HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-02-05 Bd Comm minutesS ISLL:I``Iut"'IT Gi-L'LJz:/ ( �7�
UCt:.tjp rl: 3K I`:Ji\C�: r -r
- ..J,,.. .7 :�" 'P, -\rte•,.
rte, st ill 'thy. rs Iu1i377eF•
POOPIC's
.
�..
% CGi.L1Ci 1
- cosi .c _
CU 1I,i O )3.E' 'CO utf Ent(! } Jose
CC, u(zcile
,)mss s V• GIl OILU Of i:i7n�0
C•;."Trr ..
1_
t.0 nt1:3711.77 c: ' -
t,;o�-,• In
„� axe ,.
Vial..
i2t.( :,.. ON
_ ISi)fi7Li%i:_�].' _ '��•^
n;,�„-;• ..'.
,...< 011i Secor.C{ Prof-)OSaJ•,
in Octoberthe PCOP10's Alliance
JE �2L•I !)T T.,',_;'•;-7 i;” r'
city COU171--il se '"Lenin 5-' s ti}::�_
-
�
- .i 1.
LitoS: CiLLi ;o: ::
-:a'_I ._l i'Jo.•
cfl7pd for.
%trS.l'O rawalYti .
es �..,r
1I•.'. Qrte: ?'O i &M
ie. r Task k _'C- i c, r -r ,_
_. ;LS opr.t MCI
Cr
a_, ussiblo
af:i.lrli
..o "Li'v YS:!�..(.
�.. .. this .l n 5:`S�J' My)
CH'til s, I:t`O'? the
�:.
aud Conti, )uz! i=7.a�•131531'.I'o
�j1i 7 rr 7
o
Tri.)Y Church
S <s7i.Oxi:e! p"rim I......_.
it0 taii7i:,- to cC:.,i7 r '
ti
Z IO Vii' - ''iIC C:. LV could'. }? -
tile
' s ^iii On l:'Oi'1: -•t..
s'
port.-_zt iic city r s'sould
--.
t7Ubl ci.ze ,f r ..,.
;�
ymmi'loi-, i1:i re 1:0t b• j b la
Lo
feel
he
7-1.:
712'• 712C L _
r
to egAlasize
to 1vCnjtjn qjjil
I)JOi',
use this >:xr`}:.s to do
that.
December 11, 1973
The Board of Appeals of Iowa City, Iowa, met in regular session
on the 11th day of December, 1973, at 8:30 a.m. in the Conference
Room of the Department of Community Development in the Eastlawn
Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
Handrails
Max Selzer
Bob Burns
Charles Ruppert
Harold Breeder
Lane Mashaw
Charles Gillett
Mr. Burns brought up the subject of handrails at 36" height
versus 42" height as required in the Code Book. It was felt
by Mr. Selzer and Mr. Ruppert that this was a Uniform Building
Code and -therefore the Board should not ammend the 1973 Code
to reflect the 36" height.
Fee Schedule
The subject of fee schedules was brought up. As per requested
by the Board on November 27, 1973, Mr. Gillett investigated
the total moneys taken in versus total disbursements of the
Division. -These figures were given on December 11, and they
indicated that during the year of 1972, 75% of the total
costs of operation were deferred by building permits and fees.
In 1973, the percentage has dropped to 53% of total disburse-
ments versus moneys collected. A discussion was then held and
it was felt by all members present,that the new 1973 Uniform
Building Code should be adopted and the building valuation
data be taken from the Uniform Building Code magazine published
bimonthly with the up -date on data coming out every four months.
It was also recommended that we strike out the existing require-
ment that all -multi -family dwellings be built as fire zone 2
and adopt what is provided for in the Uniform Building Code.
This passed unanimously.
is Uniform Building Code Magazine
After much discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Selzer that all
the Uniform Building Code be adopted plus quarterly Uniform
J
•
Building Code magazine current up -date, unless proof of other
-costs predicate that the building did not cost this much. Per-
mits would be issued on this basis. -
Ground Fault Indicator
A discVssion was also had on the subject of ground fault in-
dicators. Mr. Selzer related the fact that OSHA people have
thrown out the ground fault indicator circuits. He has
volunteered to supply the Board with the -appropriate litera-
ture stating this as soon as it arrives. Mr. Gillett was
directed to give this information to Mr. Bowers, the electrical
inspector, so that he may relay it on to his Electrical Board.
drs
Respectfully submitted,
Z � � _. /il �I' d- V"
ar esi ett, ecretary
The Board of Adjustment of Iowa City, Iowa met in regular
session on December 19, 1973 at 10:00 a.m. in the Council
Chambers at the Civic Center.
MEMBERS PRESENT;
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
Kenneth Dueker
Vern Goe dken
Richard Malcolm
Dan Perry
Paul Hoeferle
Charles Gillett
Omer Letts
Doris Schornhorst
The members of the Board elected Mr. Dueker
Mr. Dueker called the meeting to order.
as their chairman.
Mr. Malcolm made a motion that the minutes of the September 26,
1973 meeting of the Board of Adjustment be approved. Mr. Goedken
seconded the motion. The minutes were approved.
