HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 01/04/2000 - CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FILED BY LARIMER COUNTY AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 34
DATE: January 4, 2000
• FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
Felix Lee
SUBJECT:
Consideration of an Appeal Filed by Larimer County Challenging the Validity of the Building
Review Board's Decision of October 28, 1999,Denying a Variance to Larimer County Regarding
the City Building Code which Specifies Certain Guardrail Safety Standards Relative to the Larimer
County Detention Center Expansion Project at 2405 Midpoint Drive, Fort Collins.
RECOMMENDATION:
Council should consider the appeal based on the record and the relevant provisions of the Code and
Charter and then make a decision either to uphold, to overtum, to modify the decision of the
Building Review Board, or to remand the case to the Board.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At its October 28, 1999, meeting, the Building Review Board (BRB) denied Larimer County a
variance from certain safety standards contained in the City Building Code as they apply to second
level walkway guardrails in the inmate residential areas ofthe new Larimer County Detention Center
Expansion. The provisions of the 1991 UNIFORMBUILDING CODE""(UBC), adopted in both
the City and Larimer County at the time of and prior to construction,prohibit intermediate openings
in guardrails that allow a sphere 4-inches and larger to pass through them, except in "non-public
areas of commercial and industrial-type occupancies". The plans submitted with the permit
application depict complying guardrails. After the new facility was well underway, the applicant
unsuccessfully requested a variance from the Building and Zoning Director(the"Director")to allow
the commercial-industrial exception to the general rule. Subsequently,the applicant appealed to the
BRB to allow the commercial-industrial exception. The BRB denied the appeal, finding that the
Director's interpretation of the code was correct and that the applicant failed to provide an acceptable
alternate design or method.
BACKGROUND:
The nearly completed Detention Facility was begun in mid-1998. Administrative areas are approved
for occupancy and the remainder of project is undergoing completion.
In the latter part of 1997, Larimer County retained Tyree Associates, an approved private service,
to perform the required plan review on the Latimer County Detention Facility expansion and
remodel project under the 1991 UNIFORMBUILDING CODEIm(UBC). In its preliminary review
dated October 7, 1997, the consultant noted the Code's prohibition of intermediate openings in
guardrails that allow a sphere 4-inches and larger to pass through them, except in"non-public areas
of commercial and industrial-type occupancies, where intermediate guardrail openings may be
increased based on a 12-in.maximum "sphere"not passing through them. Fort Collins amendments
in effect when the City issued the permit in June 1998 are more specific--prescribing that the 12-in.
exception is further limited to "non-public areas for production,manufacturing, storage, or similar
areas". Current guardrail specifications in the 1997 UBC,which is currently in effect in Fort Collins
DATE: January 4, 2000 2 ITEM NUMBER: 34
and Latimer County,are consistent and identical to the 1991 UBC with respect to permitted opening
size and geometry.
In its March 1998 written response to Tyree's report sent to City staff from project design consultant
Reilly Johnson Architecture, the consultant stated that it had used the commercial-industrial
exception before in other such projects. Final construction plans accompanying the building permit
detail complying guardrails utilizing 4-in by 4-in. welded wire mesh as the intermediate barrier
(BRB Exhibit "B").
The guardrails, about which this appeal to Council is being heard,are installed on the second level
walkways of the "inmate housing" areas. This past summer, the applicant was unsuccessful in
obtaining approval of the non-public,commercial-industrial guardrail exception from the Director.
Unable to obtain that approval,the applicant then sought relief from the Director's decision through
an appeal to the Building Review Board (BRB) at its regular October 28, 1999 meeting. The
applicant requested approval of a design based on the exception and consisting of the following
elements:one and%Z-inch diameter horizontal rails,vertically spaced approximately 12 in.on-center
(o/c.), attached to vertical baluster supports spaced approximately 60 in. o/c.
BRB HEARING SUMMARY
Robert Brashears of Reilly Johnson Architecture,the design consultant for the project,was the sole
representative present acting on behalf of the applicant. Brashears argued that the inmate housing
spaces in the facility are not accessible to the general public and therefore should be entitled to the
commercial-industrial exception. He noted that his firm has designed such facilities for other
jurisdictions that were allowed to apply the exception. Brashears further argued that the greater 12-
in. intermediate guardrail spacing is essential for security in inmate housing areas as well as the for
the overall facility security. He stated that the''/4-in.diameter,4-in.by 4-in.wire grid design shown
on the plans was later deleted after the bid process in order to reduce costs and because it would
significantly compromise staff visibility/security. Brashears stated his opinion that the general code
requirement is intended to protect the public at large,including small children and,therefore, should
not apply in this case. Brashears concluded the applicant's case by stating it was their position that
the Director's interpretation of the code is erroneous and that the BRB should have the latitude to
make exceptions that work in a"real world" application.
The Director responded that the commercial-industrial exception is not applicable because the UBC,
currently and for many years,has distinctly classified jails and prisons as"Institutional"occupancies.
The Director's understanding of the long-standing rationale for the codes not including such
institutions as being eligible for the commercial-industrial exception is that institutional inmates and
patients are frequently restrained or are otherwise rendered incapable of self-preservation--in effect
leaving them dependent on others and built-in systems for protection from injury. The Director
further argued that the building codes are in place for the protection of all building occupants and
that some inmates and staff members could easily fit through the guardrails now in place, creating
the potential for serious injury in the event of an altercation or accident that results in a fall onto the
floor below. The Director concluded the staff presentation citing that the City's first charge is public
safety for all building occupants and that the applicant had not presented any witnesses or other
options such as equivalent safety measures or documentation identifying specific security concerns
to staff or to the BRB for consideration.
DATE: January 4, 2000 3 ITEM NUMBER: 34
BRB AT
• The BRB does not have the discretionary authority to summarily waive requirements of the building
code. Any modifications or variances to the building code approved by the Board must be within
the context of the criteria set forth in Sections 105.1 through 105.4 of the 1997 UBC as amended by
the City. In order to rule in favor of the appellant, the Board must determine either one of the
following:
(a) The building official's interpretation of the building code is "erroneous"; or that,
(b) " . . . an alternate design,alternate materials,or the alternate methods proposed by the appellant
are equivalent to those prescribed by this code considering structural strength,effectiveness,fire
resistance, durability, safety and any other pertinent factors." provided further that, " . . . the
Board shall require sufficient evidence be submitted to substantiate any claims made regarding
the proposed alternate design, alternate materials and/or alternate methods of construction."
BRB FINDINGS
The BRB unanimously denied the appeal, finding that the Director's interpretation of the Code in
this case was not erroneous and that the applicant had not submitted for consideration a suitable
alternate design providing equivalent safety.
• SCOPE OF COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Council is empowered to "uphold,overturn,or modify the decision of the(BRB)" or to remand the
case to the BRB for rehearing pursuant to Section 2-56 based upon the record on appeal,the relevant
provisions of the Code and Charter, the grounds for appeal cited in the notice of appeal and any
additional issues identified by a member of the City Council prior to the hearing. (Any such
additional issues must be identified in writing and filed with the City Clerk no later than ten (10)
calendar days prior to the date of the hearing.) No such additional issues have been identified in this
case.
At the conclusion of such hearing,the City Council may uphold,overturn or modify the decision of
the board or commission; provided, however, that the Council may instead remand the matter for
rehearing in order for the Board to receive and consider additional information with regard to any
issue raised on appeal.
ATTACHMENTS:
Applicant Notice of Appeal of BRB Decision
City Clerk Notice to parties in interest
Transcript of the October 28, 1999 BRB Hearing
Summary Minutes of the October 28, 1999 BRB Hearing
Packet for October 28, 1999 BRB Hearing
kry 0
• NOTICE OF APPEAL OF BUILDING REVIEW O CLf--.,
Affected Property: Larimer County Detention Center
Owner: Latimer County
Address: 2405 Midpoint Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
Comes now Latimer County,by and through its attorneys,pursuant to Section 2-47 of the City
Code, and files this appeal of the Building Review Board's actions regarding the guardrail
openings at the detention center. The County submits this appeal as an effort to resolve the
issues within the framework of the appeals process.
I. Guardrail Issue.
Additions to the Larimer County Detention Center are substantially complete. Administrative
areas are approved for occupancy. The additions to the inmate housing units, which include a
large central space known as a"day room", await resolution if this issue. The"day rooms" are
surrounded by two stories of inmate holding cells, with a mezzanine level. It is the guardrails
that exist on the mezzanine level that are at issue.
The guardrails, as constructed, are spaced 12"apart. Such spacing is critical for security at the
Larimer County Detention Center. The 4"spacing espoused by the City Building Department
• would block visibility into the mezzanine level by Detention Center deputies. Unfettered visual
access to inmates will enhance inmate safety and security far in excess of the City's rigid
application of UBC's guardrail spacing criteria. The Larimer County Sheriff is statutorily
responsible for maintaining security at the detention facility, and 4" guardrail spacing is
unacceptable at the detention center. As with all other detention facilities throughout the state,
12" guardrail spacing should be allowed in light of the unique nature of inmate housing.
II. Action of the Building Review Board.
The County,by and through its architect, Randy Brashears of Reilly Johnson Architecture,
sought approval of the previously installed guardrails with 12" spacing. Felix Lee, Director of
the City's Building and Zoning Department denied such approval arguing that such spacing was
in violation of the UBC.
Section 509.3 of the 1997 Uniform building Code provides that"open guardrails shall have
intermediate rails . . . such that a sphere 4 inches in diameter cannot pass." The UBC excepts
from this definition areas of"commercial and industrial-type occupancies which are not
accessible to the public."
Mr. Lee argued that the detention center was not a commercial or industrial, and therefore, was
strictly subject to the UBC's 4"diameter requirement regardless of the security issues of the
prison. This decision was appealed to the Building Review Board on September 16, 1999. (See
request for Hearing By the Building Review Board attached hereto as Exhibit A.) The Hearing
Review Board upheld Mr. Lee's interpretation of the Code at its hearing of October 28, 1999.
��: eA
Minutes of the Building Review Board were provided to the Larimer County Attorney's office
on November 8, 1999. (See Fort Collins Building Review Board Minutes attached hereto as
Exhibit`B"). The County now files this appeal.
III. Grounds for Appeal
Section 2-48 of the Fort Collins Code provides that decisions of the Building Review Board may
be appealable for"Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provision of the Code and
Charter."
At the meeting before the Building Review Board,Mr. Lee acknowledged that the 4" spacing
requirement was designed to protect infants from passing through guardrails:
Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on the code changes that reduced the
spacing from a 6"sphere to a 4"sphere. Lee answered that the discussion
came about based on anthropomorphic measurements of children's heads.
A number representing the mean value of a toddler's head, at age 3,was
chosen as the new code requirement of 4". (See Review Board Minutes,Page 3).
Section 104.2.1 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code provides that" (t)he building official shall
have the power to render interpretations of this code and to adopt and enforce rules and
supplemental regulations to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, rules
and regulations shall be in conformance with the intent and purpose of this code."
The UBC mandates that Mr. Lee's decisions reflect the intent of the code. There is no dispute
that the 4" spacing requirement is intended to prevent toddlers from passing through guardrails.
The Larimer County Detention Center does not house three-year-old children. A 4" spacing
requirement is simply not necessary at the detention center. Mr. Lee's interpretation of the code
not only fails to recognize the unique safety concerns of a detention center,but also fails to
satisfy his mandated duties to follow the overall intent and purpose of the code pursuant to
Section 104.2.1.
Mr. Lee indicated that his decision was driven by his"fast charge . . . to assure safety for the
occupants of the building." (See Minutes of Review Board, Page 6.) The strict application of
the 4" spacing language in a building that is closed to the public as well as all toddlers will lead
to the preposterous result of a more dangerous detention center for both inmates and deputies.
Accordingly,the County appeals the requirement of 4"spacing on the mezzanine guardrails.
The County asks the City Council to look to the purpose and intent of such a requirement, as it is
required to do, in light of the overall considerations in running a secure detention facility. The
City Council should reverse the decision of Mr. Lee and allow the Larimer County Sheriff s
Office to provide for proper inmate security in accordance with their expertise in this area.
. IV. Names,Addresses and Telephone Numbers of Appellants.
1. George Hass
Larimer County Attorney
215 W. Oak,Ninth Floor />
Fort Collins, CO 80521
(970)498-7450 / !
�_, e a Hass, County Attorney
•
•
- tart collies bui ..!ding dt zoning dept.
