Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-09-2020 Board of AppealsBOARD OF APPEALS Wednesday, September 9, 2020 Electronic Meeting — 4:00 PM Zoom Meeting Platform Electronic Meeting (Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8) An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19. You can participate in the meeting and can comment on an agenda item by going to: https://zoom.uslmeetinq/registerltJMucO2pgT8tE9E9Kx 17 HcFHuoRoUzVo2 C to visit the Zoom meeting's registration page and submitting the required information. Once approved, you will receive an email message with a link to join the meeting. If you are asked for a meeting or webinar ID, enter the ID number found in the email. If you have no computer or smartphone, or a computer without a microphone, you can call in by phone by dialing (312) 626- 6799 and entering the meeting ID 973 7417 4795 when prompted. Providing comment in person is not an option. Agenda: 1. Call to Order PANC 7196mil 3. Elect Officers for 2020 (Chair and Vice Chair) 4. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: July 1, 2019 5. Request for a Variance from Housing Code Section 17-5-17 F. 1. f., 17-5-17 GA. (Proposed building on Parcel # 1022133012 [east of Shelter House at 429 Southgate Ave and west of 505 — 509 Southgate Ave]) 6. Adjournment If you will need disability -related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact Tim Hennes, Building Inspection Services, at 319-356-5122 or tiro-hennes(a_)iowa- city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. MINUTES FINAL IOWACITYBOARD OFAPPEALS MONDAY, JULY 1, 2019 HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITYHALL 410 E. WASHINGTON STREET IOWA CITY, IA 52240 MEMBERSPRESENT: Andrea French, Scott McDonough, JimWalker MEMBERS ABSENT: John Gay, Andrew Martin STAFF PRESENT: Tim Hennes (Sr. Building Inspector), Stan Laverman (Senior Housing Inspector), Marnie Teagle (Neighborhood and Development Specialist) OTHERS PRESENT: Ryan Moss (Johnson County Attorney's Office, sitting in for the City Attorney representative), Dan Frowlen (Construction Manager, Prestige Properties) RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL Recommended bya unanimous vote to deny the appeal for 837 Otto Street. Recommended bya unanimous vote to deny the appeal for 506 North Linn Street. Tim Hennes called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM ELECTION OF OFFICERS MOTION: McDonough moved to elect Andrea French as chairperson of the Board of Appeals. Walker seconded. VOTE: French was elected as chairperson of the BOA bya 3-0 unanimous vote. MOTION: McDonough moved to elect Jim Walker as vice-chairof the Board ofAppeals. French seconded. VOTE: Walker was elected vice -chair of the BOA by a 3-0 unanimous vote. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: MOTION: McDonough moved to approve the minutes from the December 20, 2018 meeting. Walker seconded. Vote: The motion was approved by a 3-0 unanimous vote. French noted the owner of 837 Otto Street has requested an extension. Hennes stated the appeal for 837 Otto Street is an appeal of a decision not to grant a further extension, and this is an appeal of the Building Official for not granting that extension. Hennes noted the Board needs to review if there are existing violations, those would still continue to be violations. This appeal is from the applicant who asked for an extension to remedy certain deficiencies which was denied. Therefore today the extension could be granted by the Board (to overturn the decision by the Building Inspector) or to uphold the decision by the Building Inspector and deny the request for an extension and If the applicant is not wanting to go forward with the appeal that needs to be stated. Hennes noted there must be evidence presented for due process. French opened the floor for public discussion. Dan Frowlen (Construction Manager, Prestige Properties) stated they don't need an extension, they have completed the work required on the house which was to repair painted surfaces of window trim and replaced shakes. Frowlen noted it had been a harsh winter from snow to freezing temperatures. The work that needed to be done could not be accomplished in such elements. The argument is Prestige Properties does their best to do quality repairs and not just put a band -aid on things so there is the same problems year after year. Walker asked If this property was originally cited in September of last year. Laverman said the property on Otto was cited In January, so there was a six month time period to complete the work which expired in June and because of the weather issues everyone that had a June 1 expiration was granted a new date of July 1. Laverman noted that when they do the inspections they require properties to be in compliance and good condition. This property was not, there was paint on the windows, on door trim and he felt it could be fixed within the time period. Since the work has been completed then the applicant proved that it was possible for the work to be done in the time period allotted. Laverman noted there has been some changes in the Code in the past year limiting the City's ability to regulate occupancy and the State noted there are a lot of other ordinances on the books to control nuisances of rental preorders and that is what the City intends to do. The City has been very clear on expectations and will be enforcing stricter timelines on compliances and not carrying extensions for so long. Laverman noted they have been directed by Council to tighten up these inspections and make sure properties are in compliance at all times. McDonough asked how long the automatic six-month period of compliance has been in place. Laverman responded for 18 months. McDonough asked if there have been other properties with issues. Laverman said not to this level, they have in the past year issued approximately 90 extensions and all but couple were complete before the deadline. McDonough asked if the Board votes on the side of the City what is the next