay.
Beck:
Uh I know that there are certain veterans groups that have um, uh, some monies
available in that way.
Fielder:
Okay.
Beck:
For individuals, but um, uh, I am not aware of any
Fielder:
Okay.
Beck:
I am not aware of anything like available.
Fielder:
Okay, thank you.
Massey:
I've got to ask. Of these 21 units how many are type A versus type B? How's that break
down work?
Lee:
They're all type B.
Massey:
They're all type B.
Lee:
Um huh.
Massey:
There are no requirements that any of these are built to type A?
Lee:
No, because they fall out of the ...they're, they're not regulated by the building code.
They fall out of that --so essentially they are a type B. For the audience a type B is um,
is a less restrictive or the less um lower standard level of accessibility. Basically, would
basically if I may just go kind of briefly through what that is um, um, it would provide
access into the unit, throughout the unit, um on an accessible route. Backing in the
bathroom uh, arrangement of the bathroom fixtures in a certain way to allow
accessibility. Uh approach to kitchen appliances uh minimum dimensions in the
kitchen depending on the design whether it's a U kitchen or a galley type kitchen. Um
hardware um those, that's probably the highlights but that's the type B. Basically, it
allows uh the, it just let me look at my cheat sheet here.
Massey:
I thought somewhere in Chapter 11, it you had to do some As though.
Lee:
It does. Chapter I 1 doesn't apply. This is a local amendment. Chapter 11 doesn't apply
because they don't, they're not regulated they're two story, there um they fall out of
regulation. That's why they don't ... well Chapter 11 in our local amendments does but
in the UBC
Massey:
I mean Chapter I 1 in the UBC
Lee:
No, there isn't, doesn't apply to two story units.
Massey:
But we're not talking about two story units. We're talking about ranches.
Lee:
Um, that's a good point um I didn't, I was gonna bring my code and I didn't bring it ub
Massey:
Say you got an eight or a seven-plex. Six of'em got to be and they're all on one piece of
property. Six of'em have to be, can be two-story one of 'ern has to be a ranch. Then
you I can't remember off the top of my head where it, you know, between As & Bs, I
thought some of it had to be As and some had to be Bs. Cause, you use this, you said
something about being fully accessible. I mean ...
Klausing:
Um we could have used the terminology type A and type B. Um all of the units will be
type B um and you know the additional expenses to convert them to type A are basically
the expenses that we're talking to.
Massey:
Okay the eight to ten thousand or twelve thousand you're talking about
Klausing:
Right.
Massey:
Okay. Well I ...John you and I have been through this. Um
McCoy:
I was just telling Tom you handled it.
Lee:
Did someone else in the audience wish to.. oh okay
Massey:
Sony, I didn't mean to interrupt ...
Lee:
The boardmember .. .
Diane Dittus:
Hi, my name is Diane Dittus and I am a relatively new boardmember of the
Commission of Disabilities. I do agree with what my other boardmembers have
expressed. I am new at all of this but I can tell you from a personal experience I have
um arthritis and um Parkinson's Disease. I now live in a two-story home and it's
BRb
October 25, 2001
Page 16 of 24
becoming more and more difficult everyday. Our two-story home fortunately for us
was bought probably in 1992 to '93 and that costs is under what the cost of these homes
are for a three bedroom, one level. And um I guess some of what I would like to say is
first I have a question mark is there more square footage in this one level, three
bedroom home than the two level, three bedroom ho.. or two bedroom, one level home.
Is there more square footage on the ground that they're proposing to do for two
bedrooms or are they taking the same two bedrooms, three bedrooms and making it
two? Do you know what I am saying? Because there are cost down grade in that. As
far as I've ever known my, my husband has been involved in, in real estate a number of
times off and on. We've had our own business in other states that when you propose to
do a three bedroom ranch, you've known from years, and years, and years back that
those three bedroom ranches have always costs more money than a two bedroom ranch
or a three bedroom, two story. So whether it's totally accessible or not I am just stating
what I know as far as the cost of buy, buying a home. So I think we should really
consider that families like myself and we still have a daughter at home need three
bedrooms. There are a lot of you know, even if they're not quite as big, and, and turning
'em, I don't understand all the laws considering coming them from a townhouse to a
condo except that doing that it's the homebuyers, it's the association of the people that
bought the homes that pays for the upkeep. So I don't see where that comes from a
builder. They may have monies in it, I am not putting them down and I do thank them
for working with us. I think that's a very important, they should be applaud. And I
thank the gentlemen from Denver for coming and you know trying to work this out.
