Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-10-09 Bd Comm minutesMINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 27, 1979 -- 4:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Harris, Baldus, Bartels MEMBERS ABSENT: Conlin STAFF PRESENT: Boothroy, Wilkinson, Ryan FORMAI. ACTIONS TAKEN: i 1. That the request b q y Quentin I1. Pitzen fora variance in Sections 8026B a. and 8.10.3A.76 be granted to allow the construction of a one story garage and work- shop with a gable roof (with basement if necessary) with a front yard setback aligned perpendicular to the adjacent house and on the same course and distance as the front of the house and providing that the south wall of the improvement shall be no further than 45 feet from the south wall of the dwelling on the property. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Harris called the meeting to order and called for consideration of the minutes of the .hely 26, 1979, meeting. Baldus moved, and Bartels seconded, that the minutes be approved as circulated. Motion carried unanimously (3-0). V-7908. Continuation of a public hearing on an application submitted by Quentin H. Pitzen for a variance in Sections 8.10.26B and 8.10.3A.76 to allow construction of an accessorybuilding g (garage) within the required front yard. Boothroy stated that the opinion of the staff has not changed from that stated in the staff report. Mr, Robert Downer, attorney for the Pitzens, stated that he had done considerable research on the question of hardship and had sent a memo to Mr. Baldus and to Ms. Cook on this topic. He further indicated that topographical survey has been done. Considerable discussion by the Board members followed regarding the estimates submitted by Wolf Construction Company and Brumm Construction. Mr. Downer explained that the estimate from Wolf Construction represented a minimum of $15,000 plus crane costs for the foundation and that the estimate from Brumm Construction represented several variables for construction of the garage itself. Baldus moved, and Bartels seconded, that the request by eif. l variance in Sections 8.10.2611 and 8.10.3A.76 be granted ttoallowtheconstruction of a one story garage and workshop with a gable roof (with basement if necessary) with a front yard setback aligned perpendicular to the adjacent house and on the same course and distance as the front of the house and providing that the south wall of the improvement shall be no further than 45 feet from the south wall of the dwelling on the property. Motion carried unanimously. i i i i L; IIICROFILMED BY JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS -DES IFIOIIIES Board of Adjustment September 27, 1979 Page 2 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Prepared b (, !, Sandra Wilkinson, PPD Secretary Approved b,\I.0 MICROFILMED BY JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOVIES MINUTES IOIYA CITY PLANNING G ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1979 __ 7:30 P.M. LAW LIBRARY MEMBERS PRESENT: .Jakobsen, Blum, Lehman, Vetter, Ogesen, Lundquist, Kammermeyer STAFF PRESENT: Schmeiser The Planning and Zoning Commission held a special meeting for the purpose of reviewing the new zoning ordinance. Mr. Ralph Stoffer, representative of the Home Builders Association, was present to participate in the discussion. The Commission reviewed the AG General Agricultural Zone and the RR -1 Rural Residential Zone. Revisions which the Commission requested be made are on file with Don Schmeiser in the Department of Planning and Program Development. With no further business the meeting was adjourned. The next special meeting of the Commission to review the new zoning ordinance will be September 27, 1979. At that time the Commission will review the RS -S Low Density Single Family Residential Zone and the RS -8 Medium Density Single Family Residential Zone. Prepared bl MICROFILMED BY JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1101RES r Steinbach stated that Mr. Gillett's appeal had been properly filed. He had received service of Notice of Violation on June 22, 1979 and on that same day he filed a request for a hearing before the Housing Appeals Board. Steinbach stated that the first violation noted of all the violation notices was lack of smoke detectors in all dwelling units, a violation of Chapter 9.30.11.Q. He then read the applicable code section into the minutes. Malone clarified the appeal by stating to Mr. Gillett that it was his understanding that Mr. Gillett was not only asking for an alternative i method of supplying fire protection and smoke, protection to the tenants but that he also felt that it was not within the police powers of the City to enforce said housing codes in this respect. Gillett confirmed that those were, in fact, his feelings. i Malone then read into the minutes Chapter 17-1 of the Municipal Code of Iowa City which states the purpose of the Housing Code and its inspectors and the authority for them to do their job. He further stated that this i had been the first inspection conducted at Seville Apartments in which the inspector was able to enter all the units at the complex. It was mentioned that maybe a couple of units had not been inspected, however, I MICROFILMED BY JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MORIEs 189.5 MINUTES IOWA CITY HOUSING APPEALS BOARD SEPTEMBER 13, 1979 8:00 AM MEMBERS PRESENT: Klaus, Owens, VanderZee and Graf STAFF PRESENT: Cook, Steinbach, Malone, and