steps. Laverman said the applicant would then be issued a 10 day notice to comply, if they do not come in compliance within that 10 day period then the City can revoke the rental permit and issue a citation and he added It was codified in City Code they cannot give extension that surpass one year. Within one year after a rental permit expires the property must either be brought back into compliance or citations issued for not maintaining a valid rental permit. MOTION: Walker moved to deny the appeal for 837 Otto Street based on the City Ordinances already allowing for sufficient time for compliance to be met. McDonough seconded. VOTE: The motion passed by a unanimous vote 3-0. Laverman noted this property was inspected in September 2018 (9/11/2018), this property is in an 3 historic district and requires historical approval for some of the work that needed to be done. The Historic Preservation Commission review was requested 10/9/2018 and was approved by the staff and commission on 10/10/2018. Laverman noted the violation was on the exterior of the structure and the expectation is properties should be in compliance with the Housing Code at all times. Laverman noted the City did grant extensions on this property because of The Historic Preservation Commission review and the second extension request is for the extension to extend to 10/30/2019 and under the City's Housing Code that is not feasible, even in the appeal asking for the 9/30/2019 extension is not feasible and Laverman again makes the argument that having this property out of compliance for longer than other properties violates the Housing Code and the direction they have received from City Council to maintain healthy and vibrant neighborhoods. French noted that due to City Code an extension could only be extended through August. French opened the floor for public discussion. Dan Frowlen (Construction Manager, Prestige Properties) stated they have been working on the property for well over one month, it is not a band -aid fix, they are not just trying to slap paint on it, they had to scrap off lead -based paint and had to get the workers training and qualified to work there. He noted that the properly next door is in worse condition but because it is not a rental it is not held to the same standards. Having to deal with all the rain this spring has really hampered their ability to work on this property. MOTION: McDonough movedto deny the appeal for 506 North Linn Street based on the City Ordinances already allowing for sufficient time for compliance to be met. Walker seconded. VOTE: The motion passed by a unanimous vote 3-0. OTHER DISCUSSION: None. Adjourned at 4:28 PM Chairperson, Board of Appeals Date CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM DATE: 9/3/2020 TO: BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: SUSAN DULEK, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY RE: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR PARCEL 1022133012 Neumann Monson Architects has submitted a request for a variance for two provisions of the Housing Code. Section 17-5-13B4c of the City Code allows the Board of Appeals to grant a variance if four conditions are met. I have set forth this code provision below. In order to grant the variance, the Board will need to make a finding of fact that these four conditions are met with respect to both Housing Code provisions (Sections 17-5-17F1 and 17-5-17G). Please note the Board may attach "appropriate conditions" to the variance. Section 17-5-13B4c c. The appeals board may grant a variance in a specific case and from a specific provision of this chapter, subject to appropriate conditions, and provided the appeals board makes specific findings of fact based on the evidence presented on the record as a whole and relate to the following: (1) There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in carrying out a strict letter of any notice or order; and (2) Due to the particular circumstances presented, the effect of the application of the provisions would be arbitrary in the specific case; and (3) An extension would not constitute an appropriate remedy for these practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in this arbitrary effect; and (4) Such variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter in securing the public health, safety and general welfare I will be happy to answer any questions you may have at the September 9 meeting. Copy to: Tim Hennes Neumann Monson Architects NEUMANN MONSON .ARCHITECTS Applicable Housing Code Provisions: 17-5-17 F.1. 17-5-17 G. Basements and floors above the second story shall have not less than two (2) exits, except when such floors or basements are used exclusively for the service of the building. Dwelling units and/or rooming units in a basement may have access to only one common exit when the occupant load served by that exit does not exceed ten (10). Escape and rescue window(s) must be supplied for each sleeping room. Such window(s) Shall comply with the building code specifications. Existing third floor and attic areas less than five hundred (500) square feet may be used as habitable rooms if the following conditions are met: 1) one exit fully meets building code requirements to the outside of the building; 2) the other exit can be an attic fire escapes. If access to the attic fire escape is through a window, such window must meet the building code requirements for escape and rescue windows. Every habitable room, except a kitchen, shall have at least one window or skylight (acing directly to the outdoors. The minimum total glazed window or skylight area, for every habitable room, except the kitchen, shall be at least eight percent (8%) of the floor area of such room. 2. For the purpose of determining natural light and natural ventilation requirements, any room may be considered as a portion of an adjoining room when one-half (1/2) of the area of the common wall is open and unobstructed and provides an opening of not less than one -tenth (1/10) of the floor area of the interior