But I really do feel the, that it should be denied. So is there any questions? Thank you
for the opportunity to speak.
Massey:
I, I appreciate you coming up cause I think a lot of people when they think of handicap
accessibility they just say wheelchair and that's it. And that's not, it's only a little part of
it. I mean, the wheelchair dictates a lot of things in a design, but that's not all of it.
Dittus:
It does, it does because many of our new home units are trying to be compacted for
economy's sake so the stairs even in homes that are $300,000 are extremely difficult for
me to do. I mean, they're, I, I have toured them just you know just because of being
associated with real estate and it's very difficult for me to go up and down the stairs and
I'm very active. Thank you.
Fielder:
There's another issue, item to your statement to, which is that um the ADAG is a
minimal guideline. And um I had a grandfather who had a stroke and he could not get
around in a wheelchair in facilities that were to the minimum guidelines of ADAG, so
it's not a cure all by any means. Did you wish to uh address the Board? Okay.
Steve Seefeld:
Steve Seefeld, I'm on the City liaison for Commission on Disability. I wanted to move
that up a little bit. And I guess I have a question or two. Um is the matter of price
escalation in the market or what because when we start talking about $140,000 and we
put this agreement together with four or five years ago we had to have calculated some
inflation in there and I guess... Did the builder know at that time four or five years ago
that he was gonna have to build these, this, these amount of units out of the 350 that
we're talking about. Is, is this just a matter of inflation here or uh that people can't
afford to have extras when they're, when the price is close to the, the top of the range. I
guess I that's a question that I have.
Massey:
Well, I'd say part of that is that construction inflation and pricing of homes has
increased much faster than the median income. So I mean, I'm guessing, I'm assuming
yes this has been in the codes before this started. But to be able to project out exactly
where it was going to be hitting today five years ago, I don't think you could, you could
make some assumptions, but it's certainly, it wasn't a fixed target by any means.
Seefeld:
And I guess I wanted to say to that I think the um, the three bedroom unit is important to
have, they are disabled people that need to have a three bedroom as opposed to a two
bedroom unit. Um as my understanding we're talking seven units out of 350 and that
350 uh is out of ten of thousands that KB Home builds during the year so ...I think it's
you need to leave it up to that handicapped individual to decide whether they need three
bedroom, or a two bedroom home, and how they are gonna come up with extra washer
ORB
October 25, 2001
Page 17 of 24
and dryer cause they could go down to Sears and buy that. They may need a three -
bedroom home, but they can come in later on and alter with some of the other amenities
with their own dollars.
Little:
Are you saying uh, the preference would be a three bedroom home in a townhome
fashion or a three -bedroom home on one level?
Seefeld:
I'm sayin' a three -bedroom home on one level.
Little:
Okay.
Seefeld:
Because that really is an accessible unit to me. The three bedroom, home, two-story
three bedroom home is not an accessible home as far as I'm con ... as far as I read.
Massey:
Twenty-one units that we're talking about as far as I know are all flats. We're not
talking about any two -stories.
Lee:
Yes, they would be ranch style, single level.
Seefeld:
We're talking about like Felix said a substitution, what the developer has asked us to do
is substitute a two bedroom home, two bedroom, two bath ranch, to a three bedroom,
two bath ranch is the way I understand it now, if I have that wrong somebody needs to
uh
Massey:
The way I look at it they're meeting the state law. They're not asking for an exception to
the state law. They're asking for an exception to the City of Fort Collins piece of it that
says that you've got --of the fifty percent, fifty percent of the ones that have to be
accessible per the state law, so we started with twenty, and cut in half down to ten.