Kuebler SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND ACTION TAKEN Chairperson Klaus asked for corrections to the minutes. Cook asked that the Board turn to page 5 of the prepared minutes and stated that the last sentence in the first incomplete paragraph was stated out of context and further asked that the sentence be dropped from the minutes. After a short discussion it was agreed that the context of the sentence was irrelevant to the facts of the case. VanderZee moved, Owens seconded that the sentence in question be removed from the Appeals Board minutes of August 9, 1979. The change was made by unanimous i vote. VanderZee moved, Owens seconded, that the Appeals Board minutes of August 9, 1979 be accepted as approved. Minutes were accepted by unanimous vote. Chairman swore in all those who would testify. Steinbach stated that Mr. Gillett's appeal had been properly filed. He had received service of Notice of Violation on June 22, 1979 and on that same day he filed a request for a hearing before the Housing Appeals Board. Steinbach stated that the first violation noted of all the violation notices was lack of smoke detectors in all dwelling units, a violation of Chapter 9.30.11.Q. He then read the applicable code section into the minutes. Malone clarified the appeal by stating to Mr. Gillett that it was his understanding that Mr. Gillett was not only asking for an alternative i method of supplying fire protection and smoke, protection to the tenants but that he also felt that it was not within the police powers of the City to enforce said housing codes in this respect. Gillett confirmed that those were, in fact, his feelings. i Malone then read into the minutes Chapter 17-1 of the Municipal Code of Iowa City which states the purpose of the Housing Code and its inspectors and the authority for them to do their job. He further stated that this i had been the first inspection conducted at Seville Apartments in which the inspector was able to enter all the units at the complex. It was mentioned that maybe a couple of units had not been inspected, however, I MICROFILMED BY JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MORIEs 189.5 Housing Appeal �Soard September 13, 1979 Page 2 the point was made that in the past only spot inspections had been done at the larger apartment complexes. Cook asked Malone if he was, in fact, in his testimony not limiting his testimony to only the smoke detectors but it was to include all violations written in regards to Seville Apartments. Malone replied that yes, everything that was listed on the Notices of Violation was what he was referring to. Malone then read further through the list of violations and stated that he did, in fact, find all of these violations during his annual inspection of the property. Malone stated that if he had not written all violations as he had conducted his inspection he would be negligent in his job duties and subject to disciplinary action. Cook asked Malone if he had brought pictures regarding the violations to the hearing. Malone replied that he had not. Gillett stated that he basically agreed with the code, however, he stated that the fire problems that Seville had, have mainly been due to hot grease, kitchen type fires. He further stated that he would request a policy that tenants who requested smoke detectors would be given smoke detectors and those that did not would not. Gillette also stated that he would rather supply each dwelling unit with fire extinguishers rather than smoke detectors since to do both would double the cost. He felt that since the fire problems at Seville have been the kitchen type fires that fire extinguishers would be much more effective. Gillett then asked Malone if he, during the course of other inspections, had run into situations where smoke detectors had been disconnected either from the main supply source or from the battery. Malone replied that on an average in most all complexes with twelve units or more there would normally be at least one or two detectors which had been disconnected. Malone stated that at one of the complexes that he inspects, the manager goes with him and carries batteries for the smoke detectors so that they can be replaced at time of inspection. Gillett stated that he felt that a fire extinguisher in a dwelling unit would be much more effective in fighting a fire than a smoke detector that had been disconnected. He then restated that he would like to supply smoke detectors for those units which the occupants would not remove batteries, and not supply smoke detectors to those units not requesting smoke detectors. VanderZee stated that he did not feel the Appeals Board had the power to grant a variance and he also understood that the City could be held liable for those units in which the lack of smoke detection systems was not enforced. Klaus stated that this requirement has been made of all other large apartment complexes and that she felt that Seville should have to meet the same requirements. Gillett then questioned the police powers of the City to enforce, for health and safety reasons, violations such as dripping faucets and stained paint. He did not feel that most violations listed on the Notices of AF... FIICROFILMED BY JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES Housing Appeal, Joard September 13, 1979 Page 3 Violation directly related to health and safety problems. Gillett then questioned Malone's inspection insofar as stained and peeling