Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommission On Disability - Minutes - 04/14/1986• 0 CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MINUTES COMMISSION ON DISABILITY April 14, 198$(v Members Present: Charlotte Kanode, Judy Siefke, Marilyn Maxwell, Nancy Jackson, Betty Shuey, Penne Powers —Thomas, Bill Bertschy Members Absent: Bobbie Guye, Betty Pldcock City Staff: Kelly Ohlson, Jackie Davis, Carmen Hollowell Guests: Rosemary Kreston, Arne Anderson The regular meeting of the City of Fort Collins Commission on Disability was called to order at 6:32 p.m, by Acting Chairperson Marilyn Maxwell, at the CIC Room, City Hall. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Nancy moved that the minutes from the March 10, 1986 meeting be approved as written. Panne seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. II. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS AND SPEAKERS City Council Liaison Kelly Ohlson addressed the COD regarding the recent discussions on the 1:7 accessible/adaptable housing issue. He advised he had not yet discussed his idea with the City Council or the development community, but wanted input from the COD first. Although the 1:7 is not being enforced, variances are readily granted. He thought 1:16 would be a more appropriate ratio and thought both the building community and the COD could agree on it. Along with this idea, he suggested keeping an updated listing of accessible/adaptable units, letting the public know what is available, and encouraging the City to develop some kind of pool of money through a fee system to assist renters in rehabbing their units. He said the Council could make a resolution for a 1:16 accessible/adaptable housing ratio, City staff would enforce it, and the developers would accept it, therefore, reducing the COMMISSION ON DISABILITY P.O. Box 580 . Fort Collins. Colorado 80522 . (303) 221-6758 Commission on Disability Minutes — April 14, 1986 Page-2 frequency of variance requests. Because the development community has been greatly enlightened by this issue over the past year, he felt they would be responsive to 1:16. His purpose is to have the developers and the COD reach mutual agreement on the ratio issue. Nancy said even when the 1:7 wasn't being enforced, there were appeals being made. She said there was a period when the COD and the developers were working together and the 1:7 was technically supposed to be enforced, but nothing was being done to enforce it. Kelly responded that if the ratio went to 1:16, staff would at least have clear direction on what to enforce. Charlotte said a lot of research must have gone into developing the State Statutes and couldn't understand why there was so much opposition to enforcement of the 1:7. Kelly feels the State Legislature probably just pulled a number out of the air, which doesn't appear to be enforced at all. Charlotte said it is not the figures involved, but the attitude and the flexibility of the development community that is important. The developers seem to be thinking in terms of "floor —level cupboards", etc., rather than the minimal specifications that were agreed upon by the COD and the developers. Kelly is looking at a more practical figure that is acceptable to both groups. He foresees a lot more accessible units being built with a 1:16 ratio than 1:7. Furthermore, the recent survey seems to justify 1:50, not 1:7. Rose said regardless of the survey results, the issue is that it provides options. For example, he could go out to look for an apartment and have 300 to choose from, but she may only have two. She said if he was going to look at the survey in terms of using the statistics it produced, then he was not understanding the larger issue. Also, Rose said the developers have not given any rationale behind their statement of why they want to change from 1:7. They have said, "accessible housing costs too much money". The disabled community has asked, "how much?"; but with no answer. Nancy thought developing a pool of money to help rehab rental units is going to be more costly because it would be essentially retrofitting. Kelly said he intended it to be a separate issue from accessible/adaptable, that it was more architectural barrier removal. Jackie advised him that rental units could be modified under the current Architectural Barrier Removal Program, with landlord approval. Kelly was not aware of that. Commission on Disability • Minutes — April 14, 1986 Page-3 Rose commented that disabled individuals are only asking for the opportunity to be able to get into an apartment and be able to get around within it. Marilyn noticed at the Building Board of Appeals (BBA) meeting of April 1, that a builder's rationale had been that if he had to build two accessible/adaptable units rather than one, his plan would not be aesthetically appealing to the Planning Department, and that the unit would not be compatible with the neighborhood. She said maybe change in attitude and the ratio issue needs to start with the Planning Department. From that particular variance request, Nancy got the impression that, according to the UBC, if a building was raised a certain height, there has to be a certain distance from the property line. If the garden level unit was raised for accessibility, it would change the pitch roof of the apartment complex to a flat roof, which would not be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. She continued, that particular neighborhood has many flat —roofed buildings. The pitch —roofed homes are primarily across the street, on the other side of Mulberry. The developers' perception of making a unit handicapped accessible seems to be that the units will not be aesthetically pleasing enough to rent. Kelly suggested having City workshops with the developers and the COD to talk about the