Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19980122BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 12, 1998 Charlie Paterson opened the special meeting at 4:05 p.m. Dan Martineau, Rick Head, Jim Iglehart and Howard DeLuca were present. David Schott and Ron Erickson were excused. City Staff present were David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, Stephen Kanipe and Sara Thomas, Community Development. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (01/22/98): CASE # 98-01 DURANT CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION 718-748 SOUTH GALENA David Hoefer stated in response to questions on ADA requirements and on behalf of the city, Stephen Kanipe, building department head, will explain the requirements which will probably have a material effect on the definition of a hardship. Kanipe said the ADA is the department of justice act enforced by the federal government. He stated that city and county have adopted the UBC (uniform building code) and chapter 11, accessibility, in the simplest form parallels the ADA in many requirements. Kanipe said when we speak of accessibility, as a municipality, we speak as to what is required by the UBC and do not involve the department of justice. Kanipe reviewed the plans with Sara Thomas and Scott Smith for UBC requirements; which would be one (1) handicapped unit and one (1) readily adaptable unit. The units, especially residential, should be located on the ground floor. The common amenities (i.e. pool, recreation or laundry room) also must be accessible along with 1 parking space. Kanipe said in theory one building was totally accessible without an elevator, but to comply with the code: a curb cut, and route from the unit to the pool was needed. He said for elevators to be allowed as a hardship was not the case. Hoefer said the applicant can make their argument. He noted that for purely handicap purposes, it doesn’t constitute a hardship. The elevators are not needed. Alan Richman said he was surprised by these comments. Hoefer replied that if they needed an additional period of time, that certainly could be accommodated. Richman answered that when this was pre-apped (the application), they were told the board had previously reviewed the need for handicap access in tourist accommodations as the basis for hardship. He said they had been working towards that for some time. Richman said from the last meeting, what they heard was that it was important if 1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 12, 1998 these units were made accessible and that elevators have the ability to be accessed by people with disabilities. Paterson said that wasn’t what the board intended, but to continue. Richman noted the importance of bringing the revisions from the last meeting and understands they may have to re-notice if the plan could move forward tonight. He said they complied with the standards: the AACP, minimizing the extent of the variances necessary by the location, compatibility with the building and height of the elevators. The hardship was the steepness and unusual shape of the parcel, which were contributing factors in the amount of the variance needed and the difficulty in access to the upper units. Richman said that they were trying to make the elevators accessible, not to try to comply with the letter of the ADA law. Scott Smith said they took a look accessibility from the parking areas up to the buildings by new retrofitted ramps. Every elevator would be accessible from the parking area without exceeding a maximum slope of 1 in 12 (standard wheelchair requirement). Smith explained the sloping, levels, ramping systems and elevators for the different buildings based upon the drawings (exhibit 2). He said there was more floor area involved because of additional elevator stops. David Booth noted another issue was the placement of elevator 4 which required contacting the neighbor above because of the easement and property line. Hoefer commented that if there was additional elevator, then you would have to re-notice. Tim Anderson, representing Joe Tauber, stated concerns for the elevator towers conflicting with his current small view. Richman stated since there was no authority to develop on the other piece of property, the application would stand with 5 elevators. Hoefer said because of the change with the other additions, there should be a re- notice. Rick Head applauded the applicant on the ramping systems. Paterson said moving the elevators forward was a plus for better access. Howard DeLuca said the situation with the elevators came down to handicapped living or staying which was accomplished here and it works well. He said that he wasn’t concerned about the one elevator (like Erickson - having all buildings the same). Kanipe stated that unless the units are modified with handicap bathrooms, kitchens, closets, mirrors; this system does nothing for someone in a wheelchair. DeLuca 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 12, 1998 responded that the situation was for the current aging owners not being able to manage the stairs and if that person ends up in a wheelchair then the access was in place. He agreed with Kanipe, but this was not a rental type condo but rather owner occupancy. Paterson said that if someone broke their leg, they couldn’t manage the stairs, but this system would allow access to the 3rd floor. This is a ski town, so this should be considered. He noted it was a real hardship to modernize buildings. Kanipe cited his experience in a wheelchair during the Little Nell building inspection process. He noted that wheelchair bound people have such limited access to places and that experience made him very aware of those problems. Jim Iglehart said that handicap goes beyond a wheelchair. DeLuca commented that was the aging process to establish a hardship. He pointed out the existing owner may be on the 3rd or 4th floor, so the 1st floor handicap unit wouldn’t do him any good unless he rented that unit. Kanipe stated that if the other floors were to be handicap accessible by elevator, then stand-by power was required. Also an area of refuge (a safe place until the fire or police could rescue that person) was required. Hoefer said they would still have to argue a hardship. Head asked if philosophically the community development department favored this change. Thomas answered this was an amenity making it accessible to wheelchairs but its a catch-22 because there are no handicap units. Head noted the struggle was on what grounds could the variance be granted. Where was the hardship. Dan Martineau said in his mind there was no hardship. He commented that he was persuaded by the difficulty for older people climbing 4 flights of stairs. He said it would be a hardship for the aging to live on the 3rd & 4th floors without elevators. It would be hard even for a 30 year old with groceries and kids. Jim Iglehart said if he were a grandpa, or even now, it would be a hardship to climb those stairs. 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 12, 1998 Paterson commended the applicant for addressing the boards concerns from the last meeting and noted the practical difficulty with these buildings. To be competitive with other resorts, this needs to be done. He was in favor. DeLuca said if he were Ron, he could say if this variance was granted, then the rest of the buildings on the hillside would come to this board for the same thing. He said that was the draw back, but could recognize the practical difficulty. DeLuca said the FAR increase was not that much. MOTION: Rick Head moved to continue Case #98-1, Durant Condominiums, to March 5, 1998. Howard DeLuca second. ALL IN FAVOR. APPROVED 5-0. MINUTES MOTION: Rick Head move to approve the minutes on Case #97-11, Case 97-02 and Case #98-01. Howard second. APPROVED 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 12, 1998 CASE # 98-01 DURANT CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION 718-748 SOUTH GALENA ........ 1 MINUTES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 4 5