Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 11/20/2008Minutes to be approved by the Board at the December 18, 2008 Meeting FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting — November 20, 2008 1:00 P.M. Chai erson: Michael Smilie hone: 226-4260(H) Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson Staff Liaison: Felix Lee (221-6760) A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday. November 20, 2008 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: Alan Cram Mike Gust Jim Packard Michael Smilie George Smith BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Schneider STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Delynn Coldiron, Customer & Admin Services Manager Felix Lee, Building Official AGENDA: 1. ROLLCALL 2. 3. The meeting was called to order and rollcall was taken. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Cram made a motion to approve the minutes from September 25, 2008. Smith seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Cram, Gust, Packard, Smith Nays: None Board Member Smilie abstained from the vote. PDT Video Jeff Scheik, Planning, Development and Transportation (PDT) Director joined the meeting and provided information about the organizational adjustments made by the City to form the new r BRB November 20, 2008 Pg. 2 PDT Service Area. He explained that synergies between the various departments, as well as efficiency gains were the impetus for the changes. Scheick shared that his staff had been working very hard on consolidation efforts, as well as related community outreach. He presented a video that had been produced by City staff, that was currently being used in outreach efforts. There was brief discussion following the video. Board members thanked Scheick for the information. 4. Michael Bello, d/b/a Urban Development Partners, LLC., Case #14-08 Felix Lee introduced this case and stated that he denied the appellant's request for a code exception based on "undue hardship" which was the reason the issue had been referred to the Board. He explained that the appellant was seeking an exception to the Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) requirements applicable to the proposed two-story, 12- unit Meldrum Town Homes project located at 221, 223, 225, and 227 North Meldrum, with respect to meeting accessibility standards. Lee further explained that at least one Type A dwelling unit or two Type B dwelling units, as defined in the ANSI A 117.1-1998, would typically be required. Lee noted that the appellant was alleging "undue hardship" as defined in "Article 5 — Standards for Accessible Housing" of the CRS. Lee stated that the site is located in the 100-year high and moderate risk areas of the Old Town Floodplain, and was subject to Chapter 10 of the City Code. Additionally, he noted that the house to the north is a historic structure which requires the development to be in compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the City Land Use Code, which specifies observing attention to details such as complementing materials, window patterns and building massing. Lee noted that the appellant further alleges that based on: 1) flood plain requirements requiring the development to raise the floor level 18 inches above base flood elevation (BFE); and 2) complications for the design of the development to meet the complementing details of the neighboring historic'structure, both cause an "undue hardship" and thereby meet the State accessibility standards exemption for the project. Lee explained that City staff contends that the appellant can reduce the number of units and modify the site plan and building footprint to accommodate the State standards for accessibility. He further explained that exterior accessible elements could be designed to be sympathetic with the nearby historic home. Smilie asked for clarification on a Type B dwelling unit. Lee provided detailed information from the Code. Appellant Bello addressed the Board stating that he had been in Fort Collins since 1989. He explained that last year he completed the Heschel Street 16 project in Old Town North which consisted of 16 town homes. He further explained that four Type B units were created within that project. Bello stated that he was not trying to get out of building accessible units and knows that they are marketable. He noted that if they could easily accommodate accessible units in this project they would. BRB November 20, 2008 Pg. 3 Bello explained that the flood plain requirements, the historic designation of the building to the north and the land use requirements associated with the project create a hardship that prevents him from reasonably accommodating the accessible units. Bello stated that City staff recommended that he reduce the number of units to comply with the State's standards for accessibility. Bello stated that that approach would take away his rights granted under the Land Use Code related to site density. He explained that if he were to cut the number of proposed units in half then he would no longer be subject to the State's accessibility requirements, but that this would also inhibit his ability to provide a project that is affordable. Bello stated that the current footprints for his units are approximately 600-800 square feet. He explained that the garage accounts for 65% of the footprint. He further explained that in order to do what City staff has recommended and to build a Type A or two Type B units, he would need to at least double the proposed footprint size, which would mean he would be required to remove two of the proposed units from the site plan. Bello stated that the Land Use Code requires that no more than 33% of the structure be located in the rear half of the lot. He explained that because of this requirement he must keep the majority of the building in the front half of the lot. Bello stated that the consequences of the issues impact him in two ways: If the number of units are reduced, the land costs for each unit will increase which will lessen the