paint violations. Malone replied that often times when inspecting top floor apartments, it is an indication of roof and weather problems when it is found that walls or ceilings are stained or peeling. He stated that if, during inspection, he does not write those types of violations up, the end result is that tenants come to the office and make complaints regarding leaks into their units and he, as an inspector, must at that point conduct another inspection and issue further Notices of Violation. He stated that it was his duty as an inspector to document all violations noticed during inspection. Gillett then asked Malone if he did, in fact, determine that where there was stained paint there was also a leak in the roof. Malone replied that it was a case of simple maintenance on each and every unit and that, therefore, it was a valid violation. Gillett then questioned Malone what the purpose was of writing up drippy faucets. Malone replied that while conducting inspections at other complexes, the managers thank the inspector for citing leaky faucets since they are the ones who are paying for that wasted water. Cook stated that the basis for the Housing Code was to protect the welfare of the community and had been upheld by the Supreme Court of Iowa with regards to Chapter 413 of the Housing Code of Iowa. She further stated that in Chapter 413, the State had given the municipality the authority to enact their own housing codes and to be more stringent than the State code if the legislative body deems it necessary. She further stated that it is the reponsibility of the Appeals Board to rely on past court cases in determining violations of the Housing Code. Since the police powers of the City have been upheld in the court, there can be no question that the City does, in fact, have the authority to enforce its own housing code. Therefore, the Board must determine whether violations in regards to the Municipal Housing Code do exist. She then asked Mr. Gillett if the situations listed on the Notices of Violations do, in fact, exist. Gillett stated that yes, the situations to his knowledge did exist. VanderZee stated that since it was the appellant's feeling that these situations did exist and that there was no question as to the powers of i the City he felt that the sum of the Notices of Violation should be dealt with as a package. It was agreed by everyone at the hearing that that should be the case. Gillett stated that before a vote be taken he would like to bring to the attention of the Board more questions. Cook asked how many buildings there were at Seville. Gillett replied six, a total of 288 units. Gillett brought attention to a violation regarding building 910 West Benton and a violation noted as burned hole in the hall carpet. Gillett stated that a frying pan had been set down on the carpet and that is what produced the burn in the carpet. Malone confirmed that statement. I MICROFILMED BY JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES Housing Appea' Board September 13, 1979 Page 4 Malone stated that there are cases of tenant abuse that the insepctor must write up as a violation to the owner/operator because, according to the code, they are the responsible party. Gillett also questioned violations regarding a dishwasher which did not work at time of inspection and a missing heat lamp in a fixture in a bathroom. It was noted by Gillett that these were supplied facilities. Malone responded stating that it was noL the responsibility of Mr. Gillett to supply these particular facilities. He stated that in order to comply with the code he could simply remove those facilities. VanderZee moved that all the violations regarding 800, 810, 900, 910, 1000 and 1010 West Benton be upheld by the Appeals Board. Graf seconded. The violations were upheld unanimously. Discussion that followed informed Gillett that he would have 30 days in which to file suit in regards to the aforementioned decision. BOARD TO CONSIDER THE CA STEVEN F BRI ur 720 EAST MARKET STREET ----�— 7t?- All who would testify were sworn in by the Chairperson. Bright stated that they were appealing the Notice of Violation issued to them in regards to lack of handrails on the stated that the reason said properties. He further betwefor their appeal dealt with the relationship en they as owners of the property and the previous history of the property. He stated that to the best of his knowledge, since the apartments have been built in 1969, they had always been in compliance with the Housing Codes of Iowa City. had entered into aBright stated that in May of 1978, he n agreement to purchase the property from Mr. Boatman With the stipulation that it meet the requirements of the Housing Code. He then stated that since it was a condition of the sale, that in January of 1979 the previous owner, Mr. Boatman, sent to him a certificate of compliance regarding the property and that prior to the closing he had requested that the department conduct an inspection of the property so inathe nclosinglhowever. Inencies d Mar h of found1978 the i inspeat that time. ction was causeaedelay no deficiencies were found. He stated that now, according to estimates and that the owners have received, it will cost $750-$1000 in order to install the necessary handrails. Bright stated that their appeal was based on the fact that they had shown inspections good faith towards the City in requesting the unfair that they the property and that at this point in time they