Fifty percent of those have to meet the same ratio of bedroom, bath amenities. So that's,
we started with twenty and now we took that half and then that has to meet the
amenities. So what they're saying is that based on the amenities of the rest of the
project, seven of those ten need to be three bedroom, but they're asking to make them
just two bedroom.
Seefeld:
Right.
Massey:
So that they can be built cheaper under the threshold of the affordability.
Fielder:
So that people would have the ability to add the fully accessible
Massey:
Well, that's where I was getting confused because I thought we, !—thought we had to
have some As in there first.
Seefeld:
Well, obviously it's cheaper to build a two bedroom, two -bath ranch than it is a three
bedroom.
Massey:
Yeah, I'm assuming we're talking about smaller square footages too, we're not talking
about the
Seefeld:
So I guess my question is let the disabled people figure out how to come up with their
extras, but, but is the developer asking us to subsidize them because of cost of a three
bedroom home is more expensive to build than a two bedroom home.
Fielder:
Right and I think the developer concern is that
Right, right
Fielder:
Is that he won't be able to because of the price of the three bedrooms he won't be able to
Seefeld:
Allow any leeway for extras ...
Fielder:
For the fully accessible extras. So he's feeling like, I think, a little bit like he's
discriminating in a sense against a certain group of people that
Seefeld:
Is he not discriminating against a handicap person that might need a three bedroom
home?
Fielder:
I agree, there's yeah.
Little:
You know one of the things that's, that's important to me as a builder and developer is
for you to tell me for as a preference if you had to choose between a two bedroom, two
bath single level ranch versus a three bedroom two bath townhome
Seefeld:
No, single level ranch.
Little:
You'd rather have a two bedroom
Seefeld:
No, we're, we're substituting what I see as what the developer wants to substitute a two
bedroom, two bath ranch for a three bedroom, two bath ranch.
Little:
No.
Seefeld:
So we're talking about taking one bedroom (talking over each other) we're talking about
BRI,
October 25, 2001
Page IS of 24
taking one bedroom away.
Little:
So convert, so taking seven three bedroom ranches and convert them to twenty-one two
bedroom ranches?
Seefeld:
Substitute a two -bedroom house for a three -bedroom house in a ranch style.
Little:
Okay, I just want to make sure I am clear. Right now as I'm, as I'm reading this I am
understanding that um, there are, there are um, ten there are ten ranch models right now
that are in --I've got seven three bedroom, two, two bedroom, and one two bedroom.
Hauck:
That's the minimum.
Lee:
No. No. Actually they are proposing twenty-one ranch model units
Little:
Versus what?
State law ... (talking over each other)
Lee:
They have to build twenty-one, half of those, they can build those any number of
bedrooms however they, half of them half to built that are, that have the proportional
number of functional features bedrooms, bathrooms, etc. So that's. that's where that ten
comes from half of that twenty-one.
Talking without microphones.
Massey:
That's the extra layer that the City of Fort Collins requires. (Talking over each other).
Seefeld:
Back to the 141 because the seven is part of the 141, so seven units. The developer is
asking you to substitute, let him substitute seven, two bedroom, two bath ranch units for
seven three bedroom, two bath ranch units. Now if you're a handicap person you need
three bedrooms you're S.O.L: in this particular project.
Lee:
That's a technical term, Steve?
Seefeld:
Semi of my technical term, sorry about that. If anyone takes offense.
Fielder:
That's all right we're all
Seefeld:
I just want to make sure that weren't not subsidizing the developer because a three -
bedroom ranch costs more to build than a two -bedroom ranch. I see his point of view. I
mean you can't, you may not be able to offer as many extras, as many extras in the form
of handicap accessibility too. He makes a good case in that.
Little:
But Steve, I guess my question was are they, are they not proposing to build um more
ranch models?
Seefeld:
Not to my understanding, Felix?
Little:
Put, I'm not saying, I mean they are gonna replace three bedroom townhomes with two
bedroom ranches, but they want to build
Seefeld:
No, they're going to replace.
