Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-02 Building Appeals Board_MIN Building Appeals Board nd July 2, 2003 Meeting Minutes Call to Order Broomfield called the meeting to order at 2:02 p.m. Roll Call Demolition Review Committee members Fields, Shostrom, Davis, Giordano, Jarvis, and Broomfield were present. Approval of the Agenda and Order of Business Broomfield noted that Item IV would be deferred to a later date. Approval of Board Minutes th The minutes of April 14, 2003 were approved as presented. Date of the Next Regularly Scheduled Meeting Broomfield stated that this was still to be announced. Public Comment None. Communications None. Appeals Request for waiver of ORS 447 Elevator requirement for Paddington Station (Rob Saladoff Architect, applicant, 545 A Street) Broomfield gave background relative to this application, noting that when permits were issued staff began looking at disabled access requirements for vertical access. Broomfield discussed the 25% rule for alterations to bring parity, and noted that the issue became whether the applicants could install an elevator without an undue financial burden. Broomfield noted that in conversations with Darrel Ackerman of the Oregon Disabilities Commission, the definition of alterations was discussed, and it was noted that an elevator requirement could have a significant impact on the project. Broomfield noted that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements allow for a “comparable equivalent level of service.” Broomfield noted that waivers are allowed for at the local level through the Appeals Board, and because Ashland has this board in place it falls to the board to review this application. Broomfield concluded that the board may grant a waiver, require other means to meet requirements, and/or suggest alternatives. Public hearing opened at 2:10 p.m. Rob Saladoff, architect/545 A Street and Pam and Don Hammond, owners/Saladoff noted that the owners have completed the first of two phases of a certified, historic restoration which will include returning the façade to it’s original state, upgrading interior finishes, and full updates of all systems in addition to a full seismic upgrade. Saladoff noted that the owners have attempted to address accessibility through an ADA bathroom. He nd July 2, 2003 Building Appeals Board Minutes Page 1 of 1 added that the first phase of the project converted the former Underground Deli into retail space, with significant excavation to enlarge the rear stairs and storage area. He explained that this included new finishes and the initial foundation work for a seismic upgrade. Saladoff distributed copies of plans for the project. Saladoff added that in initial discussions with the state they were told that the plans were sufficient. He explained that there is currently no elevator, and he discussed the entries and stairs noting that there was access both off of East Main and via the alley. He pointed out that there are unusual circumstances, substantial financial impacts and difficulties with the building. Saladoff explained that the project total cost was $500,000 plus $85,000 in design work bringing the total to approximately $600,000. He emphasized that an elevator would add $70-$100,000 to the total project cost plus another $30-$40,000 id design work. He recognized that the potential $140,000 cost for the elevator was approximately the 25% required, but added that in this case it would be a project killer. He pointed out that the space needed for the elevator would account for $120,000 per year in retail sales. Saladoff suggested that if an elevator were required, the project would have to be scaled back to a façade renovation and would not be able to include the systems and seismic upgrades. Saladoff noted that Ackerman had initially suggested an exterior elevator, but he stated that this would adversely impact the historic façade and would also be hindered by a party wall agreement with the neighboring property owner. Saladoff explained that after visiting the site, Ackerman agrees that the exterior elevator option would not work. Saladoff reported that the elevator must be inside and at the rear third of the space, and he added that the stairs and fixtures severely limit the available siting of an elevator. He suggested that these constraints push the elevator to the center rear, which effects the aesthetics, security, retail use, and also prevents other big improvements. Pam Hammond stated that a 100-year party wall lease expires this summer, and she added that one hope for the seismic upgrade is to make the building fully self-supported. She emphasized that the seismic retrofit to address earthquake danger and make the building self supporting was the driving force behind the renovation, and the elevator requirement would result in both of these issues being unresolved. Saladoff clarified that the agreement mentioned is a lease of a party wall from the neighbor, and at the end of the lease the Hammonds will be required to stop using the wall for structural support. He pointed out that they cannot simply disconnect the buildings and put the other building out of conformance with code, but that they must cease to use the wall structurally. He stated that the lease expires in August, when the neighbor could then remove the wall. Don Hammond stated that the new design allows for support of the roof and mezzanine, and could also support a new wall if needed. Saladoff explained for Giordano that the first floor is 4,000 square feet, with an additional 1,800 square feet in the mezzanine and 2,100 in the basement. Giordano clarified that the project does not involve an expansion. Giordano suggested that the cost is high, and