/A 1e fleet co Yesae:Tfe82t am Paa:eresasetas
• REQUEST FOR HEARING BY THE BUILDING REVIEW BOARD
(Code HewbW
Affvcied proppotr Larlasr County Detention Facility
Ornxr Larleer County
Address- 1405 Midpoint Drive; Fort Collins. Co. 805ZS
AOpelwgNam@- Reilly Johnson Architecture Robert 8rashears
Address: 1775 Sherman Street, Suite 13Z0; Denver, Co. 80203
f'�Orle= 303-832-911 t �Aobls f 3037213-1308
Vescrlp6on of r&gLmst and m"atkrg Wars (attach additional kdorm'aDOn andfor Materials): Th I a r1quest
Is to allow spacing between guardrail intermediate rails within the Detention Facility, such
that a sphere 12" in diameter cannot pass through. it is understood that the City of Fort
rollins emendiment to the U6C allows for a 12" sphere in certain types of buildings.
warehouses) but does not include detention facilities in those building types.
Per 1991 UNC, Section 1712 (a). (see attached)
. Applicable Cpade$lplp�lq: 199t uee - Seet acre 17t 2(a) a -'
Appel"Signature Data
Appellant may appear in person.in wAting, or py agent and should be prepared to present an rakvant details.
SPO Cations and plans,or 001sr evidence in support of this hearing request at Dte hearing time Utdrtatsd
below.
Regular meetings are scheduled for the lest T►llu�l morM at 1A0 pm. In the Ceuncl Chambers at
300 Laporte Avenue Applications must be f, prior to live desired how"daft to ensure
eonsidw Mover. A docket fee of 550.00 must accompany this hem h ii request.
OFFICE USE OMLY
'aearingDate
PoeW Pw Wass 7e71 am m
-9evW0Md by c1 To F.
iwa.a. Co.
Distribulion: Orin F
u• Fels
•
EXHIBIT
guardrails shall have spacing such that a 0" dia. sphere may not pass through,
with the exception of commercial and industrial type occupancies which are not
accessible to the public, which ailow a l2" sphere_ The detention facility is
not accessible to the public, the guardrails are located in areas where only staff
and Inmates are allowed; therefore the public is not at risk if the 12" spacing
is used.
M additional issue is the security of the facilitY, both for staff end Dates.
When the intermediate rails are spaced at 12", visibility from the main floor to
the mezzanine level is good and allows the officer to easily observe and monitor
the Inmate. When the spacing is at 411, when viewed from an angle, the guardrail
appears almost solid, greatly reducing the visibility of the inmate and Increasing
the possibility of attacks and assaults.
Wc request that the 12" exception be allowed in this facility, as it does not
affect public safety, and provides a greater degree of safety within the facility.
PowAr Fas Now 7VI 0"M
To P— c .' Lu
Fa,* 49PS
TOTAL p,B3
Council Liaison: Kurt Kastein Staff Liaison: Feluc Lee(221-67ti0)
Chairperson: Charles Fielder Phone:484-0117(W) 207-0505(H)
A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday,October 28, 1999,in the Council
Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building,at 300 LaPorte Avenue,Ft.Collins.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Charles Fielder,Susan Kreul-Froseth,Al Hauck,Gene Little,and Bradley Massey
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Rudy Hansch,and Thomas Hartmann
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Felix Lee,Director of Building do Zoning
Paul Eckman,Deputy City Attorney
Delynn Coldiron,staff support to Board
AGENDA:
I. ROLL CALL:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Fielder and roll taken.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A motion was made by Board Member Kmul-Froseth to approve the Minutes from the September 30,
1999 meeting. Board Member Massey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and
the Minutes from the September 30, 1999 meeting were approved as submitted.
3. BUILDING CODE HEARING—L.ARIMER COUNTY:
Chairperson Fielder explained the procedures that would be used for the hearing.
Bob Brashears of Reilly Johnson Architecture addressed the Board. He mentioned that there are a
series of additions that are currently be built to the Larimer County detention facility. Reilly Johnson
Architecture designed these additions. He presented information relative to this hearing,as follows:
The additions that are being constructed to the detention facility,consist of housing units,each of
which has a"day room"which is a large central space,and inmate cells adjacent to the day rooms.
The day rooms are only occupied by inmates or officers. There is no public accessibility to any of
these spaces.
EXHIBIT
BRB
Oct. 29, 1999
Page 2
Near each of the day rooms,the cells arc two-stories high,with a mezzanine level. It is the guardrails
that exist on the mezzanine level that are at issue in this rase. The guardrails,as constructed,are 12"
apart. The UBC states that in a commercial or industrial application,guardrails can be constructed in
such a way that a 12"sphere cannot pass through. This is what has been done at the detention
facility.
It was Brashears' understanding that the City of Fort Collins has amendments to the UBC which state
that only a 4"sphere,maximum,can fit through the railings. The Fort Collins amendments do allow
a 12"sphere in certain building occupancies;however,it was determined that the detention facility
did not fall within those building occupancies.
Brashears mentioned that because the spaces in question at the detention facility are not accessible by
the public,there is no danger of a small child or small person slipping through the railings. He noted
that his firm has done many county jails and stated that they have been allowed to use the 12"sphere
rule on all such projects.
The 12"spacing is necessary for the security of the facility and for the security of the officers running
the facility. Jails are frequently not fully addressed by the building code. There are certain
compromises that arc made from an egress or building code safety point of view,in order to provide
adequate safety and security of the facility given the fact that it houses inmates. The 12"spacing is
used so that the officers have a good view up into the mezzanine level. As an officer gets closer to
the mezzanine level,and is looking up through it to view an inmate,close-spaced railings begin to
appear solid. The goal of the 12"spacing is to keep the guardrails as transparent as possible to avoid
any blind spots where an inmate could assault another inmate,or could assault an officer and possibly
not be seen.
Brashears offered to let Board Members view building section and floor plans that he had available.
He reiterated that the detention center is a facility where the public would not be at risk using the 12"
sphere rule,and that his firm has used this building practice successfully for many years now.
Felix Lee presented the City's position relative to this appeal. He asked Brashears for clarification on
whether the rails were installed horizontally. Brashears confirmed this and added that there are
vertical rails approximately 5'apart.
7
t" Lee stated that it is the City's position that the 12"spacing violates the 1991 and 1997 Uniform
Building Codes as published,as well as the local City ordinance. The Code requires that there be a
guardrail which restricts a 4"sphere from passing through,with the exception of non-public areas in
commercial and industrial occupancies. It is the City's position that the occupancy in this case is
institutional.
In institutional-type occupancies,whether it be a jail or medical facility,where involuntarily or
voluntarily,the occupants' liberties are restrained,the occupants must rely on the system and the
building itself to protect them from injury. In this case,given the fact that the rails are 12"apart,with
intermediate supports placed 5' apart,a relatively large person could pass through the railings. The
people that are residents of these facilities are entitled to the same protection as anyone else in terms
of a building and the safety features that are built in. The building code is a minimum life safety
compilation of regulations. Everyone is entitled to the protection it affords.
Lee summarized the Board's decision authority in this case as described by the building code.
According to Sections 105.1 through 105.4 of the 1997 UBC as amended by the City,in order to rule
in favor of an appellant. the Board must determine either one of the following: (a) that the building
BRB
Oct.28, 1999
Page 3
• official's interpretation is"erroneous",or(b)"...an alternate design,alternate materials,or the
alternate methods proposed by the appellant are equivalent to those prescribed by this code
considering structural strength,effectiveness, fire resistance,durability,safety and any other pertinent
factors." Should the Board decide the case under item(b),according to the building code,"the Board
shall require sufficient evidence be submitted to substantiate any claims made regarding the proposed
alternate design,alternate materials and/or alternate methods of construction."
Brashears asked Lee for clarification on the exception in the code for commercial and industrial
occupancies which are not accessible to the public,and how the jail differs from this. Lee answered
that the jail is considered an institutional occupancy.
Lee directed the Board to the exhibits that were provided in packets. Lee stated that when the project
plans were reviewed by Tyree Associates,they highlighted the provision that the building code
generally requires a maximum of 4"spacing for guardrails. He also stated that the plans that were
submitted to the City showed a welded wire mesh as an intermediate barrier on the guardrails.
Brashears answered that they went through a value engineering process that changed the plans. He
mentioned that he spent considerable time discussing the new spacing requirements with Building&
Zoning staff and obtained approval for this.
Lee answered that this change would have required his approval,which was not given. Brashears
answered that he was not informed that he needed Lee's approval.
Hauck asked Brashears if he had documentation that this had been approved by City staff. Brashears
stated that the approval was verbal and that he sent a letter to Building&Zoning summarizing the
conversations that had taken place. Hauck asked Brashears if he had a copy of that letter. Brashears
mentioned that he could try to locate it if needed.
. Hauck asked for clarification on the timing of the changes. Brashears answered that the changes were
incorporated after the bids were received in an effort to reduce costs and to respond to some of the
concerns that the Sheriffs Department had. Hauck asked why the welded wire mesh requirement
was changed. Brashears mentioned that it was changed both to save money and because the owner
wanted greater visibility between the railings.
Hauck asked for clarification on the rails that are currently existing. Brashears confirmed that the
existing guardrails are 12"horizontal rails that have vertical supports every 5'. He added that the rails
are constructed of I %i'steel tubes that are 12"on center and that the clear spacing between the rails
is approximately II".
Kreul-Froseth asked if there were similar guardrails in place in the original facility. Brashears did not
have information on this. He mentioned that the majority of the existing facility did not have two-
level day rooms or mezzanine levels. A minimum security addition was added approximately 7-8
years ago;however,Brashears was unsure if there was similar guardrail construction in that addition.
Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on the other detention facilities that have been done by
Brashears' firm as to whether they included a similar configuration of baluster/rail. Brashears
confirmed this. He mentioned that he had a photograph available of the detention facilities that were
done in Montrose County which opened about a year ago which contained this typical arrangement of
guardrail. Kreut-Froseth asked for clarification on the purpose of this design. Brashears answered
that the 12"design allows for greater visibility for the officers as they look through the guardrails.
BRB
Oct. 28, 1999
Page 4
Brashears also noted that Tyree Associates was used for plan review on the Montrose County facility
and that they accepted the 12"spacing in Montrose.
Kreul-Froseth asked if any alternative designs had been considered. Brashears mentioned that more
of the 1 '/2"tubes could be added,but that this concerns the Sheriffs office because of the reduced
visibility that would be caused. He mentioned that another alternative would be to tack-weld wire
mesh to the existing railings which would obscure the visibility of the officers less than the first
alternative,but would be time consuming and would affect the completion date of the jail.
Massey questioned how 2"bars at 12"on center would obscure the officers'view less than 4 x 4
mesh. Brashears mentioned that 4 x 4 mesh.as you get closer to it,begins to read as a solid plane.
Massey asked for more specifies on this. Brashears provided clarification.
Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on whether the stairs had open or closed risers. Brashears
answered that the risers are closed with a perforated steel plate.
Hauck mentioned that the Board has fairly constrained decision criteria. The first criteria would be
the possibility that the building official's interpretation was erroneous. He asked Brashears if it was
his opinion that the building official's interpretation was erroneous in this case. Brashears answered
that in the past they have had detention facilities classified under the exceptions in the building code
for commercial and industrial occupancies that would allow 12"spacing. Hauck mentioned that staff
is making the claim that the detention facility is a Group 1,Division 3 occupancy and asked if
Brashears agreed. Brashears confirmed that he agreed with this.
Hauck read the description that exists in the code for commercial and industrial occupancies and
asked Brashears if the detention center fit into that category. Brasbears mentioned that he was not
saying that the detention facility was either a commercial or industrial occupancy,only that in the
past,the detention facilities that have been completed by his firm have been accepted by the local
code authorities as fitting into the exception for commercial/industrial occupancies.
Hauck asked if the language"commercial and industrial-type occupancies"was included in the City
amendments to the UBC. Lee confirmed this and pointed out that this language,in an effort to be
consistent with regional jurisdictions,was adopted as it was written in the 1997 UBC. Lee added that
this language is virtually unchanged from the 1991 UBC.
Hauck asked Brashears if it was his opinion that the detention facility was a commercial or industrial
use. Brashears stated that the detention facility was clearly not a commercial or industrial use, but he
was arguing the fact that the jail was not accessible to the public and that latitude had been given to
his firm on other detention facility projects which allowed them to include these facilities under the
exception granted to commercial and industrial occupancies.
Hauck asked Brashears if the issue of his appeal was the fact that the City building official had made
an erroneous decision,as opposed to the fact that alternate plans were being submitted for
consideration. Brashears confirmed this.
Little asked Brashears for clarification on why the guardrail system specifications did not reflect the
12"spacing exception at the time the construction plans were originally submitted. Brashears
answered that the spacing had not been thoroughly discussed with the owner prior to that time. This
issue was brought up during the bid process.