Hauck:
Gene I think it's uh, let me take a crack at it. The state law requires that there are
twenty-one ranch units built in this uh, in this development. The Fort Collins law
requires that uh at least, at least seven of those be three bedroom units, okay. What the
developer is, is asking for is to substitute two bedroom units for those three bedroom
units. In essence, putting up zero three bedroom units and putting up a total of uh all
twenty-one two bedroom units, twelve of which would have one bath the remaining
nine of which would have two. But regardless there's going to be twenty-one ranch
style units, type B accessible.
Little:
So basically just a reduction in the number of bedrooms.
Hauck:
That's it. The, the only difference is that seven bedrooms would go away.
Little:
I knew I would catch this eventually.
Hauck:
Okay.
Seefeld:
So if you needed a three bedroom unit that's accessible, you don't have, if we grant this,
you don't have that option anymore --the three bedroom unit has gone away essentially.
Uh and I guess as far as applying for some of things like CBDG, they, we all probably
know that they have very limited funds and they need to uh use those funds wisely.
And uh there maybe others to but uh so
Fielder:
Okay thank you.
Lee:
Thanks Steve um, Mr. Klausing will have an opportunity to ask questions uh further
questions here. I just wanted to uh, I handed out uh and excerpt from the building code
which, which uh just to clarify the issue of typing A units. That's only applicable uh for
•
ORB
October 25, 2001
Page 19 of 24
apartment uh group one, division one, R one, division one occupancies containing more
apartment occupancies containing more than twenty dwelling units at least two percent
shall be type A ...
Massey:
And that's because of the Tenn apartment?
Lee:
That's right.
Massey:'
That assumes that it's a rental, and since these are for sale?
Lee:
Right, they are not considered apartments.
Massey:
I Because these are R-1 construction
Lee:
They are.
Massey:
Yeah right, okay.
Lee:
So just to clarify that the type B with the uh, um lower standard of accessibility is, is uh
Massey:
What's required for all twenty-one 'em?
Lee:
Right.
Massey
At this point, that's good to know.
Klausing:
Um I was following the discussion here and I think that I would like to hear it from me
that what we are proposing to do is not to reduce the number of accessible units at all.
Under the City's plans and under the City's uh ordinances we are required to build
twenty-one, Type B accessible units that's what we're going to build. Twenty-one, type
B accessible units. The request, the variance is for the three bedroom units. We want to
substitute two bedroom, two bath units for the three bedroom, two bath units. So it's the
same number of units. Um, I would agree with about ninety percent of what the uh,
what the folks that uh offered you commetits uh pioceed me. Uh, I want to clarify just
one or two things they ask some questions perhaps rhetorically but I may be able to
answer them for you. Uh one lady said does a three -bedroom ranch cost more, you bet
it does. Uh the three bedroom, two bath townhouse style, up and down unit, uh is going
to be priced right at the top. Obviously the three -bedroom ranch is got to be underneath
the max, but you bet they, they cost more. Um, one gentleman said that uh um it's better
to make the three bedroom, two bath units available and let the buyers worry about how
to make them accessible. The problem is, is that they can't. First of all; they can't
finance it within the price of the home so even if it costs you know a thousand dollars
more than the maximum price they can't do it because we can't write contracts for more
than that. So they won't be able to do it. Let's assume that they want to, let's assume
that they could still qualify in other words, um to qualify for these you have to have a
certain level income. So, let's say they don't have, they, they still qualify but they've got
ten or twelve thousand dollars of their own to invest. If they want to invest it they
certainly can. They can certainly make those units accessible. They can invest their
own money, but here's one of the problems, you know, if they want to stay there for
twenty years, that's good, we'd like 'em to stay for, you know for as long as they want --
forever. But if they want to sell their unit they can't get that money back out. That's
part of the problem with this agreement we have with the City to make these units
affordable for thirty year, or twenty-five years. Anybody who puts their own money
into the unit isn't necess ...it, it, probably is not going to get it out. Because they can
only resale, you can't say hey, you know, I've got a unit over that I put $15,000 in
whether it was refinishing a basement or whatever it was. I don't think we're going to
have basements, but that's an easy way to figure it out. But we're making it accessible,
they could perhaps sell it to another individual who needs an accessible unit if they can
get around the whole financing thing and still be able to buy it. So I, I think that that's a
problem. And um you know we would like to work with the City to find a better
solution to that. But right now, neither one of us can come up with a solution and, and
I've talked to the City Manager and many people in the City and said what are we gonna
do to encourage people to make their investments in theses properties. We can't come
up with an idea so far. Um, couple of other things here. The first gentlemen that spoke
um wanted to make sure that, that you, you know, spoken in favor of having, you know
the, the, the units both accessible and affordable um and I just want to make, I think by
now the point is clear. That yes they'll be type B accessible um no they won't be type A
BRB-
October 25, 2001
Page 20 of 24
accessible. And uh that's, and that's why we want to build the two bedroom units
instead. We think there's a better chance those type, excuse me, that the two bedroom,
two bath can be modified closer to being a type A accessibility. Um, let's see
McCoy:
May I ask a question?