different design features. Rose asked couldn't this still be done while implementing the 1:7? Nancy referred to John Huisjen's comment from the COD's March 31 meeting, that it didn't matter what the ratio was, that there would always be variances. Kelly responded that if Felix had strong direction from City Council and the Building Board of Appeals to go with 1:16, that there would not be as many variances. He said right now staff and the BBA don't think 1:7 is appropriate, and can't justify it. Kelly said revenues are limited, and they are trying to serve as many people as possible. Rose said she was aware of that, but that it seemed they were excluding the disabled community because they couldn't afford it, and she hadn't heard of any costs to justify their stance. Nancy said the Handicapped Information Office had information from studies that were done nationally, but there had never been an actual cost associated with building an accessible/adaptable unit based on the guidelines the COD and the construction industry had agreed upon, vs. building a non —accessible unit. Commission on Disability Minutes - April 14, 1986 Page-4 Marilyn said the City taxes citizens for nice things like bike trails, ice rink, etc., but when it comes to encouraging a developer to spend a little more to make somebody a home, it seems to be too much to ask. She feels this indicates the City and the developers don't understand the real issue here. Arne asked what incentives there were for developers to comply? While incentives aren't the issue here, Kelly said Felix would probably be more stringent and issue a stronger message to comply. Also, incentives might be in the form of developing workshops for developers, or pool of funds for density fees to allow people to get into the units. Charlotte asked if there would be a guarantee that the 1:16 wouldn't be overturned? Kelly replied no, he thought a number like 1:16 would be a more realistic number, would probably have more realistic consequences, and hoped it would get enforced. Penne felt uncomfortable with Kelly's statement that "he hoped it would get enforced." Kelly said a resolution would send a strong statement to staff to not be as lenient in their allowances of variances. Nancy referred to another one of John Huisjen's comments from the March 31 meeting, that no community had adopted another standard which Fort Collins was proposing to do except for home -rule cities. Nancy thought that if Fort Collins went with something other than the 1:7, Fort Collins would be setting a precedent, showing they are beyond the law. Mr. Huisjen also said it was misleading in assuming that the City had authority to change the law and there was significant risk in that. Nancy felt satisfied with Mr. Huisjen's advise, and felt the Commission should not go with an arbitrary number other than the state law. Rose expressed her chagrin that the disabled community has always been placed in the position to have to compromise, and always has had to prove their existence. Kelly said he had only come to the meeting to discuss his ideas with the COD and hear their response to them. He still feels something other than 1:7 might result in creating more units, and getting more community support. He also wanted to clarify that even though he had come in and raised these types of questions, it did not mean that he was not in support of the issue. Marilyn thanked him for speaking with the COD. However, she said she would hate to back down from using the 1:7 because the issue has gotten so much attention, people have gotten angry about it, researched it, and gone through an educational process from it, and it is something that can no longer be ignored. Commission on Disability • Minutes — April 14, 1986 Page-5 Kelly informed the COD there was a vacancy on the Building Board of Appeals and he encouraged disabled individuals to apply. On that note, Nancy reported that the HIO had been working with Tom Dougherty in helping developers and contractors to market their accessible/adaptable units: The HIO gets information from the Building Inspection Department on what accessible/adaptable units are planned; Mr. Dougherty informs the HIO with an estimate of a project completion date; the HIO contacts the contractor to find out when those units might be available for occupancy; the HIO then makes this information available to the public. Since communication seems to be lacking on both sides with understanding of the accessible/adaptable housing issue, Kelly suggested several COD members and developers meet over lunch to further discuss their respective points of view. The COD thought this was a good idea. III. NEW BUSINESS Marilyn felt it was necessary to start preparing for the 1986 Mayor's Awards Breakfast. Bill asked about the criteria for the Dorothy Lasley Award and he was advised that the award was for handicapped individuals who had worked extensively in increasing public awareness of the disabled community's rights. Comments included: less food than last year, timed speeches of simulator experiences, better advertisement, and that committees be voluntary and not appointed. A list of committees from last year for the COD members to review and sign up for is attached. IV. OLD BUSINESS Rose read a statement she had drawn up regarding the 1:7 accessible/adaptable housing issue to be read during the Citizen Participation agenda item at the City Council meeting, Tuesday, April 15. Rose was unable to attend and asked that someone be selected to read the statement. Nancy made a motion that the COD accept the statement and to select the Acting Chairperson Marilyn Maxwell to read it. Bill seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. (Copy attached) Marilyn reported that Alan Canter, the newly appointed Director of Community Development, asked her