affordability of the units. If the number of units are reduced to six, his ability to provide higher density and a better project for the community will be eliminated. As well, this would result in no handicap units being provided since they would no longer be required. Bello noted he did not believe it was smart to build handicap accessible units in a flood plain. He explained that he believed this would be putting less mobile people in harms way. Bello stated that the Land Use Code does not fit with the flood plain requirements that exist for this project. He explained that the density allowed under the Land Use Code would enable him to build units that are more affordable than other similar projects in the downtown area. Bello stated that Historic Preservation was asking that he be sympathetic to the existing structure to the north of the site by keeping his structure low. He further explained that because the Land Use Code requires him to have the majority of the building on the front half of the lot, he is unable to add the necessary amount of square footage that would facilitate efforts for keeping the structure lower in height. He noted that the flood plain and the Land Use Code are driving the density and the building height issues. Bello concluded by stating that the flood plain, occupant safety, density and building location on the lot are the issues driving him to ask for an exemption. He respectfully requested that the Board grant him the exemption based on those circumstances. Gust asked the appellant how far he was into the design of the building. The appellant stated that he was in preliminary design stages. BRB November 20, 2008 Pg. 4 Packard asked if reducing the number of units to accommodate the code would reduce the number of units from 12 to 6 or 12 to 8. The appellant stated that it would reduce the number of units to 6, in which case he would not be required to have handicap accessible units. Smilie stated that the appellant could accommodate handicap units by reducing to 9 or10 units. The appellant explained that he would in that case be required to have handicap units, but felt that for the reasons he had stated he wouldn't be able to fit them on the lot. Smilie asked if the appellant had looked into an over/under design at one end of the building in order to get a Type A on the first floor and have a flat above it. The appellant stated that he had, but that the square footage was prohibiting him from being able to do that. He explained that the design was already an over/under. Smilie stated that the appellant had mentioned a previous project that was also in a flood plain and questioned why that one was more suitable for handicap units than the current project. The appellant clarified that the previous project was not in the flood plain. Smilie asked if the appellant was using an existing design as a basic footprint or if he was starting from scratch. The appellant confirmed that he was starting from scratch and was working with Preview Architecture and Planning. Smilie asked Lee if the Board could fulfill the accessibility requirements by requiring visually or hearing impaired construction in lieu of wheel chair accessibility. Lee stated that he was unaware of any code requirements that allowed this type of substitution. Cram stated that units 8 and 9 appeared to be three-story units and questioned whether these were the only ones. Appellant stated that the units near the garages were three stories as well. He explained that there are four more narrow units that make up the three-story units. He further explained that those units are pushed further towards the back of the project to be sympathetic to the historic project to the north. Cram asked for clarification on the flood plainlevel. Appellant explained that the base flood plain elevation was 88.7' and that he is required to be 18 inches above that elevation. He further explained that the site has a high point of 88' and a low point of 86.5'. Lee asked the appellant whether he had thought about accessibility and how it could be accommodated when he started planning the project. The appellant stated that he understood that accessibility would be a requirement of the site, but did not know that the flood plain would become an issue until he went to conceptual review. He noted that the flood plain is not a federal or FEMA flood plain, but rather a City flood plain. He explained that as soon as he found out that he had to deal with the elevation issue it became necessary to shift to a completely different design. Lee asked why accommodating even one Type A unit would reduce the project to six units. The appellant explained that the added square footage required for a Type A unit or the creation of two Type B units, coupled with the 33% building to lot ratio, could potentially bring him down to six units. BRB November 20, 2008 P& 5 Lee asked the appellant about the possibility of creating one ground floor, single -story unit with an accessible entrance and enough floor area to make it viable. The appellant stated that he would have to build a Type A unit which is much more onerous in terms of requirements. He explained that this would force him to increase the footprint of the unit and that a Type A unit is much more difficult to sell. Gust asked if the appellant had thought of adding elevators to accommodate the handicap units. The appellant stated that he was concerned with putting an elevator in a flood plain because of the associated mechanical systems which.would be subject to failure in an emergency flooding situation. Smilie stated that the appellant could take units 5 and 6 and combine the ground floor units into one Type A and put another unit or units above. He explained that either two units that are two stories above the Type A or one unit that is just immediately above the Type A really wouldn't reduce the number of units at all. He further explained that it would pretty much give the appellant the same size footprint. Smilie added that it might eliminate a