Klausing:
Of me?
McCoy
Yes
Klausing:
Certainly.
McCoy
Um, I'm a little bit confused and Brad I know you can help me on this. When we're
talking A, we're talking accessible, when we're talking B we're talking adaptable. Okay,
that helps me a bunch. Um is the three bedroom on the same footprints as the two
bedroom?
Klausing:
No, it's not.
McCoy
So the two bedroom is a smaller footprint?
Klausing:
Yes
McCoy:
Ranch, okay
Klausing:
Yeah, the two bedroom will have about um, we have two different floor plans. Uh,
1100 or 1200 between 1100 and 1200 square feet for the two different floor plans. The
three -bedroom townhouse style, up and down style, has a little over 1300 square feet.
Pretty good, these are, these are pretty good-sized units.
McCoy:
Yeah, I'm, I'm, just talking about the ranch plan
Klausing:
Yes.
McCoy:
Your ranch two bedroom and ranch three bedroom those are different footprints?
Klausing:
Yes they are. -
McCoy:.. _
Okay. Um, and you are able to offer, I'm trying to figure this argument out. Your able
to offer the three -bedroom ranch adaptable plan and meet the guidelines for the
affordability, but there wouldn't be able to be many options purchased under that?
Klausing:
Probably would be very, very little room for options.
McCoy:
But it still could be offered then?
Klausing:
Well, about the only we're going to be able to offer is enough money for someone if
they need it probably a refrigerator or uh, um, you know maybe washer/dryer, um. We
think that that's a highly um, um, qualifying type of thing, affordable community doesn't
have these things they are bringing in. (Tape turns over). And the way this thing works I
don't think they could go elsewhere to get it either.
Massey:
I would like to ask some of the people who spoke possibly if, if would you rather see
seven of those units where there just tucked right in there and there's no room for
turning them into a type A or would you rather see a couple of type As out there that
gets built in, instead of seven of'em? Does that make sense?
Fielder:
I think what your saying is would you rather see seven type B, three. bedrooms or would
you rather see seven type A, two bedrooms
(Talking over each other)
Boardmember:
They'll build the type B or the two bedroom, two -bathroom type B anyhow, that's the
way they'll come across.
Klausing:
Yes it will be on the market as type B. All twenty-one will be type Bs.
Massey:
There's the room for you to upgrade it to an A and still be able to finance all that.
Klausing:
There is or there is not, sir?
Massey:
No, there would be if you (talking over each other) ...finance and the grabbars, and the
lowered counters and that kind of stuff. (Talking without microphone.)
Lee:
Okay, proceed point of order here. If people want to speak, they'll have to first of all the
appellant here has the floor and directives and has the conversation with the Board, has
the uh the floor and the right to discuss with the Board. Now if the Board wishes other
comments from the audience that's certainly their right, but 1, it's hard to carry on a
multiple conversation and record it for the uh proceeding.
Fielder:
Do you have any questions of the Board at this point?