BRB
Oct. 28, 1999
Page 5
• Little asked for clarification on why,when similar 12"spacing guardrail systems had been used for
other detention facilities,the plans for this detention facility did not reflect this. Brashears mentioned
that drawings from a separate project with different parameters were used for this project and that this
detail was overlooked. ,
Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on whether the appellant is required to provide an alternate
proposal,or whether the Board can consider the current proposal,unchanged,as an alternate
proposal. Lee answered that it is really up to the Board to consider whether a proposal is equivalent
to what is prescribed by the code. Kreul-Froseth mentioned that she saw things in the existing design
that satisfies the code such as structural strength,effectiveness and pertinent factors,i.e.visibility, '
which relates to safety issues in a jail setting. Her concern,however,was that the 12"space at the _
bottom of the guardrail may not keep someone from falling through if they slipped, fell,were pushed, -
etc. She asked Brashears if this issue had been addressed. Brashears asked if she was recommending
that the 4"sphere requirement be done on the lower portion of the guardrail as opposed to the entire
height of the guardrail. Kreul-Froseth confirmed this. Brashears mentioned that doing this is an
option they could pursue.
Massey mentioned that the detail shown in the drawings shows a plate that sticks up 4"above the top
of the slab. Brashears confirmed that the plate is existing. Massey asked for confirmation on the
distance between the plate and the first guardrail. Brashears answered that there is an approximate
I I"space from the top of the 4"plate to the bottom of the first horizontal railing. Brashears
mentioned that it would be much easier for them,at this point in time,to solve the problem by making
changes to only the lower portion of the guardrail space. Kreul-Froseth asked about how this would
affect visibility. Brashears mentioned that anything is going to lessen the visibility,but thought that
the wire mesh might be the best option.
Fielder mentioned that he was not as concerned that someone would roll through the bottom space as
• he was that a fight might break out and someone could pass through any of the 12"guardrail spaces.
Brashears stated that his firm had been designing jails and prisons for approximately 12 years and that
they had not heard of anyone slipping through the guardrails.
Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on the code changes that reduced the spacing from a 6"sphere to -
a 4"sphere. Lee answered that the discussion came about based on anthropomorphic measurements
of children's heads. A number representing the mean value of a toddler's head,at age 3,was chosen
as the new code requirement of 4".
Brashears mentioned that no toddlers would be allowed in this space. Hauck stated that the intent of
the code is to prevent anyone from passing through the rails. At 12"spacing,someone could feasibly
pass through the rails whether by another person's effort or by accident. In light of the intent of the
code,and actual reading of the code,Hauck did not feel that the Board had much tee way to authorize
a variance of the code. Hauck also mentioned that he did not believe that there was an erroneous
interpretation of the code on the part of the building official. Massey agreed that there was not an
erroneous interpretation of the code on the part of the building official.
Fielder provided opportunity for closing statements. Brashears mentioned that given the constraints
placed on the Board,he understood the Board's stance. He stated that it is unfortunate that the Board
did not have more latitude to interpret,judge and make exceptions that more readily fit the real world.
The real world in a jail requires that the safety and security of the officers be of paramount concern.
This is accomplished through minimizing inmate to inmate assaults and inmate to officer assaults.
Increasing visibility is one way of assuring this safety. Although the current design may only be
BRB
Oct. 28, 1999
Page 6
allowed by tweaking the building code a little bit,this was done in an effort to increase the safety and _.
security of the facility,the officers,and to reduce the County's liability.
Lee mentioned that he understood that there ate security concerns at the detention facility. However,
there has been no documentation provided from any security agency or from any study that may have
been done that suggests that the wire mesh that was proposed was a visibility concern. He also
mentioned that staff has not been provided with any other options that might provide some equivalent
level of safety,and felt that there may be other ways to maintain visual surveillance in the area.
Lee mentioned that his first charge is to assure safety for the occupants of the building,whether they
be inmates or officers travelling on the mezzanine walkways. All occupants are entitled to the level
of safety that the building code prescribes,as written.
Fielder mentioned that he also was concerned with the safety of the inmates. Ile made a motion to
deny this appeal based on the fact that the Board did not find the building official's interpretation of
the code in this case to be erroneous,and because no alternate designs were submitted for
consideration. Massey seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Yeas: Little,Fielder,Hauck,Kreul-Froseth,Massey
Nays: None
The motion carried.
City Clerk
City of Fort Collins
NOTICE
The City Council of the City of Fort Collins,Colorado,on Tuesday,January 4,2000 at 6:00 p.m. or
as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall
at 300 LaPorte Avenue, will hold a public hearing on the attached appeal from the decision of the
Building Review Board made on October 28, 1999 regarding the Larimer County Detention Center,
filed by George Hass, County Attorney. You may have received previous notice on this item in
connection with hearings held by the Building Review Board.
If you wish to comment on this matter,you are strongly urged to attend the hearing on this appeal.
If you have any questions or require further information please feel free to contact the City Clerk's
Office (221-6515) or the Building Review Board(221-6760).
Section 2-56 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins provides that a member of City Council may
identify in writing any additional issues related to the appeal by December 28. Agenda materials
provided to the City Council, including City staff s response to the Notice of Appeal, and any
. additional issues identified by City Councilmembers, will be available to the public on Thursday,
December 30, after 10:00 a.m. in the City Clerk's Office.
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services,
programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with
disabilities. Please call the City Clerk's Office (221-6515) for assistance.
�L" A �A
Wanda M. Krajicek
City Clerk
Date Notice Mailed:
December 17, 1999
cc: City Attorney
Building and Zoning Department
Building Review Board Chair
Appellant/Applicant
•
300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O.Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6515 • FAX(970)221-6295
ATTACHMENT E
Council Liaison: Kurt Kastein Staff Liaison: Felix Lee(221-6760)
Chairperson: Charles Fielder Phone: 484-0117(W),207-0505(H)
A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday,October 28, 1999, in the Council
Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building, at 300 LaPorte Avenue,Ft.Collins.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Charles Fielder, Susan Kreul-Froseth,Al Hauck, Gene Little, and Bradley Massey
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Rudy Hansch, and Thomas Hartmann
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Felix Lee,Director of Building&Zoning
Paul Eckman,Deputy City Attorney
• Delynn Coldiron,staff support to Board
AGENDA:
1. ROLL CALL:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Fielder and roll taken.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A motion was made by Board Member Kreul-Froseth to approve the Minutes from the September 30,
1999 meeting. Board Member Massey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and
the Minutes from the September 30, 1999 meeting were approved as submitted.
3. BUILDING CODE HEARING—LARIMER COUNTY:
Chairperson Fielder explained the procedures that would be used for the hearing.
Bob Brashears of Reilly Johnson Architecture addressed the Board. He mentioned that there are a
series of additions that are currently be built to the Larimer County detention facility. Reilly Johnson
Architecture designed these additions. He presented information relative to this hearing,as follows:
The additions that are being constructed to the detention facility, consist of housing units, each of
which has a"day room"which is a large central space, and inmate cells adjacent to the day rooms.
. The day rooms are only occupied by inmates or officers. There is no public accessibility to any of
these spaces.
BRB
Oct. 28, 1999
Page 2
Near each of the day rooms,the cells located on two floors,with the upper floor being a mezzanine
level. It is the guardrails that exist on the mezzanine level that are at issue in this case. The
guardrails,as constructed,are 12"apart. The UBC states that in a commercial or industrial
application, guardrails can be constructed in such a way that a 12"sphere cannot pass through. This
is what has been done at the detention facility.
It was Brashears' understanding that the City of Fort Collins has amendments to the UBC which state
that only a 4"sphere,maximum,can fit through the railings. The Fort Collins amendments do allow
a 12"sphere in certain building occupancies;however, it was determined that the detention facility
did not fall within those building occupancies.
Brashears mentioned that because the spaces in question at the detention facility are not accessible by
the public,there is no danger of a small child or small person slipping through the railings. He noted
that his firm has done many county jails and stated that they have been allowed to use the 12"sphere
rule on all such projects.
The 12"spacing is necessary for the security of the facility and for the security of the officers running
the facility. Jails are frequently not fully addressed by the building code. There are certain
compromises that are made from an egress or building code safety point of view, in order to provide
adequate safety and security of the facility given the fact that it houses inmates. The 12" spacing is
used so that the officers have a good view up into the mezzanine level. According to the Appellant,
as an officer gets closer to the mezzanine level, and is looking up through it to view an inmate,close-
spaced railings begin to appear solid. The goal of the 12"spacing is to keep the guardrails as
transparent as possible to avoid any blind spots where an inmate could assault another inmate, or
could assault an officer and possibly not be seen.
Brashears offered to let Board Members view building section and floor plans that he had available.
He reiterated that the detention center is a facility where the public would not be at risk using the 12"
sphere rule,and that his firm has used this building practice successfully for many years now.
Felix Lee presented the City's position relative to this appeal. He asked Brashears for clarification on
whether the rails were installed horizontally. Brashears confirmed this and added that there are
vertical rails approximately 5' apart.
Lee stated that it is the City's position that the 12" spacing violates the 1991 and 1997 Uniform
Building Codes as published,as well as the local City ordinance. The Code requires that there be a
guardrail which restricts a 4"sphere from passing through,with the exception of non-public areas in
commercial and industrial occupancies. It is the City's position that the occupancy in this case is
institutional.
In institutional-type occupancies,whether it be a jail or medical facility,where involuntarily or
voluntarily,the occupants' liberties are restrained,the occupants must rely on the system and the
building itself to protect them from injury. In this case, given the fact that the rails are 12"apart,with
intermediate supports placed 5' apart,a relatively large person could pass through the railings. Staff
maintains that residents of these facilities are entitled to the same protection as anyone else in terms
of a building and the safety features that are built in. The building code,according to staff, is a
minimum life safety compilation of regulations,and everyone is entitled to the protection it affords.
Lee summarized the Board's decision authority in this case as described by the building code.
According to Sections 105.1 through 105.4 of the 1997 UBC as amended by the City, in order to rule
in favor of an appellant,the Board must determine either one of the following: (a) that the building
BRB
Oct. 28, 1999
Page 3
. official's interpretation is"erroneous",or(b)"...an alternate design, alternate materials,or the
alternate methods proposed by the appellant are equivalent to those prescribed by this code
considering structural strength, effectiveness,fire resistance, durability, safety and any other pertinent
factors." Should the Board decide the case under item(b), according to the building code, "the Board
shall require sufficient evidence be submitted to substantiate any claims made regarding the proposed
alternate design,alternate materials and/or alternate methods of construction."
Brashears asked Lee for clarification on the exception in the code for commercial and industrial
occupancies which are not accessible to the public,and how the jail differs from this. Lee answered
that the jail is considered an institutional occupancy.
Lee directed the Board to the exhibits that were provided in packets. Lee stated that when the project
plans were reviewed by Tyree Associates,they highlighted the provision that the building code
generally requires a maximum of 4"spacing for guardrails. He also stated that the plans that were
submitted to the City show 4"welded wire mesh as an intermediate barrier on the guardrails.
Brashears answered that they went through a value engineering process that changed the plans. He
mentioned that he spent considerable time discussing the new spacing requirements with Building&
Zoning staff and obtained approval for this.
Lee answered that this change would have required his approval,which was not given. Brashears
answered that he was not informed that he needed Lee's approval.
• Hauck asked Brashears if he had documentation that this had been approved by City staff. Brashears
stated that the approval was verbal and that he sent a letter to Building&Zoning summarizing the
conversations that had taken place. Hauck asked Brashears if he had a copy of that letter. Brashears
mentioned that he could try to locate it if needed.
Hauck asked for clarification on the timing of the changes. Brashears answered that the changes were
incorporated after the bids were received in an effort to reduce costs and to respond to some of the
concerns that the Sheriff's Department had. Hauck asked why the welded wire mesh requirement
was changed. Brashears mentioned that it was changed both to save money and because the owner
wanted greater visibility between the railings.
Hauck asked for clarification on the rails that are currently existing. Brashears confirmed that the
existing guardrails are 12"horizontal rails that have vertical supports every 5'. He added that the rails
are constructed of 1 ''/2"steel tubes that are 12"on center and that the clear spacing between the rails
is approximately 11".
Kreul-Froseth asked if there were similar guardrails in place in the original facility. Brashears did not
have information on this. He mentioned that the majority of the existing facility did not have two-
level day rooms or mezzanine levels. A minimum security addition was added approximately 7-8
years ago; however,Brashears was unsure if there was similar guardrail construction in that addition.
Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on the other detention facilities that have been done by
Brashears' firm as to whether they included a similar configuration of baluster/rail. Brashears
confirmed this. He mentioned that he had a photograph available of the detention facilities that were
done in Montrose County which opened about a year ago which contained this typical arrangement of
. guardrail. Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on the purpose of this design. Brashears answered
that the 12"design allows for greater visibility for the officers as they look through the guardrails.
BRB
Oct. 28, 1999
Page 4
Brashears also noted that Tyree Associates was used for plan review on the Montrose County facility
and that they accepted the 12"spacing in Montrose.
Kreul-Froseth asked if any alternative designs had been considered. Brashears mentioned that more
of the 1 ''/a"tubes could be added,but that this concerns the Sheriff's office because of the reduced
visibility that would be caused. He mentioned that another alternative would be to tack-weld wire
mesh to the existing railings which would obscure the visibility of the officers less than the first
alternative,but would be time consuming and would affect the completion date of the jail.
Massey questioned how 2"bars at 12"on center would obscure the officers' view less than 4 x 4
mesh. Brashears mentioned that 4 x 4 mesh,as you get closer to it, begins to read as a solid plane.
Massey asked for more specifics on this. Brashears provided clarification.
Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on whether the stairs had open or closed.risers. Brashears
answered that the risers are closed with a perforated steel plate.
Hauck mentioned that the Board has fairly constrained decision criteria. The first criteria would be
the possibility that the building official's interpretation was erroneous. He asked Brashears if it was
his opinion that the building official's interpretation was erroneous in this case. Brashears answered
that in the past they have had detention facilities classified under the exceptions in the building code
for commercial and industrial occupancies that would allow 12"spacing. Hauck mentioned that staff
is making the claim that the detention facility is a Group I,Division 3 occupancy and asked if
Brashears agreed. Brashears confirmed that he agreed with this.
Hauck read the description that exists in the code for commercial and industrial occupancies and
asked Brashears if the detention center fit into that category. Brashears mentioned that he was not
saying that the detention facility was either a commercial or industrial occupancy,only that in the
past,the detention facilities that have been completed by his firm have been accepted by the local
code authorities as fitting into the exception for commercial/industrial occupancies.
Hauck asked if the language"commercial and industrial-type occupancies"was included in the City
amendments to the UBC. Lee confirmed this and pointed out that this language, in an effort to be
consistent with regional jurisdictions,was adopted as it was written in the 1997 UBC. Lee added that
this language is virtually unchanged from the 1991 UBC.
Hauck asked Brashears if it was his opinion that the detention facility was a commercial or industrial
use. Brashears stated that the detention facility was clearly not a commercial or industrial use, but he
was arguing the fact that the jail was not accessible to the public and that latitude had been given to
his firm on other detention facility projects which allowed them to include these facilities under the
exception granted to commercial and industrial occupancies.
Hauck asked Brashears if the issue of his appeal was the fact that the City building official had made
an erroneous decision,as opposed to the fact that alternate plans were being submitted for
consideration. Brashears confirmed this.
Little asked Brashears for clarification on why the guardrail system specifications did not reflect the
12"spacing exception at the time the construction plans were originally submitted. Brashears
answered that the spacing had not been thoroughly discussed with the owner prior to that time. This
issue was brought up during the bid process.
BRB
Oct. 28, 1999
Page 5
• Little asked for clarification on why,when similar 12"spacing guardrail systems had been used for
other detention facilities,the plans for this detention facility did not reflect this. Brashears mentioned
that drawings from a separate project with different parameters were used for this project and that this
detail was overlooked.
Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on whether the appellant is required to provide an alternate
proposal, or whether the Board can consider the current proposal, unchanged, as an alternate
proposal. Lee answered that it is really up to the Board to consider whether a proposal is equivalent
to what is prescribed by the code. Kreul-Froseth mentioned that she saw things in the existing design
that satisfies the code such as structural strength,effectiveness and pertinent factors,i.e.visibility,
which relates to safety issues in a jail setting. Her concern,however,was that the 12" space at the
bottom of the guardrail may not keep someone from falling through if they slipped, fell,were pushed,
etc. She asked Brashears if this issue had been addressed. Brashears asked if she was recommending
that the 4"sphere requirement be done on the lower portion of the guardrail as opposed to the entire
height of the guardrail. Kreul-Froseth confirmed this. Brashears mentioned that doing this is an
option they could pursue.
Massey mentioned that the detail shown in the drawings shows a plate that sticks up 4"above the top
of the slab. Brashears confirmed that the plate is existing. Massey asked for confirmation on the
distance between the plate and the first guardrail. Brashears answered that there is an approximate
11"space from the top of the 4"plate to the bottom of the first horizontal railing. Brashears
mentioned that it would be much easier for them,at this point in time,to solve the problem by making
changes to only the lower portion of the guardrail space. Kreul-Froseth asked about how this would
• affect visibility. Brashears mentioned that anything is going to lessen the visibility, but thought that
the wire mesh might be the best option.
Fielder mentioned that he was not as concerned that someone would roll through the bottom space as
he was that a fight might break out and someone could pass through any of the 12"guardrail spaces.
Brashears stated that his firm had been designing jails and prisons for approximately 12 years and that
they had not heard of anyone slipping through the guardrails.
Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on the code changes that reduced the spacing from a 6"sphere to
a 4"sphere. Lee answered that the discussion came about based on anthropomorphic measurements
of children's heads. He believed that a number representing the mean dimension of a toddler's head,
at age 3,was chosen as the new code requirement of 4".
Brashears mentioned that no toddlers would be allowed in this space. Hauck stated that the intent of
the code is to prevent anyone from passing through the rails. At 12"spacing, someone could feasibly
pass through the rails whether by another person's effort or by accident. In light of the intent of the
code, and actual reading of the code,Hauck did not feel that the Board had much lee way to authorize
a variance of the code. Hauck also mentioned that he did not believe that there was an erroneous
interpretation of the code on the part of the building official. Massey agreed that there was not an
erroneous interpretation of the code on the part of the building official.
Fielder provided opportunity for closing statements. Brashears mentioned that given the constraints
placed on the Board,he understood the Board's stance. He stated that it is unfortunate that the Board
did not have more latitude to interpret,judge and make exceptions that more readily fit the real world.
The Appellant stated that the real world in a jail requires that the safety and security of the officers be
. of paramount concern. This is accomplished through minimizing inmate to inmate assaults and
inmate to officer assaults. He believed that increasing visibility was one way of assuring this safety.
Although the current design may only be allowed by varying the building code,this was done in an
BRB
Oct. 28, 1999
i
Page 6
effort to increase the safety and security of the facility,the officers,and to reduce the County's
liability.
Lee mentioned that he understood that there are security concerns at the detention facility. However,
there has been no documentation provided from any security agency or from any study that may have
been done that suggests that the wire mesh that was proposed was a visibility concern. He also
mentioned that staff has not been provided with any other options that might provide some equivalent
level of safety, and felt that there may be other ways to maintain visual surveillance in the area.
Lee mentioned that his first charge is to assure safety for the occupants of the building,whether they
be inmates or officers travelling on the mezzanine walkways. All occupants are entitled to the level
of safety that the building code prescribes,as written.
Fielder mentioned that he also was concerned with the safety of the inmates. He made a motion to
deny this appeal based on the fact that the Board did not find the building official's interpretation of
the code in this case to be erroneous,and because no alternate designs were submitted for
consideration. Massey seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Yeas: Little,Fielder,Hauck,Kreul-Froseth,Massey
Nays: None
The motion carried.
4. LICENSE APPEAL—RANDY RICHARDSON,D/B/A RICHARDSON CONSTRUCTION
Appellant, Randy Richardson,addressed the Board. He was asking for approval from the Board to
retain his C-1 contractor's license.
Richardson mentioned that his Class C-1 license was issued to him in August, 1994. He has held his
license in high regard since that time,without receiving any letters of reprimand or other disciplinary
action. When he attempted to renew his license, City staff notified him that his license had been
issued in error and that there was not adequate supporting information in the file to allow him to keep
the C-1 license. City staff informed him that his Class D license would be reissued instead of the
Class C-1 license.
Richardson provided clarification on some of the construction projects he had completed. He
mentioned that the project done for Mort's Bagel Shop was a very complex project. He was required
to convert the building from an auto repair center to the retail center that currently exists. Richardson
mentioned that the project did not require construction outside of the confines of the building;
however,everything inside of the building came out, including much of the concrete. Richardson
stated that the project went way beyond the scope of a residential license.
The Moore Animal Hospital project also did not require construction outside of the confines of the
strip mall; however, an adjacent unit was added to the hospital. The project required wall removals,
some structural construction, etc. Richardson mentioned that he did not have a license of sufficient
scope to enable him to obtain the permit for this project,so another general contractor obtained the
permit, and Richardson worked solely on his own to finish the project.
Richardson mentioned that he was also responsible for doing a major remodel to Countryside Vet
Clinic which included a building addition,as well as renovation to the existing structure.
. ATTACHMENT F
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD
OCTOBER 28, 1999 MEETING
PACKET INFORMATION REGARDING
LARIMER COUNTY APPEAL
1. Request for Hearing by the Building Review Board
2. Building Code Appeal Hearing Summary
3. Exhibit "A" —Preliminary Review from Tyree Associates
4. Exhibit `B" — Guardrail detail from the final construction plans
• 5. Exhibit "C" — Copy of Section 1712(a) of the 1991 UBC
6. Exhibit "D" — Copy of UBC definition for Group I occupancies
•
fort collies building & zoning dept.
34
C-sw yr low t an1n% 281 N.Gclte Ave RO. 510' CoOirs CC a0s22.OMW yoke..$70 221 760 FAX:970 22�e'T
REQUEST FOR HEARING BY THE BUILDING RE1(!EW BOARD
(Code Hearing)
Affected Property. Larimer County Detention Facility
Owner. Larimer County
Address: 2405 Midpoint Drive; Fort Collins, Co. 80525
Appellant Name: Reilly Johnson Architecture Robert Brashears
Address: 1775 Sherman Street, Suite 1320; Denver, Co. 80203
Phone ic: 303-832-9111 Mobile# 3037213-1308
Description of request and mitigating factors (attach additional information and/or materials): Th 1 s request
is to allow spacing between guardrail intermediate rails within the Detention Facility,, such
that a sphere 12" in diameter cannot pass through. it is understood that the City of Fort
Aftdins amendment to the UBC allows for a 12" sphere in certain types of buildings,
i .e. warehouses) but does not include detention facilities in those building types.
Per 1991 UBC Section 1712 (a) (see attached)
Applicable Code Sections: 1991 UBC - Section 1712(a)
IRRR
Appellant Signature Date
Appellant may appear in person, in writing, or by agent and should be prepared to present all relevant details,
specifications and plans, or other evidence in support of this hearing request at the hearing time indicated
below.
Regular meetings are scheduled for the Vast Thursda�yy,,of�ee ch month at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at
300 LaPorte Avenue Applications must be I ed:i�E�e prior to the desired hearing date to ensure
consideration. A docket fee of$50.00 must accompany this hearing request.
OFFICE USE ONLY
.mik4earing Date /of �c Hearing Time # C�gfi /—`f
Reviewed by
Distribution: Original—Appellant, Copy — File
- - - -- - --- --- ----
- --
guardrails shall have spacing such that a 4" dia. sphere may.not pass through,
with the exception of commercial and industrial type occupancies which are not
accessible to the public, which allow a 12" sphere- The detention facility is
not accessible to the public, the guardrails are located in areas where only staff
and inmates are allowed; therefore the public is not at risk if the 12" spacing '
is used.
An additional issue is the security of the facility, both for staff and Inmates.
When the intermediate rails are spaced at 12", visibility from the main floor to
the mezzanine level is good and allows the officer to easily observe and monitor
the inmate. When the spacing is at 411, when viewed from an angle, the guardrail
appears almost solid, greatly reducing the visibility of the inmate and increasing
the possibility of attacks and assaults.
We request that the 12" exception be allowed in this facility, as it does not
affect public safety, and provides a greater degree of safety within the facility.
TOTAL P.03
• CITY OF FORT COLLINS
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD
October 28, 1999
Building Code Appeal Hearing
CASE No. Code 1- 99
APPELLANT(S):
Robert Brashears of Reilly Johnson Architecture for Larimer County
AFFECTED PROPERTY:
Larimer County Detention Facility
2405 Midpoint Dr..
PROJECT STATUS:
The nearly completed Detention Facility was begun in mid-1998. Administrative areas are
approved for occupancy and the remainder of project is awaiting final inspections and
Certificate of Occupancy. The guardrails for which this appeal is being heard are installed
on the second level walkways of the "inmate housing" areas.
