HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-12-2020 Board of AppealsBOARD OF APPEALS
Monday, October 12, 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.-Ilzoom.uslmeetinglregisterltJMscOivrDkvGNCeOt2J DtQnJrBaOwVPKkP
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 webrnar 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 971 7172 2524 when prompted. Providing
comment in person is not an option.
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: September 9, 2020
. Adjournment
If you will need disability -related accommodations modation to participate in this meeting, please
contact Tim Rennes, Building Inspection Services, at 319-3 - 211 or tiro-hennes io ra-
t . r . Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your
access needs.
1
APPROVED
MINUTES
11A CITYBOARD OFAPPEALS
TIED ESDA , SEPTEMBER 9, 2020
ELECTRONIC MEETING
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting was being held because a meeting in person was
impossible or impractical die to concerns for the health and safety of
Commission members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19.
f1 E BERSP ESENT- Andrea Frn h, ScottMcDonough, Andrw Markin (arrived : prn ,
JiWllr
MEMBERS ABSENT: John Gay
STAFF PRESENT: Tim Hennes (Sr. Building Inspector), Stan Laverman (Senior Housing
Inspector), Sue Dulek (Assistant City Attorney), Brian Greer (Fire
Marshal)
OTHERS PRESENT: Crissy Caganelli, Dan Broffit, Catherine Gerlach
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL.: None.
CALL TO ORDER:
Tim Hennes called the meeting to order at 4.00 PM
ELECTION OF OFFICERS.
MOTION: McDonough moved to electAndrea French as chairperson of the Board ofiAppeals. Walker
seconded.
VOTE: French was elected as chairperson of the BOA by 3-0 unanimous vote (Martin not present for
the vote).
MOTION: Walker moved to elect Scott McDonough as vice -chair of the Board of Appeals. French
seconded.
VOTE: McDonough was elected vice -chair of the BOA by a 3-0 unanimous vote (Martin not present
for the vote).
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES:
Hennes noted that in the minutes there were r two recommendations to Council that were r not actually
APPROVED
recommendations, so those should be omitted or deleted.
MOTION: McDonough moved to approve the minutes from the July 1, 2019 meeting with revisions.
Walker seconded.
VOTE: The motion was approved by a -o unanimous vote.(Martin not present for the vote)
REQUEST UEST FOR A VALIANCE FROM HOUSING CODE SECTIONS 17- -17 F. 1. f. AND 17- -17
G.1, (PROPOSED BUILDING ON PARCEL# 1022133012 EAST of SHELTER HORSE AT 429
SOUTHGATE AVE AND VILEST of 5 - 509 SOUTHGATE A E
Hermes explained the request, there's two provisions in the Housing Code that the appellant would
like to have the Board review and give a variance on. First is the escape and rescue window in
every sleeping room requirement and also that every habitable room shall have a window or skylight
directly to the outdoors. He also acted that Assistant City Attorney Sue Dulek provided a memo to
the Board outlining the four conditions that must be met to grant this variance,
Dan Broffit (Neumann Monson Architects) began by noting the building as they are proposing it will
fully meet Building Code, they are not seeking any kind of a variance there. He also said if this
application sounds familiar, it is because they sought a variance to the enact two same Housing
Code provisions a couple of gears ago when they constructed cross Park Place. Broffit explained
that was the permanent supportive housing that Shelter House constructed and manages over on
the southeast side of town and that application was approved. Therefore, this time they have the
benefit of having those units in place atnd can understand how those have functioned in practice.
Broffit stated for this development the unit layout which is attached to the packet shows it's a
relatively small unit and is intended for single occupants only and none of these units will be
occupied by more than one person at a time. There is a separate living room/kitchen area and then a
separate bedroom area that is divided by a bathroom that sits in between and they are open to each
other. There's no door or anything to close off those spaces since it's just a single occupant
however, it was determined back when they did this the first time that since that corridor between the
two spaces does not meet the minimum habitable space dimensions, it would be considered a one
bedroom unit. Due to the size of the units and the nature of the site, much as it was with Cross Park
Place, it makes it difficult to develop the site due to the space constraints and to get the number of
units that was desired and is allowed by the special zoning for this particular use type. Broffit stated
they are asking that the window into the living room and kitchen area essentially function as both the
required rescue window for the unit that is required by provision 1 - -17 F. 1 and as the minimum
glazed area for the unit required by provision 1 7--'17 G. Broffitt noted there are a few reasons why
this particular unit design is desirable with the bedroom not having a window directly to the exterior
and separated from that one which the shelter House folios can speak to more but having a separate
bedroom is preferred for privacy concerns and to have the unit design follow trauma informed design
principles by trying to remove excess stimuli from the sleeping area and providing there with a place
where they can voluntarily withdraw from the public facing spaces. It does offer an advantage for
federal grant applications that than they are in process for, and also since this housing development
will be funded long terra, largely by housing vouchers, it does provide an advantage there. Broffit
stated the feedback they received from the units constructed at Cross Park Place is that the units
have functioned very well as intended so those are the reasons why they would Ii} a to proceed with
this variance.