Klausing:
No, um. I appreciate your time and consideration of this um I think that it's, I hope that
it's come through clearly that we're not trying to build you know less accessible units,
•RB
October 25, 2001
Page 21 of 24
you know, we really are excited about the opportunity of having an accessible
community. And um, uh, we think this is a wonderful thing. Um, I guess one
gentleman said that seven out of the tens of thousands obviously we build accessible
units in many other projects other than this one as you know. Hundreds of accessible
units across America.
Fielder:
Let's stick with the order and let's give him his opportunity for his closing statement and
then Felix if you wish to address questions for the audience we can do that during our
conclusion. Is that all right?
Lee:
Sure, I think if a member has questions of the appellant he certainly can do that.
Klausing:
I won't take anymore of your time, thank you for time.
Fielder:
Okay, all right, thank you. Felix do you wish to?
Lee:
Yes, um I know it's confusing uh and we got distracted withcounting and I tried to
avoid that but I apologize for not thank you Brad for your help and Allan for getting
through that. Just one other point of order here I am I stand corrected uh apartment
houses and condominiums are defined as the same thing in the building code, however,
it doesn't apply in this case. You have to have a building with more than twenty or
more units to have a type A unit.
Fielder:
Okay.
Lee:
So it's just a clarification but uh I wanted to get that in. And for the record I think
everyone appreciates Mister uh, KB, KBs, KB Homes efforts and is uh eloquently
presented by Mr. Klausing. I my job is the building code. I know there are, there are
socially and other issues here that go beyond that. So I think um that's where we have
to focus our attention here, does it comply or does it not? And if it doesn't is there, is it
a reasonable alternative per relative to all pertinent issues --has the appellant offered
that? And if it's, and if there are those other considerations than it's beyond, I think, the
purview of the Board here relative to affordability and then if that's what maybe Council
might need to review. But for purposes of the hearing today I think it really relates to I
think there's a standard here and yes in this case maybe there is uh is somewhat of a
social conflict, but in terms of code there isn't. It's fairly clear cut. And uh that's what
we are responsible for uh as the enforcement department, regulatory department I would
rather say. And I haven't, I haven't been persuaded as the administrator of that
department that there are compelling reasons to not build the required three bedroom
units. There they may be to others, but from a code aspect they 1 don't see it as such.
That's all I have.
Fielder:
Um, Felix would I understand correctly if you had heard from the accessible community
that they felt there was a hardship there that they might be a little bit different?
Lee:
Yes, I certainly would feel that way. Yes, that would have been
Fielder:
That's what kind of
Lee:
Exactly, I think if the, the if the City Commission that represents um the disabled
community had spoken and they're certainly more in touch with it than I am as a, a city
bureaucrat and I think uh, I think their ideas and their perception is important.
Fielder:
Okay, I am going to remember the City bureaucrat comment.
Lee:
It's a very accessible one.
Fielder:
Okay, Board um determination, findings, questions.
Hauck:
Let me just make a couple of comments here before I have to leave sharply at three
today so let me jump to conclusions a little bit quick, more quickly than we might
normally be know for. Uh I see three different issues that are, are, are concerning me
about this. First of all is to whether you know we have the jurisdiction to even be
making you know a very uh, uh a variance in this case that's three different questions
that come to mind. On exhibit B (the second page of exhibit) under decision issues um
is only two, only two things can take place that would allow us to make that variance
and one is that we deal with the building official's interpretation was erroneous and the
second is that there is uh alternative design, alternate materials, alternate methods
proposed that would do the same thing and, and, and I don't think anybody is saying the
first one applies. For the second one to apply I think the intent had more to do with
BRb
October 25, 2001
Page 22 of 24
physical considerations rather than financial or contract considerations. You know that
the topography of the site was such that the facilities could not be made accessible and
you know those kinds of things, I think is what they had in mind. Uh I think that sort of
further reinforced in exhibit C on what's marked as page 15. Uh it said when the
Building Review Board considers granting exceptions or variances uh this has to do
with the hardship. And that the applicant has to be able to demonstrate uh that the
meeting the code would impose an extraordinary hardship on the subject property and
again we talk about two different conditions uh one is the direct result of the unique
physical site condition such as terrain, topography and things like that similar to the
other decision criteria. The second is the direct result of any unique or special
conditions encountered on the subject property uh, which are typically not, encountered
anywhere else. You know I would think any affordable project that's uh being built in
the, in the City of Fort Collins, I realize there is not enough, you know, but any
affordable project would be meeting with the same kinds of constraints and that there
wouldn't be an undue hardship for any one of those projects. And probably the third
consideration that I have is to my knowledge and I haven't heard any evidence to the
contrary is that neither of these regulations have changed since the contract with the
City was formed. You know so neither the accessibility code has been changed to my
knowledge nor has the uh, uh affordability criteria been, been modified, you know, so
it's sort of led me to the conclusion that at the time the contract was formed these
conditions were there. Uh now I think of anything with reduction in, in interest rates
and things lately and things like that there may well be building a little more wiggle
room in there now for someone to do some of these, some of the upgrades. And I think
as other people have said that there's a variety of things -that uh variety of other ways
that, that might be financed other than through the, the original mortgage for the house.