• ACTION REQUESTED:
The appellant is seeking a variance from Section 1712(a) of the 1991 UBC (Exhibit C),
which generally prohibits openings in guardrails that permit a sphere 4 in. or larger to pass
th6ugh. More specifically, the appellant is requesting approval of a design with horizontal
parallel rails that complies with the 12-in. sphere exception allowed in non-public areas of
"commercial and industrial-type occupancies".
BACKGROUND:
In the latter part of 1997, Larimer County retained Tyree Associates, an approved private
service, to perform the required plan review on the Larimer County Detention Facility
expansion and remodel project under the 1991 UBC. In their preliminary review dated
October 7, 1997(Exhibit A), the consultant correctly noted the maximum 4-in. sphere
opening criterion in a guardrail, except in non-public areas of commercial and industrial
occupancies. Fort Collins amendments to the 1991 UBC, through which the City has
regulatory jurisdiction over this project, are more specific; prescribing that thel2-in.
exception is limited to "non-public areas for production, manufacturing, storage, or similar
areas." Guardrail specifications in the 1997 UBC currently adopted by Fort Collins are
unchanged from the 1991 UBC. Final construction plans accompanying the building permit
in June 1998 detail complying guardrails utilizing 4-in by 4-in. welded wire mesh as the
• intermediate barrier (Exhibit B).
The rationale offered by the appellant for installing the noncomplying guardrails in the upper
level walkways of the inmate areas is that these spaces are "not accessible to the public"and
that there are unique "visibility" needs because of security concerns. However, to qualify
for the exception the guardrail must be in either a commercial or an industrial occupancy.
A jail facility is neither. The UBC classifies such facilities as "institutional jail"
occupancies, specifically, a "Group I, Division 3"(Exhibit D). The UBC has included
provisions for these buildings since its inception in the early 1920s, yet, no special guardrail
exception has ever made its way into the code through many revisions over the years. The
reason seems clear: in institutional occupancies where personal liberties of occupants are
impaired or restricted,rendering them incapable of self-preservation, these people must rely
on others and building systems for their personal safety. Whether by accident or by intent,
inmates, particularly those in restraint devices, and even jail staff might not be capable of
preventing themselves from passing through the larger openings in the Larimer County
facility in the event of a fall or scuffle. Staff believes the exposure to potential serious injury
there is very real.
The building code is first and foremost a public compendium of minimum life-safety and
welfare regulations for building design and construction. Under its purview, inmates and
staff alike are entitled to the same basic personal built-in safety features afforded occupants
of any other building.
DECISION ISSUES
As stipulated in Sections 105.1 through 105.4 of the 1997 UBC as amended by the City, in
order to rule in favor of the appellant,the Board must determine either one of the following:
(a) The building official's interpretation is "erroneous", or
(b) " . . . an alternate design, alternate materials, or the alternate methods proposed by the
appellant are equivalent to those prescribed by this code considering structural strength,
effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, safety and any other pertinent factors."
Additionally, "the Board shall require sufficient evidence be submitted to substantiate any
claims made regarding the proposed alternate design, alternate materials and/or alternate
methods of construction."
On a final advisory note: in making its finding, the Board does not have the discretionary
authority to summarily waive requirements of the building code. Any modifications or
variances to the building code approved by the Board must be within the context of the
preceding item "(b)" above.
ASSOCIATES
LU MIET
2527 Wear Colorado Avenue,Suite 202.Colorado SprhW.Colorado 90904$022 ((7719)6953055 ])MweriJ"e 68840$6
October 7, 1997/97-054
PROJECT: Larimer County Detention Facility
Expansion and Remodel
Larimer County, CO
ARCHITECT: Reilly Johnson Architecture
1775 Sherman Street #1320
Denver, CO 80203
This report does not purport to review, interpret, apply, or
certify compliance with the accessibility requirements set forth
in 36 C.F.R. Part 1191, or other pertinent provisions or
regulations relative to the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) . It is- our position that the application, interpretation
and enforcement of the ADA is vested with the Federal Department
of Justice. Applicants are therefore strongly encouraged to seek
professional review to insure compliance with the ADA. Failure
to comply with the ADA may subject the applicant to an
enforcement action or civil suit.
REVIEW CRITERIA
This is a preliminary architectural review of the Design
Development Drawings of the expansion and remodel of The Larimer
County Detention Center to "highlight" certain areas of the
design which do not appear to be in accordance with the 1991
Uniform Building Code or areas which need to be better defined.
This review is intended to be preliminary in nature and the
comments are only to be considered "cursory" at this time. A
complete architectural review will be completed when final
drawings for all disciplines are submitted for review.
Type of Construction: Type I-Fire Resistive (New)
Type II-Fire Resistive (Existing)
occupancy Classification: Group I, Division 3
Stories: 4
Floor Area: See Area Review
1991 Uniform Building Code
•
9Ti0T'd S£16 Z£8 202 'HDdd rDSHHOf 1lMad 8T:TT 666T-£Z-onu
• Ex6,6,•f
B-15 Refer to sheets A4 .1 and A4 .3 . Overflow drains having
the same size as roof drains and on independent drain
lines are required. In lieu of this, overflow scuppers
three times the size of roof drains should be installed
in parapet walls . Overflow system should have inlets
located 2 inches above the low points of the roof.
Section 3207(c) of the UBC.
B-16 Refer to sheets A6.1, A6.2 and A6.3 . Guardrails for
stairs, balconies and landings should conform with
Section 1712 of the UBC. Note that maximum clearance
between intermediate rails is 4 inches.
B-17 Refer to sheet A6 .1. Risers on stairways should not
exceed 7 inches and runs should not be less than 11
inches. Section 3306 (c) of the UBC. Typical.
B-18 Refer to sheet A6.1. Handrails should be placed not
less than 34 inches nor more than 38 inches above the
tread. Section 3306 (i) . Two handrails are required
where stairways exceed 44 inches in width.
B-19 Refer to sheets A6 .1 and A6 .6 . Please provide a detail
to indicate the handrail is continuous and extends 12"
beyond the last riser. Section 3306 of the UBC.
B-20 Refer to sheets A6.1, A6 .2, A6.3, and A6.4. The roof
assembly should be of two-hour, fire-resistive
construction in accordance with Table 17-A.
B-21 Refer to sheets A6.1, A6.2 and A6.3 . All floor/ceiling
assemblies should be rated as two-hour, fire resistive
assemblies in accordance with Table 17-A. Details
should be provided to verify conformance. Furthermore,
it should be noted that all penetrations into the rated
floor/ceiling assembly should be fire dampered.
B-22 Refer to sheet A6 .4 . Elevator doors should be
specified as 90 minute assemblies and be so
indicated to conform to Section 1706 of the UBC.
B-23 Refer to sheet A6 .5. In accordance with Table 32-A, the
roof covering should have a Class A rating.
B-24 Refer to sheet A6 .5. The membrane roof system should
91/ST'd S£T6 Z£8 202 'HDdU NDSNHOf AIII3d OZ:TT 666T-£Z-0rrd
?" SQUARE STL. TUBE
;7-GUARDRAIL W/ 4"x4" ISELDED
WIRE MESH. 3 GA.WIRE WITH
WELDED SELYAGE.WELD WIRE
TO TOP TUBE AND TO 3/8"
PLATE BELOW.
f
SEALANT
i
i
i
CONTINUOUS CHANNEL
PRECAST IN SLABS. SEE
m STRUCTURAL. PAINT AND
PATCH IMPRFECTIONS WHERE
CHANNEL IS EXPOSED
BETWEEN LIGHT FIXTURES.
PRECAST SLAB i TOPPING.
RE: STRUCTURAL.
FIELD INSTALLED CONDUIT IN
TOPPING.
WELD 2" TUBE TO rF
3/8" PLATE
v
M
WELD CAP a BA. TUBE
3/8" 5%. PLATE
FIN. WELD TO STL.
FASCIA PLATE _
T IN PLACE ELECTRICAL
3/8" 5TL PLATE. AND CONDUIT. SEE I/AV
WELD TO 5TL. NOTES.
CHANNEL.
Z;f
TEMPER RESISTANT
SEALANT ALL
AROUND FIXTURE. LIGHT FIXTURE.
COORDINATE WITH SEE ELEC.
HINGE LOCATION.
SEE I/AS.I FOR ADDITIONAL GUARDRAIL INFORMATIOK
POLYURETHANE PAINT ALL STEEL.
11 GUARDRAIL DETAIL
A8.7 SCALE: 1 2 = 1 -0
COORDINATE OVA/TH STRUCTURAL 1DRAWINGS.
- su�s+� r1Y41 Tyr LU��e�ir��J f�lil"H`�'Y�
- 1
13 NON CONTACT
i
}• 20 ry VISIT. `I 20
13 17 IH42 17 18
17 17 13 -----,
-- -j�p — CCCJJJ CVV7 1
STAIR 1 bn .T Q � � ... ._
DN STAIR 2
DN
20'-4
— _— —� un
VI T. VIS1T. VISIT. VISIT.
° 5 H429
9 a4L `i .. ' A83 ooc 29
Id NITOR/ w21 M421'- ) 1�:i IA TOR
STORAGE - 'C'�' H419 STORAG
H420 -' ® i �' b ® H418
12
CELL p ) I I CELL
H401 } ) s 1 ) H410
U q ) ) ) U
CELL I I I ( CELL
H402 I 1 1 H411
�
CELL - I ) CELL
H403 1 ) �. �� = ) y: H412
27
CELL UPPER LEVEL UPPER LEVEL CELL
H404 FEMALE HOUSING: FEMALE HOUSING 4131
16 .au'
AYRO
_ H400
CELL ! CARPET SZ, CELL
H405 :) I H414
I I.
n
I DAYROOM,
° H409
CELL , CELL
H406 (�H41(5'�
� 26 7 6 9 NCrg7r�i t �� 5g �T-I—
V 16
111 CELL
7P�D�-�n
H407
CELL CELL
H408
17
TAIR 3 i STAIR
4ST3 25 f 2522
45T4
UP
I3 �.
E.IF.S. n°,n E.IF.S.
OPEN TO OPEN TO
EXERCISE BELOW EXERCI5E BELOW
O p =_ � v = � U � n � L N u V v w 'O c� � O C U �-.• 3 c L � r •� �
i _ O _ C
� •v, n v � v k o � L L � u —^,, c > = 'v E R G � � _ � � m y � � � n 4 = t 3 c Z
C L"OW
r•
LL
� R
a
e. W i y 0 u
u z o x C v U u
LL � cL A GEC „! � = __ v L 'J '•. .' _ Y � e U O E _ _ _ _ - '
'—
_ _
r G 3 c r-,u•' _ x —' > g ? c •-` _ _ v.E L E _m N R _ v'L =_ m c = _ - 'c � _ ._
2 _ c V G � - >. O u :u v. u - - = Y V. _ X _ = CD y �_ ? _ :• o _ ` r ? ,-' 2 ?
L ciw c c � — u � u � u 3 �• '++c x y _ 3 -" _ ,v - _
307.11.5.1 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
308.2.1
occupancy separation when the area is 300 square feet(27.9 m2) 2.Ventilation at not less than six air changes per hour shall be
or more and not less than one-hour fire-resistive occupancy sepa- provided.The space shall not be used to convey air from any other
ration when the area is less than 300 square feet(27.9 m ).The area.
provisions of Section 302.1 shall apply. 3.When the piping or tubing is used to transport HPM liquids,a
Except for surfacing,floors of storage and HPM rooms shall be receptor shall be installed below such piping or tubing.The recep-
of noncombustible liquid-tight construction.Raised grating over for shall be designed to collect any discharge or leakage and drain
floors shall be of noncombustible materials. See Section 307.2.3 it to an approved location. The one-hour enclosure shall not be
for sill requirements for liquid storage rooms. used as part of the receptor.