Broffit next addressed some of the concerns about making sure that this rneets the intent of the
Code and is going to provide adequate life safety. This building is being proposed to be developed
as 1-1 condition 1 occupancy, not a R occupancy, a one occupancy per unit and the rescue windows
are triggered in the Building code only when it is R2 or R3 or 1 4, occupancies. The provision that i
in the Housing code does not make a distinction between F occupancies and I occupancies! it just
APPROVED
simply says dwelling units which these would be dwelling units. But going to the I occupancy offers a
few extra Ieve Is of life safety protection, first and foremost being that it g e uld require a fuII NFPA1
sprinkler system. There are also some additional provisions that are required for fire alarm and
detection systems that go along with that I occupancy and the Building Code is more restrictive on
heightened area. Additionally, this building will be staffed 2 /7 and so if there is any kind of an
emergency, there will be staff on site that is able to sound the alarm. Broffitt believes that provides a
basis for why they don't feel that the rescue window is necessary to be d 1rectly into the bed room
however they will be providing a rescue window it will just be in the living room and there's very little
barrier being that the unit is open to get from the bedroom area to the rescue window that will be
provided.
As far as the natural daylight provision, they do have some reasons why they would like to have the
bedroom area be in a place where one is able to withdraw. The minimum glazing area is % of the
floor area typically for habitable spaces in dwelling units, they would propose that the glazed area
that they provide for the unit be at minimum % of the total floor area of habitable space that would
be the living room/kitchen area, the corridor between the two rooms and the bedroom. They would
consider all of that space when figuring the minimum glazed area. To illustrate examples Broff'it
showed some photos of ghat the units at Cross Park Place look like.
Cri s r Caganelli (Shelter House) stated they are happy to answer any questions but noted that
roffitt did a very good job of explaining the logic behind and the desire to have the floor space or
the floor plan that they propose. She added they have about a year and a half of track record now of
the units being occupied over at cross Park Place and it is working really well. She also noted it is a
very delicate issue as far as not wanting those windows directly in the sleeping area, certainly for the
trauma informed aspect of it, but also because it is a preventive measure for not only the tenants
and for the staff", but for the neighborhood. She explained that other providers that they worked with
years ago when they were developing this concept noted that was the major concern that they had
and what they would change in the properties that they had developed and working with the
population. They are housing entirely a population that meets H JDs definition of chronically
homeless and that means that individuals health is very deteriorated, there is a chronic mental
illness, chronic substance abuse, and frankly, their brain chemistry is permanently changed. A lot of
impulsivity issues result from than and so other providers in the country that they reached out to
having a standard floor plan with the bedroom facing the windows caused a lot of problems with
neighborhood complaints. This proposed floorplan avoids that. It is a protective measure, it is a
preventative measure, and it is not compromising peoples enjoyment of their units or their safety.
McDonough asked Fire Marshal Greer if he had any issues or concerns, which he did not noting with
the I occupancy, they are getting a much stronger and fuller sprinkler system and an alarm system.
Stan Lverrnan stated the building will be compliant with the current Building Codes and he had no
concerns with the Board granting a variance.
MOTION: walker moved to grant the variance from Housing Code sections 17-5-17 F.1 and 17- -17
G based on the unnecessary hardship in carrying out the strict letter of the Code and the particular
circumstances presented, specific application of the provisions would be arbitrary in this case.
Extending the time would not solve the issue. The variance is in harmony with the general purpose
and intent of the code and public health, safety and welfare are maintained. McDonough seconded.
VOTE: The variance was approved unanimously -0.
ADJOURNMENT: T:
APPROVED
MOTION: llalker to adjourn the meeting. Martin Seconded.
Meeting adjourned at 4:32 PM
Chairperson, Beard of Appeals Date