room or twenty five (25) square feet, whichever is greater. Project Background: Shelter house intends to construct 36 rental dwelling units which will be used for permanent supporting housing and will be made available for the chronically homeless using a housing first approach. The project will follow zoning for the "Community Service - Long Term Housing" use category per 14-4A-6C 2. c. per the Iowa City Zoning Code. The owner was just granted a special exemption to permit this use (EXC20-05). This development is using 820 Cross Park Ave. as a model for building and dwelling unit layout. The layout used at 820 Cross Park has proved very successfully and Shelter House would like to repeat that success in this project. In 2017 820 Cross Park was granted a variance to housing code by the 221 EAST COLLEGE STREET SUITE 303 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 319.330.7878 III EAST GRAND AVENUE SUITE 1U5 DES MOINES. IOWA 50309 515.339.7800 NEUAIANNMONSON.COM board of appeals (APB17-00001) to allow the dwelling unit design that was constructed. This application follows in the footsteps of that application. The current dwelling unit plan (see attachment below) provides a separate bedroom area with bathroom entrance oriented towards the corridor and a living room and kitchen space oriented toward the exterior wall. Only one tenant will be permitted to live In each dwelling unit, so no door separating the bedroom from the living room has been provided. The passageway between the bedroom and living room does not meet the minimum dimensions of a habitable space so the unit technically qualifies as a one bedroom unit. An efficiency layout could be used to satisfy housing code provisions at issue, but Shelter House strongly prefers the one bedroom layout for several reasons: 1. Operationally a separate bedroom and bathroom entrance out of direct view of the window is preferred for privacy concerns and is intended as a precaution and protection for both tenants and neighbors. 2. The unit design follows trauma informed design principles by removing excess stimuli from the sleeping area and providing a space within the units for residents to withdraw from public facing spaces thereby offering a feeling of added comfort and safety. 3. The one bedroom layout offers substantial advantages for in -process federal grant applications. 4. Housing vouchers will provide a significant percentage of the ongoing operational cost funding. Efficiency units are subsidized at a lower rate than one bedroom units. This loss of Income would represent a significant challenge and hardship to the long term operation of the facility, 5. As mentioned above, this exact unit layout was constructed at 820 Cross Park and has proved operationally very successful. Basis for Appeal: Housing code provision 17.5.17 F.1. Appears to closely mirror the building code amendment to IBC 1030.1 exception 2. The underlying concern with both provisions appears to be life safety. The project does comply with the building code amendment on the basis that it is being designed as an institutional building (1-1, condition 1) and that amendment applies only to R•2 occupancies. The housing code provision however, only makes reference to "dwelling units". The institutional occupancy has several additional layers of life safety protection built-in that we believe will provide a suitable level of safety: An institutional occupancy compliant fire alarm system will be provided. NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS 2. A full NFPA 13 sprinkler system will be provided 3. The building will be staffed 24-7 and will be able to assist or sound the alarm in the case of an emergency. In addition to the Institutional occupancy provisions, a rescue window will be provided in the living room area. Given the slze of the unit and the lack of barrier between the window and the bedroom our belief is that the arrangement not significantly less safe than a typical bedroom rescue window, and with the added Institutional safety measures actually provides a greater level of safety than is typically required for multi -unit housing. Housing code provision 17-5-17 G. adds a requirement for natural daylight in both the bedroom and living space. As discussed above there is not a practical way to preserve the preferred one bedroom layout and achieve a window in the bedroom space. However, our design is somewhere between a typical one bedroom and an efficiency layout and the bedroom space will be able to borrow light from the living room windows. 'rhe amount of glazing provided will meet the code requirement for glazed area at least 8% of the floor area for all of the habitable space of the unit + the passageway. We feel this provides a level of health and welfare that is In line with the requirements of the code. Photos of the units constructed at 820 Cross Park have been included to illustrate the general quality of the space. NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS Reference Photo: 820 Cross Park Avenue Dwelling Unit Living / Kitchen NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS Reference Photo: 820 Cross Park Avenue Dwelling Unit Bedroom NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS ENLARGED DWELLING UNIT PLAN LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN (LEVEL 3 SIM) O .. Q NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS FLOOR PLANS HOUSING FIRST- IOW A LITV 19046 05.30.2020 A101 MINUTES APPROVED IOWA CITY BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, JULY 13, 2017 HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL 410 E. WASHINGTON STREET IOWA CITY, IA 62240 MEMBERS PRESENT: John Roffman, Scott McDonough, Andrea French, John Gay MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Walker STAFF PRESENT: Tim Hennes (Sr. Building Inspector), Sue Dulek (Asst. City Attorney), Stan Laverman (Sr. Housing Inspector), John Yapp (Development Services Coordinator), Brian Greer (Fire Marshall), Jann Ream (Code Enforcement Specialist, acting as minute taker) OTHERS