4. All HPM supply piping and tubing and HPM nonmetallic
307.115.2 Location within building. When HPM rooms are waste tines shall be separated from the corridor and from any
provided, they shall have at least one exterior wall and such wall occupancy other than Group H, Division 6 by construction as r
shall not be less than 30 feet(9144 mm)from property lines,in- required for walls or partitions that have a fire-protection rating of
cluding property lines adjacent to public ways.Explosion control not less than one hour.When gypsum wallboard is used,joints on
shall be provided when required by Section 307.10. the piping side of the enclosure need not be taped,provided the
' 307.1153 Means of egress. When two means of egress are re- joints occur over framing members. Access openings into the
quired from HPM rooms,one shall be directly to the outside of the enclosure shall be protected by approved fire assemblies.
building. See Section 307.11.2.1,Exception 1. 5. Readily accessible manual or automatic remotely activated
fail-safe emergency shutoff valves shall be installed on piping
307.115.4 Ventilation. Mechanical exhaust ventilation shall and tubing other than waste lines at the following locations:
be provided in liquid storage rooms,HPM rooms and gas rooms at 5.1 At branch connections into the fabrication area.
the rate of not less than 1 cubic foot per minute per square foot
(0.044 Us/m2)of floor area or six air changes per hour,whichever 5.2 At entries into corridors.
is greater,for all categories of material. Excess flow valves shall be installed as required by the Fire
Exhaust ventilation for gas rooms shall be designed to operate Code.
at a negative pressure in relation to the surrounding areas and di- 307.11.63 Identification. Piping,tubing and HPM waste lines
rect the exhaust ventilation to an exhaust system. shall be identified in accordance with nationally recognized
307.115.5 Fire and emergency alarm. An approved manual standards to indicate the material being transported.
fire alarm system shall be provided throughout buildings contain- 307.12 Heliports. Heliports may be erected on buildings or
ing Group H,Division 6 Occupancies. other locations if they are constructed in accordance with this
F An approved emergency alarm system shall be provided for chapter and with Section 311.10.
pHPM rooms, liquid storage rooms and gas rooms. Emergency
F alarm-initiating devices shall be installed outside of each interior SECTION 308—REOUIREMENTS FOR GROUP I
F door of such rooms.Activation of an emergency alarm-initiating OCCUPANCIES _
Fdevice shall sound a local alarm and transmit a signal to the emer- 308.1 Group I Occupancies Defined. Group I Occupancies
F gency control station. shall be:
F
F For installation requirements,see the Fire Code. Division 1.1.Nurseries for the full-time care of children under
' 307'115.6 Electrical. Electrical wiring and equipment in HPM the age of six(each accommodating more than five children).
rooms,gas rooms and liquid storage rooms shall comply with the Hospitals, sanitariums, nursing homes with nonambulatory
Electrical Code. patients and similar buildings (each accommodating more than
five patients).
307.11.6 Piping and tubing. Division 1.2. Health-care centers for ambulatory patients re-
307.11.6.1 General. Hazardous production materials piping ceiving outpatient medical care that may render the patient inca-
and tubing shall comply with this section and shall be installed in pable of unassisted self-preservation (each tenant space .
accordance with nationally recognized standards.Piping and tub- accommodating more than five such patients),
ing systems shall be metallic unless the material being trans- Division 2.Nursing homes for ambulatory patients,homes for
ported is incompatible with such system. Systems supplying children six years of age or over(each accommodating more than
gaseous HPM having a health hazard ranking of 3 or 4 shall be five patients or children).
welded throughout,except for connections,valves and fittings,to Division 3.Mental hospitals,mental sanitariums,jails,prisons,
the systems which are within a ventilated enclosure. Hazardous reformatories and buildings where personal liberties of inmates
production materials supply piping or tubing in service corridors are similarly restrained.
shall be exposed to view. For occupancy separations, see Table 3-B.
' 307.11.6.2 Installations in corridors and above other occu- EXCEPTION: Group 1 Occupancies shall not include buildings
panties. Hazardous production materials shall not be located used only for private residential purposes for a family group.
within corridors or above areas not classified as Group H,Divi- 308.2 Construction, Height and Allowable Area.
sion 6 Occupancies except as permitted by this section.
Hazardous production material piping and tubing may be 308.2.1 General. Buildings or parts of buildings classed in
installed within the space defined by the walls of corridors and the limGroup I because of the use or character of the occupancy shall be
floor or roof above or in concealed spaces above other occupan- not ex [o the types of construction set forth in Table Sec and shall
ties under the following conditions: not exceed, in area or height,the limits specified in Sections 504,
505 and 506.
1. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed within the space EXCEPTIONS: 1. Hospitals and nursing homes classified as
unless the space is less than 6 inches(152 mm)in least dimension. Group 1,Division 1.1 Occupancies,and health-care centers for ambu-
1-24
• ATTACHMENT G
BUILDING REVIEW BOARD
OCTOBER 28, 1999
Council Chambers — 1:00 p.m. —3:00 p.m.
TRANSCRIPT OF ITEM#3 —BUILDING CODE HEARING (LARIMER COUNTY)
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Charles Fielder
Susan Kreul-Froseth
Al Hauck
Gene Little
Bradley Massey
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Rudy Hansch
Thomas Hartmann
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Felix Lee,Director of Building&Zoning
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Delynn Coldiron,staff support to Board
APPELLANT:
Bob Brashears,Riley-Johnson Architecture
•
BRB Transcript-- Oct. 28, 1999 --Page 2
I CHARLES FIELDER: Okay,we have,uh,code hearing information on Larimer County.
2 FELIX LEE: Yes. Uh, did you want to mention the, uh, right of appeal for any,uh,
3 cases heard today?
4 CHARLES FIELDER: Sure. All right,hearing procedures for appeals. Um,the
5 appellants and director may each make a five minute opening statement,with the appellant going
6 first. The appellant may testify,present testimony of other witnesses,and present any other
7 relevant evidence. The director may then ask questions of the appellant and the appellant's
8 witnesses. Members of the board may then ask questions,and then after the appellant's
9 presentation has been completed,director may testify,present testimony of other witnesses,
10 present any other relevant evidence and then, uh,the appellant may ask questions. Then the
I I members of the board are, is able to ask questions. Um,the appellant may then present additional
12 evidence,and then the appellant and director shall each make a ten minute closing statement with
13 the appellant going first. The board will then make a determination and,urn,as to whether the
14 appeal should be granted or denied or if other relief is appropriate.
15 FELIX LEE: Additionally, um, it's important to note that any decision here today is
16 appealable to the next body which is City Council. Uh,although they,they are not empowered to
17 hear new evidence,um,they are empowered to decide whether the board acted appropriately or
18 made the appropriate decision. The,uh, appellant wishing to do that has to file a written state-
19 ment to the City Clerk within fourteen days after the,uh, building review board's decision today.
20 CHARLES FIELDER: Okay,thank you Felix.
21 FELIX LEE: So,first, uh,order of business then would be,uh,Larimer County,the uh,
22 appealing the code provision, uh,with respect to the new jail,uh, addition and facility
23 BOB BRASHEARS: Right.
24 FELIX LEE: and,please introduce yourself,Bob.
25 BOB BRASHEARS: Hi. I am Bob Brashears. I'm,uh, a principal architect with the
26 Riley-Johnson Architecture. We're the firm that designed the addition to Larimer County
BRB Transcript-- Oct. 28, 1999 -- Page 3
• 1 Detention Facility. Um. Does, uh,pardon my naivete,but, does everyone have a,the copy that
2 was filled out that described this issue? So, I, okay, great. What the,the concern, or the, I guess,
3 the problem we have at the jail is that,as you probably know,there's a eleven and a half million
4 dollar addition, or a series of additions being built to the jail. And,these,these additions, there's
5 one,two,three,there's four different, actually five different housing units. Each of these housing
6 units has a day room,which is a large central space,and then there is inmate cells that are
7 adjacent to those day rooms. Now the day rooms are only occupied by inmates or by officers.
8 There's no public accessibility, in any of these spaces. In each of the day rooms,the cells
9 are two stories high and there's a mezzanine level so that you can stand on that mezzanine level
10 and look down into the two story day room. Um, it's the guardrails on that mezzanine floor
11 which are at issue here, and,the guardrails,as constructed, are twelve inches apart, and,the UBC
12 states that in a commercial or industrial application you can have guardrails with a spacing that
13 allow no greater than a twelve inch sphere, and that's what we have there. Now,we understand
14 that the City of Fort Collins has their amendment to the UBC which states that only a four inch
15 sphere,maximum,can fit through those railings. And,I, correct me if I am wrong, Felix,I think
16 there's certain,there's certain functions,certain building usages that will allow the twelve inch
17 sphere, but the jail doesn't fall in those range of, of usages. And,I,I f-forget exactly what those
18 were. It was like,I think,warehouses allow it and some other functions like that, but, um,I
19 think,I think the general idea is that these,these spaces are not accessible to the public,there's
20 no danger of a small child or somebody small slipping through the railings. Um, it's worth noting
21 that my firm has done a lot of county jails,probably more county jails in Colorado than any other
22 architectural firm,and we've, um,throughout every project we've done,we've been able to use
23 this twelve inch sphere rule. And,part of it has to do with the security of the facility and the
24 security of the officers running the facility. And,you know,jails are kind of a funny,funny
25 animal in terms of construction in that they frequently aren't fully addressed by the building code,
26 and there's certain, you know,that there's there's,I guess,certain compromises that are made
BRB Transcript--Oct. 28, 1999 --Page 4
1 from an egress or a building code safety point of view,compromises which are made to provide
2 safety and security of the facility given the fact that there are some inmates in there. And,one
3 thing that we've frequently done is get this twelve inch spacing so that the officer has a good
4 view up into that mezzanine level. And,as you get,I've got some drawings that show floor plans
5 and sections through the building if you would like to see that, if that would help make your
6 decision,but, as,as an officer gets closer to that mezzanine level,you can picture the railings, as
7 he gets closer to it and is looking up through it to try to see the inmate, close-spaced railings start
8 to appear solid as you get, as you get more of an acute angle looking up at them. And,we want to
9 keep that guardrail as transparent as possible. We want to avoid any blind spots where an inmate
10 could assault another inmate or could assault an officer and possibly not be seen. So,we like to
I 1 keep these railings just as transparent as possible,hence,the,the use of the twelve inch sphere
12 rule. Um,I,you know, in, in a nutshell, that's,that's what we're dealing with here. So,I,I've
13 got some floor plans and, and sections if you, if, if you would like to see that, but, but it is, uh, it
14 is the kind of facility where the,the public is not at risk using the twelve inch sphere and we've
15 used it successfully for,for many years now and have never had a problem with it.
16 CHARLES FIELDER: `kay. Felix, do you have any questions of the appellant?
17 FELIX LEE: No. I think I'►l, uh,just respond with my opening remarks,uh, and
18 position on the subject. As,uh,Mr. Brashears indicated,um,exactly what's installed,um,
19 I believe,uh,and I do have a question to clarify for the board and myself, but I believe the,
20 uh,they're,they're horizontal,uh,rails.
21 BOB BRASHEARS: That's,that's correct. Horizont
22 FELIX LEE: Twelve inch,twelve inch spacing with,uh,
23 BOB BRASHEARS: and verticals roughly five feet apart I would say.
24 FELIX LEE: Okay. Appreciate that clarification. Well the,uh,the position,uh, is, uh,
25 from staff is that,uh, indeed,uh,they,they do violate the building code. Both the local ordinance
26 and the,uh,Uniform Building Code, codes 1991 and `97 as published. Uh, specifically the,the
BRB Transcript-- Oct. 28, 1999--Page 5
• 1 code requires that,uh,there be,as Mr. Brashears indicated, uh,a guardrail which restricts
2 a four inch sphere from passing through them with the exception of non-public areas in
3 commercial and industrial type occupancies and it's,uh,it's again our position that the occupancy
4 here is institutional. It is neither of those and they're, um,the,the codes have been around a long
5 time. The codes,uh,the model codes identify this, these types of occupancies and have for many
6 years and there has never been an exception on a guardrail. And,I believe the reason for that is
7 apparent as well. And, in those occupancies, institutional type occupancies whether they be a jail,
8 or medical,where involuntary,or voluntarily,the occupants' liberties are indeed restrained, and
9 they must rely on the systems and the building itself to protect them from injury. And,further,
10 that, uh, in this case with a,uh,uh, incarceration facility, especially given the fact that the,uh,the
11 rails are a foot apart,spaced at one foot centers approximately and vertical baluster or
12 intermediate supports are five feet apart,a person,a relatively large person can, could pass
13 through that. And,whether it's an accident,uh,something on the floor or in, in the course of
14 restraining an inmate,or an officer. So,the point being that, uh,that the,those people are entitled
15 to the same protection as anybody else in terms of the building and the safety features built in.