garage space or two, but that this might be reasonable in this case. The appellant stated that this would result in a situation where there are people living above and below each other. Smilie stated that it might not be the best solution, but it does solve the requirement of having a Type A unit, and would not reduce the overall number of units. The appellant stated that there would still be the situation of having a handicap person in a flood plain. Smilie answered that he is not terribly sympathetic to that argument. Gust asked whether the appellant, if he pursued what had just been suggested, would still have enough parking. The appellant explained that he is required to have 1.75 parking spaces per two - bedroom unit. He noted that all of his units are going to be two -bedrooms. He further explained that the site plan shows six additional parking spaces, but he believed they would be losing three as a result of detention requirements. Smilie stated that he would rather be looking at a parking variance than a handicap unit variance. Smith questioned if the City flood plain is accurate. Lee confirmed this. Smilie opened the meeting to public comment. Beverly Hagaseth with the Fort Collins Commission on Disability addressed the Board. She stated that she has a fair amount of experience with disability and mentioned that she had been a Registered Nurse since 1955. She explained over the years she has seen many people experience unplanned, undesired disabilities. She further explained that any person could end up requiring a Type A unit at anytime. She noted that she could have potentially required one after breaking her neck in a car accident in 1988, but was lucky and had no lasting impairments. Beverly asked whether the entire property was in the flood plain. The appellant confirmed this. Beverly asked if the appellant had a historical structure contiguous to the project in some fashion that required him to have some change in height plans. The appellant stated that he had been asked to be sympathetic to the design of the historical structure. BRB November 20, 2008 Pg. 6 Beverly stated that it appeared to her that the property selected for this project did not fit well with required codes, especially related to ADA considerations. The appellant explained that because he was proposing to build 12 units, the code requires him to have handicap accessibility regardless of the geography of the site. He stated that this was one of the reasons he was requesting an exemption on the basis of undue hardship. Beverly asked the appellant if the undue hardship was primarily his ability to sell the unit(s) or make a profit. The appellant stated that the undue hardship would be the challenges associated with constructing handicap accessible units in a flood plain area. Beverly noted that she was in the flood in 1997 and did not see a lot of flooding, if any, in this area. She explained that she believes it behooves all of us to recognize that we are inextricably intertwined in our humanness and that to consider those that have great need for access should certainly be on the utmost list of our considerations. Beverly stated that she did not feel that the accommodation requirements defined by law constituted that much hardship. Gust asked if there was a back log of people with disabilities who are trying to find a place to live in the City of Fort Collins and if there were any percentages or statistics available related to this. Beverly stated that there was a back log and that the President of the Commission had been looking for a place to live in Old Town but had been unable to find one. She explained that the reason he wanted to be in Old Town was because his only transportation was his chair and he wanted to be close to work, home and in an area where he could also get to a grocery store. She stated that she does not have any numbers and did not believe that it was a statistic that anybody has looked at. She stated that this would be advisable and that it would be really good to know how many are in need. Gust asked whether Beverly felt so strongly about this issue that her recommendation would be to follow the codes in all cases, despite the circumstances. Beverly stated that her concern was that whenever plans are made in a community we should consider all of the possibilities for our fellow citizens. Vivienne Armendariz addressed the Board requesting that they deny the exception. She stated that the hardship regarding the flood plain was not a legitimate argument. She stated that she was born and raised in Loveland and when she decided to move to Fort Collins, it took her nearly a year to find an accessible and affordable apartment. Vivienne noted that when she moved here she was told that accessible housing in Fort Collins was pretty much non existent and that she very often hears of a disabled person stating that they can't find a place to live. She explained that handicapped persons do not have many choices on where they can live. Mare Franklin Gahmer addressed the Board. She stated that she felt that this case should be denied. She felt that financial hardship for the developer was driving the appellant's decision to request an exemption in this case. She stated that financial gain has a huge influence upon what people think they can and cannot do. Mare noted her involvement with Elderhouse north and south. She explained that many of those people are in apartments and all are in wheelchairs: She stated that there are not many available, accessible units in Fort Collins that are affordable. She added that if a unit is affordable then it is typically not very nice. BRB November 20, 2008 Pg. 7 Mare stated that she doesn't believe that it is right to have any building, especially in the downtown area, built without accessibility. She felt that if the Board were to allow the exemption it would promote the message that people with disabilities are not of strong consequence to the City. . Gust asked if people with sight or hearing disabilities are being