Uh with all of that combined my instinct are is that this is not something that the Board,
if we have the you know the right to make a decision on the variance at all uh I would
not be inclined to support the variance personally.
Little:
Um, concerning the issue of a hardship, excuse me. Also um as I did some quick math,
um if, if the price of a 209 units was raised $1500 per unit that would provide all the
additional capital that would be necessary to add $15,000 per unit to cover those
additional costs. And those are not even, as I understand it, those are not even
mandatory costs they would only be cost if um the homebuyer prevailed on the builders
to add those items. So um that extra fifteen hundred dollars could be um profit to the
development, builder, if you didn't have to spend the money for the, the uh conversions.
The other issue of course if um, uh I serve on the Board of a homeowners association
with 271 um townhome units that are all maintained by the association including yards,
roofs, siding, windows, I mean the people that live there don't do anything except live
there and you pay an association fee. So I think this project could very easily be um
you now uh declared townhome project instead of a condominium project if this was a
real issue with the developer.
Hauck:
Again, I think the advantages of the condominium project is that is this creating the
accessible home, which again I applaud the you know KB Home for you know going
down a route that, that does serve the accessible community in addition to serving a uh
the need for affordable housing. Um again in the interest of time and I know we
generally talk more about this but let me, let me, let me, do something, let me
specifically put this in a form of a motion so we can discuss it at that level. Uh, I would
like to move at this point that the, the application for uh the variance not be approved
for the reasons that I stated before.
McCoy:
Second.
Massey:
Discussion um, I had a quick question for John um our when we did together was sixty
some units. Fifty-six units and so we had eight accessible. Actually we had all ground
floor units, twenty-eight ground floor units. How many of those did you actually sell to
a disabled person?
McCoy:
Three.
Massey:
Three. Okay. I know it's been several years for the prices, but they were certainly in
RRB
October 25, 2001
Page 23 of 24
the affordable range. Um, I feel like there are some extraordinary circumstances here.
And I, I kind of disagree with Allan and Gene that there are some unique things that that
make this you know we got the ... you know I think we should be able to consider
financial versus fitting these things in there. And I guess I would like to see um at least
some discussion about whether there's some kind of compromise, not just cut and dry
we either switch 'em all or we don't. Can we do half of those can we ask him to set
aside three of those three bedrooms and them for x number period of time so that they
have to uh, so that there is more opportunity to sell 'em. Cause to be honest I know
there's, there's a shortage of these types of units, but realistic of the twenty-one that are
built you're going to have three or four that are sold to handicap. The rest, the
accommodations that were, the, the money that was spent to make 'em a type B unit
basically gets wasted. Not, not completely wasted there's a chance that they can be
resold later on and converted. There's all that, but there are I guess I would like, rather
see some, some of get built at As rather than all is Bs and get sold out. I don't know
whether there's a way to do that, but that's my feeling. I mean, I do I applaud KB
Homes because there are ways in the codes to get around having to do any of them
accessible or adaptable as ranch units. So any ...you know when John and I came here
before the Board six years ago, I mean, it really was I mean we took the same approach.