16 And the,uh, as I mentioned in my summary,the,the,the point is also that the building code is a
17 life safety,minimum,minimum life safety compilation of regulations,and everyone is entitled to
18 those protections it affords. So with that,um,I'd also,uh, direct the board's,uh,response to the
19 limitations that the board has in this case as described in the,uh, in the building code. And you
20 have two decisions,um,you can make two distinct,uh, determinations. The first being that,that,
21 uh,my interpretation,staffs interpretation is erroneous,that's one option. Or,the board does
22 have the power to approve an alternate design, alternate methods or materials proposed by the
23 appellant provided they are equivalent to those prescribed in the code considering structural
24 strength, effectiveness,fire resistance,safety and other, any other pertinent factors. So,those are
. 25 your constraints. And,if you do,uh,consider,uh, determination under the criteria set forth in my
26 last example,under(b),you must require that there is sufficient evidence submitted to substan-
BRB Transcript-- Oct. 28, 1999 --Page 6
1 tiate any claims made regarding the proposed design,alternate materials or alternate methods of
2 construction. So with that,uh,I guess I would turn it over to the board,or Mr. Brashears if he
3 has any,uh,other comments.
4 BOB BRASHEARS: Uh,l-let, let me ask you something,Felix. Um,the,the exception
5 in the code is for commercial and industrial type occupancies which are not accessible to the
6 public. Does,does this hinge on the definition of what the public is and how would,how would
7 this jail differ,I,how would this jail differ from that? I,I assume that the four inch requirement
8 was lessened as a result of not having the public, in my opinion,the free moving public, in danger
9 of falling through the guardrail.
10 FELIX LEE: Well,again,I think it's relates to the type of occupancy,uh,an industrial,
11 it's certainly not industrial.It's not a manufacturing plant. There aren't special cat walks and,uh,
12 equipment,uh,um,these are people that are,uh,using this or sometimes restrained,um. There
13 are many employees that probably use those same walkways. So,I don't see, uh,I think it's an
14 occupancy issue, and,the use,a commercial use whether it's manufacturing,uh,um I think that's
15 different. That's why there are different regulations in different occupancy groups.
16 CHARLES FIELDER: Um,Mr.Brashears do you have any,uh,other testimony or
17 evidence that you wish to present
18 BOB BRASHEARS: No I don't.
19 CHARLES FIELDER: at this point in time?
20 BOB BRASHEARS: That,that's it.
21 CHARLES FIELDER: Okay. Felix, do you have any
22 FELIX LEE: Well,I would just,uh,
23 CHARLES FIELDER: other questions?
24 FELIX LEE: uh,I don't have any other questions,I would just, uh, direct the board's
25 attention to the exhibits included in your packet. The,uh,when the,when the project was
26 checked by a,a very reputable plan review agency, it's been around for many years, Tyree&
BRB Transcript -- Oct. 28, 1999 -- Page 7
1 Associates,they highlighted the same, the same provision that,uh,guardrails, stairs, etc.,require
2 generally, uh, uh,maximum,um,of four inch spacing. And then the plan that was submitted to
3 us, and I,I assume these are the same plans,I don't know, maybe that's a point Mr.Brashears
4 can, can elaborate upon, uh,the,the plans that were submitted with our set, uh,to the City,
5 shows the welded wire mesh as an intermediate,uh,barrier on the,those guardrails.
6 BOB BRASHEARS: There was,there was a value engineering process,um,which
7 changed that and,when that changed to the different spacing,I spent considerable time
8 discussing that with Sharon Goetz of your office and wrote her a letter stating what we were
9 doing and got her approval for the twelve inches.
10 FELIX LEE: Well I guess I,I would for the board to, um, in this discussion, she
11 certainly doesn't have that authority,and I don't think she would have,uh,that would require at
12 least my authority, and I,I know I was not involved in that discussion.
13 BOB BRASHEARS: Okay. Well, she never represented that I needed to speak with
40 14 anybody else other than her. Perhaps that's my mistake for not discussing
15 FELIX LEE: Could be. All right,um,
16 BRASHERS: that with you.
17 FELIX LEE: um,
18 AL HAUCK: Y-you say you had that approved by somebody? Is there documentation
19 for that?
20 BOB BRASHEARS: Um,no there was, it was verbal. I sent a letter to her summarizing
21 our conversation. I don't have anything in writing from her that says yes
22 AL HAUCK: Do you have a copy of that letter?
23 BOB BRASHEARS: you can do the twelve inches. It was, it was from me back to her
24 confirming our conversation.
25 AL HAUCK: Do you have a copy of that letter?
26 BOB BRASHEARS: Um, I've got a file. I could dig through it and probably find it for
BRB Transcript--Oct. 28, 1999 --Page 8
1 you if you have the time.
2 AL HAUCK: And, and the reason this was changed from the drawing that I'm looking at
3 on section eleven on A87 that shows the four inch welded wire mesh
4 BOB BRASHEARS: M-hum.
5 AL HAUCK: you see this was what was submitted for the permit and it,this was
6 changed again at some time in the future?
7 BOB BRASHEARS: It was changed after the bids were received. We,we took a
8 number of measures with the building to,um,reduce the cost and also, at that time,to respond to
9 some of the concerns that the Sheriff's Department had.
10 AL HAUCK: And,and,
11 BOB BRASHEARS: Uh,
12 AL HAUCK: why was that particular detail changed?
13 BOB BRASHEARS: Well, both to save money and because the owner wanted a greater
14 spacing between the railings.
15 AL HAUCK: So right now it's constructed with twelve inch horizontals with what,uh,
16 verticals
17 BOB BRASHEARS: That's correct.
18 AL HAUCK: about five feet?
19 BOB BRASHEARS: With approximately inch and a half diameter steel tubes at twelve
20 inches on center.
21 AL HAUCK: What's the,twelve inches on center?
22 BOB BRASHEARS: Yes.
23 AL HAUCK: So the clear space is ten
24 BOB BRASHEARS: The clear,
25 AL HAUCK: and a half inches?
26 BOB BRASHEARS: Well,the clear spacing is maybe eleven, approximately eleven.
BRB Transcript—_Oct. 28, 1999 --Page 9
1 It's a little under twelve.
• 2 SUSAN KREUL-FROSETH: Uh,the existing facility rail,what does that look like?
3 That,I imagine there was an existing facility that you
4 BOB BRASHEARS: There,
5 SUSAN KREUL-FROSETH: built onto.
6 BOB BRASHEARS: there is,and,that's a,that's a good question. I should know the
7 answer to that. I,I don't. Do you know,happen to know,Felix?
8 FELIX LEE: Uh,I don't. I'm sorry to say I don't recall,
9 BOB BRASHEARS: That's,that's a very
10 FELIX LEE: I don't.
11 BOB BRASHEARS: good question. Um,the major, I think the majority of the,the
12 existing facility doesn't have the two level day room so they don't,they don't have the mezzanine
13 to the extent that we have now in the new addition. Although,they do have a minimum security
. 14 addition which was added about seven or eight years ago. And, and,to be honest with you,I,I
15 don't know f-for sure what's there.
16 SUSAN KREUL-FROSETH: So,um,your,the other facilities that you have designed
17 across the state,
18 BOB BRASHEARS: Uh-hum.
19 SUSAN KREUL-FROSETH: are they all this similar configuration of baluster/rail?
20 BOB BRASHEARS: Yes they are.I've
21 SUSAN KREUL-FROSETH: And,
22 BOB BRASHEARS: I've got a photograph of,we did a facility in Montrose County
23 which opened about a year ago and it shows this typical arrangement of handrail, of guardrail if
24 you'd like to see that, if that would be helpful.
25 SUSAN KREUL-FROSETH: And,and what was the purpose for all of those designs, if
26 you could boil that down?
BRB Transcript--Oct. 28, 1999 —Page 10
1 BOB BRASHEARS: What was the purpose for,for it being twelve inches in those
2 locations? It was the, it was the same thing. Having visibility of the officer looking through that
3 guardrail. An it's, it's worth noting in Montrose we also used Tyree Associates as the code
4 reviewer and they accepted that twelve inch spacing there in Montrose.
5 SUSAN KREULFROSETH: Um,have you thought of any alternative designs that
6 might be a
7 BOB BRASHEARS: Well,
8 SUSAN KREULFROSETH: compromise?
9 BOB BRASHEARS: we could,we could go in,we could,we could add more of the inch
10 and a half tubes. I mean,that,that causes some concern to the Sheriff s office,obviously,
11 because it, it blocks some of the vision. Um,we could go back in with the metal mesh and tack
12 weld that to the existing railings. That's a possibility. That would obscure the vision less.Um, it
13 would just, it would be time consuming,it would affect the completion date of the jail which, as,
14 if you read the papers,you know where that is. Um,but, it's, it's a possible solution.
15 BRAD MASSEY: I,I just sort of have to question how,how, uh,two inch bars at twelve
16 inches on center does not,uh,uh,obscure your view more than,or less than four by four mesh. 1
17 mean,to me four by four mesh is, is basically transparent. And, so,
18 BOB BRASHEARS: Well, it,I'd say it's probably, it's probably roughly similar. I think
19 the twelve,or the four by four mesh as you start to get closer to it, it does start to read as a solid
20 plane in our experience.
21 BRAD MASSEY: Meaning from,uh,as you're coming,I mean we've got a floor plan
22 of, uh,what you're talking about attached, so it
23 BOB BRASHEARS: Uh-huh.
24 BRAD MASSEY: meaning as you're coming up the steps and you're looking vertically
25 BOB BRASHEARS: As,
26 BRAD MASSEY: into it?
BRB Transcript -- Oct. 28, 1999 --Page 11
1 BOB BRASHEARS: as,as you get close to,if this is the overhang, as you, if you're out
2 here in the day room and you're walking towards the overhang,as you look up through it,or at an
3 angle down the length of it,it starts to read solid because the,the four by four,that mesh,the,I,I
4 forget what we specified,but,in order to satisfy the structural requirements of the guardrail, gets
5 to be a good sized, um,wire on that thing. It's not, it's not like a thin wire. It's, it's
6 BRAD MASSEY: Probably a quarter of an inch.
7 BOB BRASHEARS: Yeah,quarter-inch,three-eighths sometimes, so it,you know, it's a
8 pretty good sized wire.
9 SUSAN KREUL-FROSETH: I have a question about the stair. I see, on your plan,uh,
10 stairs symmetrically placed in the floor plan. Are those open or closed risers?
I 1 BOB BRASHEARS: Those are closed risers. It's a perforated steel plate on the riser.
12 AL HAUCK: Let me try to sort out some of the pieces here. Uh, as you probably heard
13 described that we've got a fairly constrained,you know,uh,decision criteria.
i 14 BOB BRASHEARS: Sure.
15 AL HAUCK: The first is,uh, is,uh,would be a possibility that it's,the building
16 official's interpretation was err-erroneous.
17 BOB BRASHEARS: Uh-hum.
18 AL HAUCK: Uh, is that what you're claiming today is that you feel that the
19 interpretation is erroneous?
20 BOB BRASHEARS: Well,we,I-I will say that in the past we've had the detention
21 facilities classified in the section regarding the guardrails classified as an exception.
22 AL HAUCK: Ah,well,let's,let's, let's understand occupancy on this. It's, it's the staff
23 is making the claim that this is a Group 1,Division 3 occupancy. Do you agree?
24 BOB BRASHEARS? That's cor,that's correct.
25 AL HAUCK: Okay. Uh, and then do you agree that that
26 BRAD MASSEY: Group I.
BRB Transcript-- Oct. 28, 1999 -- Page 12
1 CHARLES FIELDER: Group I.
2 AL HAUCK: I'm sorry,Group I,Division 3.
3 BOB BRASHEARS: I three,I three.
4 AL HAUCK: Okay(laugh). Uh,and there,there is,there is additional,uh,description of
5 what they mean by commercial or,or industrial,uh,occupancy defining it as non-public areas for
6 production,manufacturing, storage or similar areas. Are,are you saying that the jail would fil,
7 would fit into that category?
8 BOB BRASHEARS: No,I'm not.
9 AL HAUCK: Okay.
10 BOB BRASHEARS: All,all I'm saying is that the exception,we have had jails
11 considered as fitting into the exception. Now whether or not,uh,obviously there's different types
12 of usages here. I'm not saying that the jail is either commercial or industrial. I'm just saying jails
13 in the past have been accepted with the local code authorities as being put into this exception.
14 And,that's probably in addition to commercial and industrial.
15 AL HAUCK: I will address my question to uh,to Felix,then. Is this,the language that's
16 in quotes here, is that in the,the City amendments to the UBC?
17 FELIX LEE: Yes.
18 AL HAUCK: Okay.
19 FELIX LEE: Uh, but I should point out,uh,for the benefit of the board,the, uh,that
20 language in the interest of being consistent with our,uh,regional,um, uh,jurisdictions,we
21 adopted the language as written in the,uh,uh, '97 UBC. And that uh,that's virtually unchanged
22 from, and you should have a copy of that in Exhibit C,I think. Yes. Uh,if you look in,um,on
23 the Exhibit C there, and it's, it's an excerpt from the '91 UBC and on the right page there,under,
24 on page 117 at the top of the page it talks about open guardrails, uh,having an ornamental pattern
25 such that a sphere four inches in diameter cannot pass through. Then the exceptions are there.
