HomeMy WebLinkAbout421 STOVER ST - CORRESPONDENCE - 5/21/2003TROZAN INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.
"Specializing in Health Insurance"
May 21, 2003
Mike Gebo
Building and Zoning Department
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: Accessibility Variance
Dear Mr. Gebo:
• Group Health
• Major Medical
• HMO's
• Dental
• Medicare supplement
• Disability
• Term Life
• IRA's
My wife and I are purchasing the property on 421 Stover in Fort Collins, CO. Currently it
has been used as a residential rental property with the basement used as a separate rental
unit. We would like to convert the main floor to a small office while leaving the
basement as a residential rental. Our application for this mixed use building is currently
being processed through a Basic Development Review.
We understand that the next step is to apply for a Building Permit and that we must
comply with requirements for a one -hour separation between the units and modify the
heating system so there is no shared air between the units. While these two issues will
require a significant financial investment on our part I can see the logic and the need for
these modifications .
My request to you is for a variance on Accessibility. The reason for my request is three
fold. First, for the past 20 years I have established a career specializing in health
insurance. In the health insurance business, handicapped and disabled persons do not
qualify for individual health insurance coverage —they can only qualify on an employer
sponsored plan. Consequently, I have never had a disabled person come to my office and
do not expect that trend to change. (I have worked in four offices during this period.) In
the unlikely event I should have a disabled person who needed my services, I would
accommodate their needs by simply going to their home, or in a group situation, I would
meet with them at their place of employment. I believe this demonstrates both a lack of
demand for accessibility to the building, as well as my ability to accommodate
accessibility to our services, if necessary.
Secondly, we are a very small agency —a "mom and pop" shop if you will. I am the only
full-time employee and my wife works part-time. We have employed another part-time
employee since November to give my wife flexibility around our children's school
schedule and during their summer break. This employee's responsibilities include a
significant amount of paperwork and phone work. In addition, she cleans the bathroom,
takes out trash, vacuums, waters plants, cleans windows and does filing and
qat S#oveR
214 W. Magnolia 0 Fort Collins, CO 80521 • Tel. (970) 224-5500
-6�-z! -o3
��/ ��ve4
2 0� Z
takes out trash, vacuums, waters plants, cleans windows and does filing and
photocopying. I believe a person having a severe impairment (mobility, sight or hearing)
could not reasonably perform in our office. (This is listed as exception #2 under Section
1103.1.1 of Chapter 11 on Accessibility.)
Thirdly, we have explored the cost and the complexity in conforming to the accessibility
requirements and the cost and the structural impact on the building is significant. We
hired an architect to look at the house and draw plans designed to meet Accessibility
guidelines. A 16-foot concrete ramp would have to be poured to give access to the house.
The bathroom would need to be remodeled. This would require tearing out a bathtub,
juggling fixtures around and making modifications to the plumbing to relocate them. It
would require tearing out a wall containing a linen cabinet and the combustion air vent
from the furnace to the roof. Also an entry area in the hallway as well as the bathroom
door would need to be widened. Last of all, it would also require moving a wall 10 inches
into an adjoining room which reduces the square footage of the room, creates a funny
"jog" so as to not disturb the doorjamb and closet, and in addition, the existing window
on the exterior wall would end up literally flush with the new wall. (The opposing
bathroom wall has all the plumbing lines and venting and can't be moved.) We have
concluded that compliance is structurally infeasible particularly due to the presence of the
combustion air vent leading to the roof, which is located in the wall/linen closet that must
be torn out to make the bathroom large enough to accommodate wheelchairs. (See
Section 1112.1.1 regarding alterations to existing buildings for compliance purposes.)
The cost for these modifications, assuming no complications once we start, would be
between $9,000 to $10,000. In view of this high figure, I believe that the alterations
required to meet compliance would be financially infeasible, particularly in light of the
cost of the other work required for a change of use mentioned earlier. In addition we have
concluded that the alterations required to meet compliance would reduce the usability of
the adjacent room. (See Appendix Chapter 11: Division II: Section 1113 regarding
existing buildings that undergo a change of occupancy.)
My humble request is that you would consider a variance on common sense grounds
backed by the exceptions for existing buildings allowed in the Uniform Building Code.
To me it does not seem fair or equitable to be forced to spend $10,000 for accessibility
when my business simply does not get disabled clientele, nor would I be able to employ a
disabled person.
Thank you for your time and for your consideration of this request.
Sinc ly,
Peter A. Trozan