for justification why the COD continued to support the 1:7 accessible/adaptable ratio after the survey results didn't support this ratio. She read a memorandum Commission on Disability Minutes — April 14, 1986 Page-6 to Mr. Canter. The COD approved the memorandum and Marilyn said she would submit it the next day. (Copy attached) Charlotte reported the ramp at the DMA Plaza was no longer steep, It was flat and had a 3" curb. Nancy asked if it should be addressed in a memorandum to the City Engineer Mike Herzig. Marilyn said she would draw up a memorandum. V. ABRF UPDATE 1. Jackie reported the John Gallegos application was still on hold, and the MS Society was still trying to find assistance for him. 2. Eunice Rollefson — Jackie reported that Mrs. Rollefson's ramp was acceptable, and to extend and widen it would cost $200 with $30 for the grab bars. The COD approved her application. 3. Marvin DeLozier — Jackie reported that Mr. DeLozier is a 63—year old deaf man who is in need of a TDD. However, since Jackie wanted to make sure that a TDD would really meet his needs, she would continue to work with Patricia Frisbie, from the HIO, and with CSU to see what type of equipment would be suitable. 4. Liz Boyer — Jackie reported Mrs. Boyer is 86 years old and lives at the DMA Plaza. Mrs. Boyer needs grab bars installed In the bathroom. The DMA Plaza already has the grab bars but no one to install them. She will have Steve White, Project Manager, investigate it further. The COD approved Mrs. Boyer's application. 5. Dawn Sutcliffe — Jackie had already approved Ms. Sutcliffe's application, because Ms. Sutcliffe, who is hearing impaired, desperately needed a device to let her know when her baby was crying and when the telephone was ringing. Jackie authorized the HIO to order a sound signaller in the amount of $132.95. Ms. Sutcliffe recently received the device and it is working great. The COD was in favor of Jackie's approval of this application. 6. Roberta Gallegos — Jackie reported that Ms. Gallegos is a 39—year old paraplegic who has received ABRF assistance twice before. The first grant was in 1982 in the amount of $4,450 when she was living at #133 Say St. The bathroom was remodeled and an exterior lift was installed. Ms. Gallegos then moved to the Coachlight Plaza Apartments in 1983 and received $514 to replace a shower stall with a bathtub. Jackie said Ms. Gallegos has moved again, and this time is living with her parents. They need a ramp and a wider 0 Commission on Disability Minutes - April 14, 1986 Page-7 bathroom door. Jackie did not have an estimated project cost. The COD was concerned about the number of times people can apply for funds. Nancy asked why she had moved from Coachlight. Jackie responded due to financial problems. Jackie said she could have Steve investigate this project and get an estimate. The COD decided to put Ms. Gallegos' application on hold pending further information. Jackie will also get more information from Ms. Gallegos' on what the expected length of stay with her family will be and inform the Gallegos about the lien procedures. Vl. ANNOUNCEMENT Jackie informed the COD that there would be carry-over funds from FY 1985 in the amount of $32,000. She is changing the request for FY 1986 from $50,000 to $18,000 in order to make it a total of $50,000. The COD was in agreement. Meeting Adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Marilyn Maxwell Acting Chairperson Carmen Hollowell, Secretary Enclosures (3) COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MAYOR'S AWARDS BREAKFAST Committees: Basic Program Committee Simulation Activity Committee Awards Committee Coloring Contest Committee Publicity Committee Hosting Committee Food Committee CITY OF ART COLLINS COMMISSION ON DISABILITY M E M O R A N D U M DT: April 15, 1986 .I TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council FM: Marilyn Maxwell, Acting Chairperson Commission on Disability RE: 1:7 Accessible/Adaptable Housing Ratio At the last City Council meeting on April 1, 1986, you had the opportunity to hear from Mr. Frank Vaught. He expressed to you his frustration and concern over the recent issue of accessible/adaptable housing. Representing several individuals from the disabled community, I, too would like to express our opinions concerning this issue. When we were first asked to discuss this issue with the housing community two years ago, we understood our goal was to reach an amicable compromise based on the developers' needs as well as the disabled community. Although we never had exact figures supporting their claims, we listened and understood the concerns the developers had in terms of the cost associated with design and vacancy of accessible/adaptable units. Based on these concerns, we agreed to compromise the design standards so that each unit would be marketable to both disabled and non -disabled individuals, which would hopefully cut costs and vacancy problems. Our basic needs were reduced to easy access and maneuverability inside the unit, basic necessities for anyone's living arrangement. We were not aware that the ultimate intent of this committee was to change the state ratio of 1:7. We felt then as we do now that the state law adequately addresses a critical need for the disabled population. We stand firm in this position based on our understanding of the need for accessible housing in this community, an understanding that comes from personal as well as professional experience. Unfortunately, our expertise and knowledge has not been enough to convince either the developers or City staff to support the state requirements. When the issue was brought to the Building Board of Appeals, it was initially tabled because the Board felt more information was needed. We complied by conducting an assessment of this disabled community. It