26 And the first exception is the one that Mr.Brashears is referring to,"the open space between the
BRB Transcript-- Oct. 28, 1999 --Page 13
I intermediate rails or ornamental pattern of guardrails in areas of commercial and industrial type
2 occupancies which are not accessible to the public may be such that a sphere twelve inches in
3 diameter cannot pass through."
4 AL HAUCK: Okay. Is a, is a jail a commercial or industrial type occupancy, is that what
5 you're saying?
6 BOB BRASHEARS: No. But,but I'm arguing that the jail is not accessible to the
7 public.
8 AL HAUCK: Does that, I guess I don't understand the,the code,then,does that matter
9 whether it's. This seems to state that it's exceptions can be made for commercial applications or
10 for industrial type applications where the public's
11 BRASHEARS: Okay.
12 AL HAUCK: not accessible.
13 BOB BRASHEARS: Okay. It, it's clearly not either one of those, no.
• 14 AL HAUCK: Okay.
15 BOB BRASHEARS: But,I'm saying in the, in our past projects,latitude has been made
16 with the jails and the jails have been included
17 AL HAUCK: Okay.
18 BOB BRASHEARS: in that exception.
19 AL HAUCK: But,but my understanding is is that the argument you're making is that the
20 staff has made an erroneous decision,not(b),that you're providing an alternative design here
21 today.
22 BOB BRASHEARS: That's correct.
23 AL HAUCK: Okay.
24 BOB BRASHEARS: I, at this point I have no alternative,although the,the two options
25 we, I discussed earlier
. 26 AL HAUCK: Okay.
BRB Transcript-- Oct. 28, 1999 -- Page 14
1 BOB BRASHEARS: are possibilities.
2 GENE LITTLE: Um,Mr.Brashears,uh,when the original specifications were
3 submitted,uh,for the construction of this,um,um,uh guardrail,the,uh,median
4 CHARLES FIELDER: Mezzanine.
5 GENE LITTLE: Mezzanine,I'm sorry,the mezzanine for the,uh,the rail system,um,
6 why was it not speced at that time,um,with the exception that you're asking for today, um,as
7 opposed to speced according to the original,um,uh,code for construction?.
8 BOB BRASHEARS: Well it, it wasn't thorough,uh,admittedly one of the things we did
9 not thoroughly discuss the spacing with the owner prior to that. It, it was brought up during the
10 bidding and had we looked closer with him he would have requested the twelve inches at that
11 time.
12 GENE LITTLE: Because you had explained to us that you had used this similar,um,
13 twelve inch spacing system,um with other detention facilities
14 BOB BRASHEARS: Right. With,
15 GENE LITTLE: and yet
16 BOB BRASHEARS: with the horizontal rail as opposed to the wire mesh.
17 GENE LITTLE: and yet,um,when this was speced,um,you for some reason you didn't
18 elect to,to go with that rail system that you had used previously with other detention
19 BOB BRASHEARS: Well,that's
20 GENE LITTLE: centers?
21 BOB BRASHEARS: that's correct. It was something that,basi, it, it kind of slipped
22 through on our drawings from another project which had different parameters. We, admittedly
23 we reused a detail from a previous project that wasn't,wasn't apples and apples. Um, it shouldn't
24 have been there.
25 GENE LITTLE: Okay. Thanks.
26 SUSAN KREUL-FROSETH: I have a,have a question,Felix. Under,um,the decision
BRB Transcript-- Oct. 28, 1999 --Page 15
1 issues we've been discussing,um,an alternate design, alternate materials, alternate methods, does
• 2 that mean that the ap-appellant comes with something additional or can we consider what they
3 are proposing,unchanged,that it would become an alternate option? Does that make sense?
4 FELIX LEE: I think I understand your question. Well,I can't,I guess I can't, from, as
5 your advisor in this case,I guess I'd say that it's really up to you what you consider is equivalent.
6 Does it require,does it provide,what the proponent is, is offering,does it, does it provide
7 equivalent safety?
8 SUSAN KREUL-FROSETH: Okay,thanks. That,that answered my question because
9 as I look at that,1,I see some things that the existing design as in place satisfies such as structural
10 strength,effectiveness and pertinent factors actually goes beyond,uh, desirability in terms of
11 pertinent factors of visibility which relates to safety issues in a jail setting. My concern is,and I
12 think,when I think about the intent of the four inch sphere, it is for children and how they came
13 up with that I will never know,but babies that can crawl with heads that are(laugh) less than four
Is14 inches, and I,I'm not sure there are any. But anyway, uh,what I worry about is that twelve inch
15 spacing of somebody slipping, falling,somebody else walking behind them maybe giving `em a
16 little shove and pushing `ern through that twelve inch opening
17 BOB BRASHEARS: Uh-hum.
18 SUSAN KREUL-FROSETH: at the bottom. Have you addressed that any other way?
19 BOB BRASHEARS: No,but, uh,are,are you getting to solving the four inch sphere at
20 the lower portion of the guardrail as opposed to the entire height of the guardrail? Well,that's,
21 that's something we could do. I mean,
22 BRAD MASSEY: Cause the detail we have shows a,a plate that sticks up four inches
23 above the top of the slab.
24 BOB BRASHEARS: That's,that's still there.
25 BRAD MASSEY: So,that's still there. So that the first,the first row is really only six
26 inches. is the first bar,horizontal
BRB Transcript-- Oct. 28, 1999 --Page 16
1 BOB BRASHEARS: No,
2 BRAD MASSEY: bar twelve inches
3 BOB BRASHEARS: it's, it's a,
4 BRAD MASSEY: above the slab?
5 BOB BRASHEARS: it's a twelve inch spacing from the top of that four inch plate.
6 CHARLES FIELDER: Okay.
7 SUSAN KREUL-FROSETH: Oh.
8 BOB BRASHEARS: Or, it's roughly eleven inches clear from the top of that plate to the
9 bottom of the first horizontal railing. But that's,certainly that's an option, if, if the concern is, is
10 somebody falling and rolling through it'd be a lot easier at this point in time to,to solve the
I 1 problem for that fast space as opposed to all the space.
12 SUSAN KREUL-FROSETH: What would that do to visibility?
13 BOB BRASHEARS: Well, it's,I mean,any,anything is going to lessen the visibility. I,
14 I think at this point we would propose,um,putting in,putting back in the,uh,wire mesh.
15 CHARLES FIELDER: Uh,I want to bring up,too,that,uh,I'm,I guess I'm not so
16 concerned of the rolling issue as I am of a fight breaking out or something and,you know,the
17 bottom thing then doesn't even become an issue in my opinion.
18 BOB BRASHEARS: Well,I, from a historical perspective,I've been designing jails and
19 prisons for about twelve years and,we've never,heard of anybody slipping through these things.
20 Um, it's, it, it hasn't been an issue in my experience.
21 SUSAN KREUL-FROSETH: Uh,I don't know if this is related or not,Felix, it,
22 it may be, but when they went from a six inch opening down to a four, can you speak to that at
23 all? That might
24 FELIX LEE: Yes,
25 SUSAN KREUL-FROSETH: be relevant.
26 FELIX LEE: I can. And,and you were right, Susan, in that,uh,the discussion did come
BRB Transcript-- Oct. 28, 1999--Page 17
1 about based on anthropomorphic measurements of children's heads and, and they picked a, uh, a
2 mean value on a toddler aged, uh,I think around three and fifty percent of the toddlers,I'm just
3 taking this from my memory,recollection,but,have a head smaller than three,four inches,that
4 can pass through. Uh,I don't know,you probably don't take calipers and measure your kids'
5 heads,but
6 SUSAN KREUL-FROSETH: I'll do that(laugh).
7 FELIX LEE: (laugh)but, it's true. Uh,and once the head goes through,I'm speaking of
8 children in this case,only,once the head goes through,the shoulders easily pass through so that's
9 where the four inches came from.
10 BOB BRASHEARS: It's safe to say there will be no toddlers in the facility.
11 AL HAUCK: I, I think the question just comes down to one of, of one of intent,you
12 know,that the intent is to prevent anybody from passing through the rail. You know, and at a
13 twelve inch spacing I think that,you know, someone could pass through the rails whether by
. 14 effort or,you know,by someone else's effort or whatever. Uh,you know, so in my,my
15 understanding,I'm not a designer,but my understanding is that,you know,that somebody could
16 pass between a twelve inch opening. Is that not correct?
17 BOB BRASHEARS: Yup. You could get through a twelve inch opening.
18 AL HAUCK: Okay. Yeah,1, 1 think,you know,there, in light of the intent of the code
19 and in light of the,the reading of the code as I see it, I don't think we have much,you know,
21 much leeway here you know to,to,uh, authorize a variance of the code. You know,there's,1,I
21 don't think there's an erroneous interpretation on the part of the, uh,the part of the staff. I think
22 they're reading it by the letter of the law. I,I don't know what other options we have.
23 BRAD MASSEY: I would agree considering the, uh,narrow constraints that we are to
24 make our determination on that we either have to find that the building official was erroneous or
25 we have to have an alternate method that is equivalent,basically equivalent to the four inches and
26 we don't have either one of those and, and I agree I don't think,we don't have the latitude to
BRB Transcript-- Oct. 28, 1999 --Page 18
1 interpret it different than Felix. It's,we have to find whether he made,he was in error and,and I
2 agree I don't think he was in error as how he interpreted it. So,that's my opinion.
3 CHARLES FIELDER: Um,as a point of order, um,Mr. Brashears, um,has the
4 opportunity to make a closing statement and then,uh,Felix has an opportunity to make a closing
5 statement and then we need to make a determination. Are we finished with questions at this
6 point,you feel? Okay. So you have an opportunity to make a closing statement and then Felix
7 will and then
8 BOB BRASHEARS: Okay,um,
9 CHARLES FIELDER: we'll make a determination.
10 BOB BRASHEARS: Given the constraints placed on the,what you can do and what you
11 can decide, it's,I,I understand where you're coming from. Um,uh, it's unfortunate,I,I wish you
12 had more latitude to interpret and judge and base it on the real world and the real world in the jail.
13 The primary aspect of the jail is the safety and security of the officers and that is a result of
14 minimizing inmate to inmate assaults, inmate to officer assaults. And,paramount in the facility
15 to encourage that safety is visibility and, so,what we're trying to do here,where it, it may be, it
16 may be tweaking the code a little bit,but it is an effort to increase the safety and security of the
17 facility,um,and of the officers,and reduce liability to the county,also. Um,I appreciate your
18 time and effort in this.
19 CHARLES FIELDER: Felix?
20 FELIX LEE: I guess I would just respond that,uh, it certainly,I understand there are
21 security concerns,no one could argue that point,but,I don't think the proponent has
22 demonstrated first of all that,uh,I haven't seen anything from any security agency or any study
23 suggesting that,um,the wire mesh proposed is a visibility concern. And, second, uh,I guess
24 would add that at this point I haven't seen any,we haven't seen,today,any other options that
25 might provide some equivalent level of safety. And maybe there are other ways to maintain
26 visual surveillance,um, in that area. I don't know. But,uh,the bottom line again is that, I'm
BRB Transcript-- Oct. 28, 1999 --Page 19
1 charged,my first charge is with the occupants. Um, security is a separate issue that I'm not
2 qualified to address. But,the occupants' safety,whether they be inmates or officers travelling
3 upon those walkways,they're entitled to a level of safety that the code provides, as written.
4 That's all I have.
5 CHARLES FIELDER: Um, as a matter of record I'd like to agree with Felix that I also
6 have a concern for the public safety of the inmates and I haven't heard a lot of that today. But,
7 um, and I also think that,uh,number one,we,we,I'd like to make a motion that we haven't
8 um,uh,found the building official's interpretation as erroneous and we haven't been presented
9 with an alternate design,so that my motion is that the, gh, appeal be denied.
10 BRAD MASSEY: I'll second that.
11 CHARLES FIELDER: Okay. Delynn we need a roll call.
12 DELYNN COLDIRON: Little
13 GENE LITTLE: Yeah
14 DELYNN COLDIRON: Fielder
15 CHARLES FIELDER: Yeah
16 DELYNN COLDIRON: Hauck
17 AL HAUCK: Yes
18 DELYNN COLDIRON: Kreul-Froseth
19 SUSAN KREUL-FROSETH: Ay
20 DELYNN COLDIRON: Massey
21 BRAD MASSEY: Yes
22 CHARLES FIELDER: Okay. Thank you Mr.Brashears.