discriminated against because people who are physically handicapped are taking all of the available accessible units. Mare disagreed. She stated that she knows of people who have run into that in other cities and have moved to Fort Collins. Gust stated that what he has heard is that it is more important to have handicap accessibility in the downtown area. Vivienne stated that she believes there should be equal amounts of accessible units available from north to south. Packard asked if the appellant had explored the option of obtaining a variance on the setbacks. The appellant stated that they had not explored this option. Lee explained that these types of variances go through the Zoning Board of Appeals. He stated that he believed this might be a possibility. Smilie stated that he was concerned there may be some unmet retention requirements. He explained that he would rather see some alternatives explored, to see how the ADA requirements could be accommodated. Smith stated that this was a good infill project that matched the vision for downtown, but felt that it was important to ensure there are handicap accessible units downtown and along the Mason Corridor. Smith agreed that a Land Use variance might be the better option. Packard stated that he believes there is a market for nice handicap units in Fort Collins. Smilie asked if any of the existing units being torn down have basements under them. The appellant stated that he did not know since he had not personally been in the units. He explained that with the flood plain he did not believe they were allowed to have basements. Lee provided a definition for undue hardship, as follows "Undue hardship" means a substantial and unusual hardship that is the direct result of unique physical site conditions such as topography or geology, or that is the direct result of other unique or special conditions encountered on a property, but that are not typically encountered in the jurisdiction in which such property is located. Constraints. complications, or difficulties that may arise by complying with these statutory standards for accessibility but that do not constitute an undue hardship shall not serve to justify the granting cm exception or variance... Lee stated that the next excerpt from the statutes outlines the local jurisdictions responsibility, latitude, etc.: BRB November 20, 2008 Pg. 8 "The Governmental unit responsible for enforcement of this article shall grant exceptions to or modify any particular standard or specification when it is determined that it is impractical and would create an undue hardship. " Lee stated that the crux of this matter was whether or not the Board felt the site constraints that the appellant outlined constituted and undue hardship. Bello stated that he is very supportive of handicap accessibility. He explained that ''/a of all of the units in the Old Town North project he built were handicap accessible. He stated that from a needs standpoint, that project was very close to downtown and there was no one with disabilities who came to look at the units. He explained that those units started around $220,000. He further explained that the units for the current project will be priced in the low $300,000 to $350,000 and that if he were required to reduce the number of units, it would only make the project more expensive. Bello stated that because of the unique, geological and physical conditions of the site, he believed an undue hardship was warranted. He explained that he doesn't believe that one project will make or break the need in the community for handicap accessible units. He questioned whether it would be an injustice to the whole community if the Board granted his request to not build the handicap accessible units. Lee stated that this is a complicated issue and that this site has some significant constraints. He noted that redesign of the project to contain at least one handicap accessible unit may be worth pursuing. Cram made the following points: 1. Putting handicapped persons in an area that literally sits feet below the flood plain is hazardous. He explained that there are lots of other locations where accessibility could be had. He further explained that if there were any kind of flood it was highly likely that there would be some sort of water issues to contend with. He did not think that this made a lot of sense. 2. Reducing the number of units will drive the price up, potentially making them unattainable for handicapped persons. He noted that in terms of units, he does not want to reduce the number of units available for the handicapped, but pointed out that in this case there is only one (1) unit really at stake. The City should be looking at ways to encourage people to build more accessible units in places that are substantially better in terms of access to public transportation, excluding areas that are prone to flooding. Smilie stated that he didn't believe that there had been much of an attempt in this case to get a handicap accessible unit incorporated into the project. He explained that he thought it was an ideal place for a handicap unit and that it was an ideal long term goal to get more handicap units into the downtown area. Packard agreed with Smilie. He stated that there are viable arguments for both sides, but thought that more options needed to be explored to accommodate ADA requirements. BRB November 20, 2008 Pg. 9 5. Gust made a motion to accept the variance requested. Cram seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Cram, Gust Nays: Packard, Smilie, Smith The motion failed. Smilie made a motion to deny the variance requested until other alternatives had been explored. Smith seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Packard, Smilie, Smith Nays: Cram, Gust 2009 Work Plan Smilie made a motion to accept the 2009 work plan. Packard seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Cram, Gust, Packard, Smilie, Smith Nays: None 6. Other Business None. Meeting adjourned at 3:03 p.m. Felix Lee, NBS or Michael Smilie, Chairperson