was our understanding that the survey was only one piece of information and not to be the determining factor. We supported the survey, too, because we felt it would provide some basic information about Fort Collins and its disabled ci,jizenry that might be useful for other purposes. The Board COMMISSION ON DISABILITY T P.O. Box 580 . Fort Collins. Colorado 80522 9 (3031 221-6758 1:7 Accessible/Ada1 of Housing Ratio April 15, 1986 Page-2 also requested from City staff other information such'as the cost per unit using the new accessibility standards and data) on how other communities are complying with the law. The Board later had at their disposal the added testimony of numerous disabled persons supporting the claim that housing is difficult to find in Fort Collins and that choices are wantedand needed for those with mobility limitations. Contrary to Mr. Vaught's perception, a decision was made two weeks ago and that was to continue to comply with the state requirement. It may not have been the decision the building community wanted and it was based on other information. Nonetheless, it was a decision. We are not as disappointed in it as others. However, this is still not a victory for the disabled population. The builders still have the opportunity to ask for variance to this ordinance and as past records show, a variance Is practically guaranteed. To our mind we simply did not lose any more ground. The gain, perhaps, we did make is an increased awareness of this very critical issue. There is statewide support for this.law and Fort Collins can no longer exist in a vacuum in determining its policies for accessibility. What occurs here can and does affect others in the entire state if not other parts of the country. s In illustration, we would like to point out what we consider to be a significant conclusion drawn from the survey. The survey reports a low incidence of disabled individuals in the city. Looking at this in broader terms, with a fast growing population, one would assume that we would have at least comparable statistics with the nation. We do not. We seem able to attract many individuals to this area but not, it seems, If they have disabilities. Further analysis on the survey data indicates a significant population of older disabled residents. Among other things, this could easily imply we are not attracting a segment of a population most desirable to this area. It is the young adult that has a higher potential to economically contribute to the growth of a given community. Are we unintentionally discriminating against the disabled segment of this group? The survey results may be our warning sign that Fort Collins may not be as desirable as it could be and may not be living up to its motto as a "Choice City", especially for certain individuals. Mr. Vaught was clearly frustrated with the course this issue has taken. We, too, have been extremely frustrated and angry with the process. As events occurred, repeatedly we seemed to be the last informed. Guidelines in the law imply economic hardship is the first criteria for variance and not the existence of need. Yet, despite the law, our position has constantly been questioned, placing the burden of proof always in our hands. We have supported our claims as best we could, both personally and professionally. We have yet to hear substantial proof that supports the variance. We hear claims of high cost but no figures to back them up. We hear claims of accessible units remaining vacant. When asked where they are, we get no specific information. Considering this vacancy issue, we would also like to know the rate of 'vacancy of these units in comparison to the overall vacancy rate of 1:7 Accessible/Adapta}'� Housing Ratio April 15, 1986 • • Page-3 other non -accessible units. Is it comparable? If not, could this be more the results of poor marketing rather than need? A ratio based on need only is not1 really a fair assessment. For what other groups do we limit options based on a specific number of individuals? A ratio based strictly on need is setting up a situation wherein. each mobility impaired person would have only one unit from which to choose. If that unit were not empty, tough luck. We are baffled by the reluctance and fear of the housing community and its supporters to comply with this ratio. The ratio only applies to a small segment of total housing construction and contributes only a small answer to a larger question. We have done our best to reduce the design standards to minimize extra costs and to keep these units as marketable as possible. We don't really care if other people live in these units. We only want adequate options built into the total system. At one point we heard testimony from one developer that he would gladly make any accommodations out of his own pocket if asked by a disabled person. Our questions to him and to others are: "Isn't retrofitting much more expensive than making it a part of the initial construction?", and "Why does a disabled person need to ask for access into a living unit when no one without a disability needs to do so?" It seems more profitable to provide a product to a larger group than to a smaller one. Supporting a practice that excludes individuals rather than include them seems contrary to this concept. Supporting a variance to the state law seems just as contrary. Where we go from here with this issue is uncertain. Fort Collins has always prided itself on its progressive stance on issues of accessibility for its disabled populace. If this issue on accessible/adaptable housing continues to be fair game for variance, we will be doing a great disservice to this segment of our population. We realize that it is difficult for non -disabled individuals to fully understand the circumstances and situations faced by someone with a disability. Unfortunately, the