felt it inspections had not shown ey were being asked to spend additional money becuase prior a lack of handrails. He then asked that there be a variance granted in this case since the property had been in this condition for ten years. Bright further stated that although he was aware of the City receiving a complaint in regards to the stairs without the handrails, neither the owners nor the resident manager were aware of any such problem. He reiterated his previous statement by saying that he did not think it was at all fair that they be held responsible at this point in time since they had played by the rules. Klaus informed the board members that this case - --. MICROFILMED BY JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES M ^. Housing Appeal. doard September 13, 1979 Page 5 had been heard in the absence of Mr. Bright at another Appeals Board hearing however, due to a letter she received from Mr. Bright, she determined that the case would be reheard at this meeting. She stated that the violation had been upheld at the prior hearing. Steinbach stated that the appeal had been properly filed and that the information contained in Mr. Bright's testimony was factual in that they, the owners, had been quite cooperative with the department with regards to the property in question. Kuebler stated that on June 8, 1979 the department received a complaint regarding the steps from an unidentified man who said he had fallen down said steps. Kueber conducted an inspection regarding the complaint on the same afternoon and verified the fact that there were no handrails and later, on June 11, 1979, he revisited the site to measure the steps to determine the number of handrails needed. He stated that subsequent to the last inspection he issued Notices of Violation to Mr. Bright regarding lack of handrails. Pictures of the steps, which had been previously entered into the record, were passed around for the Board members. Bright stated that they were not disputing the fact that handrails did not exist, nor were they disputing the fact that the Housing Code requires said handrails. Graf asked if the age of the tenants had changed since their purchase of the property. Bright replied no, that there was one elderly couple who had lived at the property since the building was built and the remainder of the occupants are students. Kuebler stated that in his review of the file, certificates of compliance had been issued in 1977, however, he was unable to find any certificates issued since that time. Bright stated that on March 13 a violation had been issued with regard to lack of a handrail, but such handrail was located on the inside of the building rather than the outside. Klaus asked when the requirement of handrails came into the ordinance. Steinbach replied that handrails had been in the Housing Code since May 19, 1978 and that that portion of the Code has been amended as of May 19, 1979 in regards to how many handrails would be needed on steps of certain dimensions. Steinbach clarified the code by stating that whenever there are four or more risers, there must be a handrail and the width of the steps determines how many handrails. Bright felt that the requirement of a handrail was in existence at the time the building was built and that there should never have been an occupancy permit issued to the building if, in fact, there was this lack of handrails. i II1CROFILMED BY JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES Housing Appeal�,oard September 13, 1979 Page 6 Cook asked that the certificates of compliance dated 1977 be entered into the records. She then asked Mr. Bright if he had been accompanied by another inspector, other than Inspector Kuebler, during the March 1979 inspection. Bright answered that yes, Phyllis Kelley had inspected the property at that time. It was then established that Inspector Kuebler had only done an exterior inspection during the month of June and at no other time had conducted an inspection of the property. Bright stated that during the inspection in March the major violation noted at that time was lack of smoke detectors on both buildings. Other violations were not numerous and were in regards to normal maintenance items. All corrections regarding that inspection were made by April 9, 1979.e further and to the best of histed that they were ued a kn knowledge it wasmstillbaovalid permit. Cook stated that Mr. Bright had a valid argument insofar as he had relied upon the inspectors to conduct an accurate inspection of the property. She further stated that unfortunately the law is not in agreement with his time due to an contention that he would not be responsible to make corrections at this el arguments cannot be inaccurate inspection. e dealing withthe C Shethe their remedy in regards to the problem itself would be against the seller insofar as not living up to the terms of the contract. She felt that a breach of the contract had taken place. The City did not feel good about this particular situation but it was the case that the City could not be i responsible for the negligence of a prior inspector. Bright asked that if the situation had not taken place so closely after the sale of the property if the same rules would hold true, for instance if it was found that a room was not built large e would it still be someone else'nough in the first place s responsibility besides the City's. i Cook stated that the Appeals Board does not have the right to grant any variances with regard to the Housing Code. i Breazeale asked about the validity of the Housing Permit since it was not scheduled to expire until January of 1980. Cook replied that since a violation had been found, the housin j no longer valid due to that violation. 