It was like you know we're doing something here that, that most other people are just
avoiding. They're building all two -stories and just staying out of it. So the, the
approach that he was trying to do something to accommodate it --I mean we were down
to the point where if we had to meet the same accommodations of bedrooms and baths
we were just going to leave a bath out of the second floor ones turn them into a closet so
that we didn't have to do it on the first floor. I mean it's kind of sad that you get to that
point, but that happens. I mean you do get to a point, I mean.we can sit here and say
developers make all kinds of money, blab, blah, blab, but in the end that's what we all
work for to a point. And to, to even start into the process of dealing with accessible and
adaptable units you just know your looking for headaches and you really do take on a uh
real heavy burden to try to work that through, so that's my feelings.
McCoy:
Um, I agree with uh lots that's been said here today. It's not easy to do um turn
adaptable units into accessible units and it's not easy to make all of the, all of the homes
adaptable. Um, but I in my experience with this community that we built and working
with those that had challenges --um they weren't all the same._ Um, um and it, it um
there were things that uh didn't concem, the resale was not a concern. Just the
opportunity to, to um have a place that they could live in and it would work for them
was such a big deal that so what if they couldn't sell if for more than they paid. Or even
if they sold it for less it wasn't that much of an issue. They, resale was never an issue
for it so, I'm, I'm kind of leaning to uh again, I applaud KB Homes for workin' through
this because it's not easy. When Brad and I did that it was what are we gonna do and
how are we gonna make that work and that's not gonna work and um but it was a good
thing when we added to the market. It uh it was. And it offered something for uh people
that didn't have lots of options uh and I think that they should have an option to be able
to move into a three bedroom, and I hope KB can be proud of the fact that they can offer
it.
Fielder:
Um, I am going to state my opinion,on um which kind of goes in line with what Allan is
saying. And I think that what we before us here um I understand you're, you're wanting
to get some kind of compromise or something but, but I want to stay within, I would
like to stay within the um confines of what the appellant has brought before us, which is
we don't really have that alternate design of a type A that you're talking about. And I
think to even address that, we'd have to ...this is just my opinion, we'd have to have the
appellant come before us with that issue, am I on track here? I mean I think, aren't we
Lee:
supposed to deal with the case before us and not try to rearrange the case?
Yes, I would say.
Massey:
I mean that's an understatement but how many tunes have we tried to rearrange things
here?
Fielder:
Well I understand, I'm just, my opinion. We have a motion did we have a second.
BRB
October 25, 2001
Page 24 of 24
Okay. Do we have anymore discussion. Okay Delynn can we have a roll call?
Coldiron:
McCoy, I'm sorry let's try that again. Hartmann
Hartmann:
Yes
Coldiron:
McCoy
McCoy:
Yes
Coldiron:
Little
Little:
Yes.
Coldiron:
Fielder
Fielder:
Yes
Coldiron:
Massey
Massey:
No.
Coldiron:
Hauck
Hauck:
Yes.
Fielder:
Thank you Mr. Klausing,
Lee:
You did explain the um I might have been busy, the right to appeal to Council with
Fielder:
Yes, uh Mr. Klausing you are aware of the right to appeal to City Council that you must
file within fourteen days in writing and that no more evidence can be um presented.
Okay thank you. Delynn, we have uh Energy Code presentation?
Lee:
Actually I took that off of the agenda, I didn't know how long we would be involved in
the appeal process so we'll differ that to the next meeting on the 29th of November.
Fielder:
What happens if we have six or seven things on the 29 '?
Lee:
Well, we'll have to ...you should have a flyer, I think that brochure that was passed out
Fielder:
Oh yeah Behind the Drywall
Lee:
Yes. It kind of
Fielder:
I thought this might be pest control.
Lee:
Well in a way it is. There are. pesky problems back there. Anything else? I have no
other business.
Fielder'.
I Meeting adjourned at 3:02 p.m.
Felix Lee, Building & Zoning Director Charles Fielder, Chairperson