ultimate decision concerning this issue rests with individuals who are not disabled. We can only hope that they have the ability to develop strategies that include rather exclude this segment of our population. Thank you for your time and consideration of our comments. CITY OF AFT COLLINS COMMISSION ON OISABIUTY April 15, 1986 Alan Canter. Director Fort Collins Community Development 300 Laporte Avenue Ft. Collins, Co 80521 Dear Alan, You asked for some explanation of the Commission on Disability's reasoning behind the position we have taken on the 1.7 ratio for handicapped accessible units. Our reasoning is quite simple. We support that ratio because it is the state law. We believe the city of Fort Collins should support state law, not undermine it. Since the proposal went through rigorous examination in the state legislature in order to become a state law, we believe it has been shown as necessary for the public good and that the Commission should not have to be in the position of continually defending that state law. If the city staff or developers want to change the law, they should go to the legislature, not to an advisory commission of the city. We would like for the City of Fort Collins to avoid costly law suits and adverse publicity by simply enforcing that law. As you know, the Commission was asked to provide a survey of Fort Collins in order to help gather information about the handicapped population here. We provided the survey at the request of the Board of Appeals for their information, not because we believed it had such to do with the question of enforcing the state statute. Never -the -less, we believe the survey was inconclusive. If properly applied to households instead of individuals, 8% of the households were occupied by someone with a disability. That is higher than the 5% recommended by the city and lower than the 14% required by the law. In addition, the state law is new and has only been moderately enforced, if that, for less than a year. Before that time, a ratio of 1:99 handicapped accessible units were required of developers. I believe that creates a major gap. If 8% of the household units contain a disabled person and only 10% of the units APPROVED AND/OR BUILT IN THE LAST YEAR were required to be accessible we haven't begun to meet the need. We need to be catching up, not building fewer accessible units. Please For tH understand that years we have in an effort the Commission is not being inflexible. compromised on building codes and other to make accessibility affordable and COMMISSION ON OISABILITY • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins. Colorado 80522 • (303) 221-6758 1 .;1 marketable. We have made every effort to understand the problems of builders and developers. Still we are expected to compromise again and allow the city to set a precedent which would do a disservice to disabled persons across the state. The question of building just enough accessible units -to match the number of disabled people in the community is a peculiar one. If I. as an able-bodied person, went looking for an apartment I would go through a process of elimination like this. "OK. I have 300 apartments to choose from. Two hundred of them are more that' I can afford. Fifty of the remaining 100 won't allow me to have pets. Fifteen of them are in a bad neighborhood where I don't want to take my kids. Another 20 are on the outskirts of town and I don't want to have to drive so much. The remaining 15 apartments are acceptable and I can choose from them." If a disabled person is looking for an apartment at the same time, her process of elimination will be quite different. "Here I have 300 apartments. I can only get in the door of 2 of them. One is more than I can afford. The other is on the outskirts of town and is not near any transportation. I guess I can't live in this town." There are numerous housing choices for an able-bodied person, yet we somehow think its acceptable to provide only one or two choices for someone who is disabled. Is there perhaps a flaw in our marketing strategy. Or more likely, a flaw in our perception of what is fair? Handicapped accessible units are not inherently unattractive. If they are unattractive, it is because planners and architects believe they must be that way. Fort Collins is often criticized as being a "yuppie town" where appearance is all that counts. In this instance, I would agree with that criticism. We require many things of our developers and tax them heavily so that our town can be attractive --wide streets---landscaping---donated parks. But If some of our citizens are denied comfortable living units because the developer could not make his project PRETTY enough to get through the planning process, and THE CITY PROMOTES THAT TRADE-OFF, then our concept of community development is sadly warped. Is it really more important to have jogging trails and ice rinks than to insure that the disabled can find a place to live? The Commission does not believe so. We would urge a re -thinking of priorities within the city's planning and development departments. The Land Use Guidance System provides for incentives to builders. Surely handicapped accessibility could be included. If you were faced with a decision between a `1 1 pleasant place to jog and a place to live, would you not opt for the latter? To clarify our position: The Commission reached its decision to support the 1:7 ratio on the basis of that ratio being required by state law. That decision was reached long before the survey was done. The survey was only added information. We believe that enforcing anything less is not only unconstitutional but is a disservice to our community. If I can provide any other information for you or you would like to discuss the issue further, please feel free to contact me. ukw i --V Ui ZULA