9 Permit was Cook stated that if a license were issued and a party were to violate the terms of the license, it would be the same situation that is the policy in regards to the housing permits. VanderZee asked about statements which are found on the housing permit in regards to the fact that it states that a building is in compliance, however, the permit does not guarantee that the requirements of the building, zoning or fire code are met by the issuance of the permit. MICROFILMED BY JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES Housing Appeal bard September 13, 1979 Page 7 Cook responded, the building could be in compliance with the Housing Code but not be in compliance with the codes of some other divisions or departments. She stated that those clauses are meant to alert the owners that there are other inspections needed on property in order that it comply with all the codes of the City. Bright stated his frustration in regards to the validity of the issuing of housing permits in that it is almost impossible to find any piece of property in Iowa City that is actually in compliance with the Code since at any reinspection other violations could be written up because the insepctor is there and it is his duty to issue such notices. Breazeale then questioned the validity of any inspection on any piece of property. VanderZee stated that it is his understanding that the housing inspectors do not tryand go into buildings which are supposedlyin compliance and try to find violations. In this particular case, it is a matter of fact I that the department received a complaint and upon viewing the photographs of the steps in question, it is noticed that there appears to be some settling and that the dimensions of the risers do not seem to be consistent. He stated that due to the condition of the steps, he would never grant a variance in this case and he would feel responsible if anyone were to fall on the steps. VanderZee moved that the violation not be upheld and that it go on record that it was the Appeals Board's feelings that the City conducted a negligent inspection, Motion died due to lack of second. Graf stated that she felt the handrails should be installed. Klaus told the board that a memo had been issued to the Board members by Angela Ryan, Assistant City Attorney, in regards to the estoppel question which stated that it cannot be used as a valid defense in the case of housing insepctions due to the outcome of other court cases. Vanderzee questioned if no action can be brought against the City in iregards to its inspections. Cook replied that yes, there could be negligence in the City's failure to I attempt to enforce violations which had been noted. i Owens moved that the violation be upheld as written. Graf seconded. The motion was carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Steinbach stated that appeals to be heard by Mr. Willie Wulf regarding 915 East Washington and Mr. Douglas Edmonds concerning 728 East College had been granted continuances due to the unavailability of the appellant or a the appellant's representative. It was suggested by Steinbach that a policy be enacted by the Appeals Board to control such problems in the future. IIICROFILMED BY JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS•DES MOINES Housing Appeal, card September 13, 1979 Page 8 VanderZee moved that those requesting an appeal would be notified at least ten days prior to the date of the appeal and that the appellants would have the right to ask for a continuance due to reasonable cause up to 48 hours before the Appeals Board meeting was scheduled. Owens seconded. It was agreed that this Policy would alleviate the problems of the past and also allow for rescheduling in order to meet the open meetings laws. The motion was passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned. Prepared by: Approved by:7 1 Ee� eo MICROFILMED BY JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 110111E5 i t i I I I I 1 r� 1 i MINUTES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 1979 11:00 AM ROOM A RECREATION CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Anderson, Nusser, Orelup. STAFF PRESENT: None. OTHERS PRESENT: Walker, Hearing Officer; Jay Honohan, Attorney for Fort; and three members of the media. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL None. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY MANAGER AND STAFF None. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY ATTORNEY None. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT DISCUSSION Chair Bill Nusser presiding. The meeting is a public hearing for the Commission to receive input and information related to the decision the Commission made November 20, 1978 regarding Ronald R. Fort. The Commission received input from members of the Police Department. A question was raised regarding the open meetings law and the reason for closing this meeting. A meeting was scheduled for 8:00 AM, Saturday, September 22, 1979 to complete deliberation and make a decision. The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:30 PM. Minutes prepared by June Higdon. r -- _. MICROFILMED BY JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS -DES NOIRES 16%