PRESENT: Crlssy Caganeili, Dan Broffit, Steve Schornhorst RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None CALL TO ORDER: John Roffman called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM Request for a Variance from the Housing Code Sections 17-5-17 F 1 f & 17-5-17 G1 (proposed building at 820 Cross Park Avenue) Tim Hennes explained the request was a variance for two requirements In the Iowa City Housing Code; the natural light requirement and the bedroom escapetrescue window requirement. He explained that Sue Dulek would give the Board some criteria to help them with their determination. She specified that this was a variance —not an appeal. And that the applicants were asking for a determination that the two provisions in question should not apply to their particular situation. She explained that of the four findings listed in the Housing Cade that could be applied to a variance request, only two applied: #1-That there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in carrying out the a strict letter of any notice or order; and #4- Such a variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the code in securing the public health, safety and general welfare. Crissy-Caganeili explained the position of the applicants and provided background for the project. The project is to provide permanent supportive housing for persons who meet the HUD definition of the chronically homeless and have a diagnosed disability. These are also people who are frequently cycling through the criminal justice system, emergency and medical services and shelters andwhocontinue to cycle back to homelessness. And while services will be offered to these Individuals to help with any drug or alcohol issues, it is not required that they be clean and sober to be provided housing. Caganelli said, with all that in mind, the spaces have been specifically designed for this type of individual and input from other similar providers across the nation was used in the design process. Roffman stated that, in their application, they said it was critical that the window was in the living room and not the bedroom and asked for explanation. Caganelli said that the Individuals who would be tenants have [� I years and years of substance abuse and living on the streets, Because of that, theirdecision making abilities have been compromised. So, for example, based on input from other providers, when the window has been in the bedroom, tenants have gone to the windows with no clothing on. She said there is a clear difference in the decision making process and they want to provide protection for the neighborhood and any ramifications that may fall back on the tenants and staff. They want to remove the window from any Immediate line of sight from the bedroom or bathroom so that a tenant does'not immediately get drawn to the window when they might not be fully clothed. Dan Brofflt stated their rationale for granting the variance starting with the escapelrescue window requirement. He explained that this requirement in the Housing Code is similar to the language in the International Building Code (18C). He said that, in the IBC, there Is an exception to that requirement if a sprinkler system is provided. He also stated that this would not be classified as a residential occupancy but would be classified as an institutionaloccupancyand that all of the safeguards required for an institutional occupancy would be provided. He also stated that there wilt be staff on site 24 hours a day so there will additional eyes and ears on the ground at all times. Unfortunately, the Housing Code does not differentiate between residential and institutional occupancies —it just refers to dwelling units. Therefore, it does not offer that same exception — so the variance is necessary. He then addressed the requirement for natural light in every habitable room. He explained that these units were a kind of hybrid between a 1 bedroom unit and an efficiency unit. There will be an opening between the bedroom and living room but no door. The opening, however, will be less than the 50% opening minimum needed for the areas to be considered one large room. He said that the window will be large enough to exceed the percentage of natural light required for the whole area. Broffrtalso explained that, because of the challenges of the site, the units are long and narrow which also makes it difficult to bring in natural light separately to these areas. He said that the natural light requirement is there to make sure units are livable spaces and he felt their floor plan met the spirit of the code. Hennes stated that their plan would be compliant with the building code as adopted. McDonough asked V any precedent would be set if the variance was approved. Hennes stated no. Roffman asked what would happen if, in the future, this particular use ceased and the building simply became an apartment building. Hennes said the variance would carry over. John Yapp stated it was the Co's concern that it not become a precedent. He said that identifying the unique systems to be put in place such as the population to be served, the enhanced safety systems and the 24 hours staffing are important to be specked as justification for any variance. McDonough asked Brian Greer if the Fire Department had any Issues with the plan. Greer said no becauseofthe enhanced safety systems. Stan Iaverman also said he had no issues with it. John Gay stated that the space really functions as one room and that there is plenty of natural light. McDonough added that he felt this was a good contribution to the community. MOTION: French moved to approve the variance from Housing Code sections 17-5.17F.1.f and 17-5- 17G.1 based on the unnecessary hardships in carrying out the strict letter of the code and because the variance would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the code. McDonough seconded. Further discussion: None VOTE: The variance was approved with a unanimous vote 4-0 ADJOURNMENT Roffman adjourned the meeting at 4:20 C/�,-/2 )ate APPROVED