added that the loss per square foot is high as well. Giordano stated that he had done a similar project which included an addition, and after speaking to Ackerman he had tried to convince the clients of the importance of an elevator. He noted that with the help of Ackerman and Broomfield, the clients opted for an elevator after initial resistance and Giordano now believes it was a benefit to the project as a whole. nd July 2, 2003 Building Appeals Board Minutes Page 2 of 2 Giordano stated that if the applicants were adding more space, there would be no question of requiring an elevator, but here with the historic renovation, seismic upgrade, and the square footage involved for the upgrade, the benefits of an elevator are outweighed by the cost. He concluded that he supported a waiver. Saladoff agreed that if more space could be added to offset the loss of space, and to allow for a better elevator location, it would be done. He stated that as it stands now, aesthetics, costs, space and circulation issues simply do not justify an elevator. Saladoff added that Broomfield suggested working with the neighbor to share an elevator, but that suggestion had not worked out. Broomfield noted that this is a fairly common issue in a city with numerous historic structures built with non-supported masonry. He recognized that elevators are the only vertical access that will work within the historic downtown district, and suggested that there might be a possibility for a voluntary land improvement district to install a common elevator in the downtown. He emphasized that current laws prevent elevator placement on a public way when the public way is publicly funded. He added that financing is the issue here, and he also noted that the Attorney General has said that common law takes precedence over the code and requires either a waiver or an alternate method. He also noted that there had been discussion of a lift to reach the mezzanine with lower level access off of the alley, but the Oregon Disabilities Commission (ODC) had rejected this option. Broomfield discussed the ODC letter regarding this “substantial alteration.” Fields questioned how one can know the extent of future work. Broomfield responded that the letter is the response of the ODC. Saladoff added that space is currently so close that the ramp being installed has to be inside. Don Hammond explained the memo he had sent to Ackerman, and noted that Ackerman had disagreed with the memo but had left the possibility of a waiver open. Jarvis questioned whether the last paragraph in Ackerman’s memo contradicted the second and third paragraphs. Broomfield explained that ORS 447 requires the input of the ODC to help in reaching a decision. He emphasized that staff cannot rule on these matters. Jarvis/Davis m/s to find a waiver to be justified due to the financial and technical issues involved. Discussion: Fields asked what alternatives are provided. Broomfield responded that the board may require other, equivalent levels of service. Fields asked how the city would be involved in any civil suit. Broomfield reported that board members are acting on the city’s behalf and are protected by the city in any litigation. He added that the impact of the decision has to do with the structural code. He explained that the decision could be challenged on the basis of the structural code or ADA accessibility issues. Broomfield reiterated that the city does cover board members in all litigation. Saladoff noted that he was working on an access plan as part of Phase 2 of the project. Shostrom stated that no one wants to spend money on this type of project, but he suggested that it could be justified here. He added that if the cost of the historic renovation were not included, 25% would be much less, and if the funds going to seismic retrofitting were taken out, the amount would be lessened again. Jarvis indicated that the historic renovation and the lack of an addition were both important factors for him. Giordano suggested that the structural upgrade was hugely important. Saladoff emphasized that they will be adding a new frame in the historic building while preserving the character and the internal circulation. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Fields asked if a two hour wall would be required on this construction. Broomfield responded that a one hour wall would be required within proximity to the property line. He added that there is a question of how to address the neighboring structure when the lease ends, and he suggested that it will ultimately likely be a legal matter. nd July 2, 2003 Building Appeals Board Minutes Page 3 of 3 Davis stated that she works with ADA issues in retail, and that she is grateful for the appeal mechanism provided for in Oregon and the Oregon Disabilities Commission. Davis noted that she had done a project in another jurisdiction where a -10 degree freezer box in a restaurant had to be modified to accommodate a wheelchair despite the fact that an employee could not work in the freezer, and that jurisdiction provided no opportunity for appeal. Broomfield noted that the city subscribes to the ADA Compliance Manual and receives updates annually. He stated that this was a resource that is available to members for board-related activities. New Business None. Pending Items None. Announcements Broomfield informed members that a forum on the newly adopted International Residential Code would be th held here on August 14, 2003 from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. in Pioneer Hall. He noted that additional details were to follow. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m. Next Meeting: TBA nd July 2, 2003 Building Appeals Board Minutes Page 4 of 4