FRONT YARD VARIANCE AT 330 SOUTH SUMMIT STREET
Mr. Philip Leff appeared as
Aydelotte who reside at this
counsel for Mr. & Mrs, W. 0.
address
Mr. Leff felt that the Staff Report and attached documents
clearly set out the location of the property and the section
of the Code that the fence violates. Mr. Leff submitted to
the Board an affidavit by the building contractor to which
was attached a letter to the Department of Community Develop-
ment and a copy of the plans and specifications for the fence.
Mr. Leff stated that he and his client felt that the issue
did not involve an interpetation of the ordinance. The por-
tion of the fence that abuts Court Street is clearly in vio-
lation of the technical language of the ordinance in that it
is 6 feet rather than 4 feet because it was a -corner lot, and
consequently -a front yard.
The fence was erected for a two -fold purpose:
1. To screen the yard from -an apartment building con-
structed to the rear. of Mr. Aydelotte's property
and constructed to close 'to'the boundary line by
mistake of the builder.
•
2. The Court Street portion was to provide privacy and
to keep pedestrians from cutting across his yard.
Also Mr. Aydelotte had some problems with theft and
burglary and thought the fence would help with this
situation, ,too.
It was pot crucial to Mr. Aydelotte as -to the height of the
particular fence, however since he was erecting the fence,
he felt that he should put-up the best that would comply with
the Ctiy Ordinance. Mr. Aydelotte instructed his contractor,
Mr. Tommy Henderson, to get whatever necessary permit from the
City, as he believed it was a prerequisite for installing the
fence. Mr. Henderson prepared elaborate plans and wrote the
letter to the Department of Community Development. He took
this letter to the City offices and talked with Mr. Omer Letts.
Mr. Leff assured the Board that both he and his client and
Mr. Henderson believed that there was a lack of communication
and not a malicious attempt at misinformation. Mr. Leff stated
that it was clear to him how this misunderstanding came about.
Mr. Henderson came prepared to obtain a building permit, but
was told by Mr. Letts that a building permit was not necessary
and that he could place his fence at a ineight of 6 feet as
long as it was not in the front yard. Mr. Aydelotte and Mr.
Henderson assumed that since Mr. Letts had been to the pro-
perty several times concerning the apartment house, he was
aware of the precise location of the lot and that he knew it
was a corner lot, as defined in the City Ordinance.
Mr. Aydelotte asked Mr. Henderson to again check with the City
to be sure no building permit was necessary. Mr. Henderson
called and talked to two other individuals in the City, neither
of which he remembers their names nor was it Mr. Letts. Again
they assured him that a building permit was not necessary and
a 6 foot fence was permissible. Therefore, the fence was in-
stalled.
The cost of redoing the fence to _reduce it from 6 feet to 4
feet would be approximately $200. Also it would weaken the
fence because the fence would have to be sawed off. This would
completely change the style and design of the fence.
Mr. Leff stated that it appeared to
the Staff seemed to be recommending
was that it wopld set precedence for
same situation. Mr. Leff felt that
was a unique one in that he did make
ply with the City Ordinance.
him that the only reason
that the variance be denied
others faced with the
Mr. Aydelotte's situation
a sincere effort to com-
It was brought out that there are two fences on
One is.a chain link fence at the rear of the lot
is a board fence, which is the one in question.
the property.
and the other
Mr. Malcolm questioned Mr. Henderson as to how long he had been
in the construction business. Mr. Henderson stated that he is
not in the construction business, but more in the property manage-
ment business. Mr. Henderson has work in the Iowa City area
during the summers for about six years. He stated his work as
taking care of property of absent owners. Mr. Henderson explained
that the reason he had such detailed specifications is that he
feels he must let the absent owner know in as much detail as
possible what he is doing with their property. The fence was
constructed by the Swenson Fence Company of Davenport and the
chain link fence was put up by Nagle Lumber of Iowa City.
Mr. Goedken asked Mr. Henderson when exactly the fence was
erected. Mr.Henderson stated that a temporary fence was
erected of number 9 wire and orange posts and left up for
approximately _1h months prior to 'erecting the permanent fence.
The permanent fence was startedinlate August and finished
the first part of September.
Mr. Aydelotte stated that for his purposes, a 4 foot fence
would have worked as well as a 6 foot fence, but since they
decided to go to the expense of erecting one, he wanted it
to be as good as possible. Now that the fence is up, Mr.
Aydelotte feels that it is a bit of a hardship for him to
have to saw it off and rebuild it according to Code.
No one was present to speak against the appeal.
Mr. Dueker reminded the Board that they had three means by
which to view this case:
1. As a hardship.
2. A mistake on the part of the Building Official.
3. Granting the variance in the public interest,
A discussion was held between the Board members as to how
this situation could be avoided in the future. It was felt
by the Board members that a letter should be sent to the fencing
contractors stating the specifications for fences in Iowa City.
Mr. Letts acknowledged that he had visited with Mr. Henderson
about the fence before it was constructed.
Mr. Malcolm made a motion that the variance be granted. Mr.
Goedken seconded the motion. Mr. Dueker and Mr. Goedken voted
the variance be granted. Mr. Malcolm voted the motion be denied
on the basis the he has a feeling of responsibility to the City
and to the property owner in respect to all contractors that if
they are in proper attitude with the City Code, they must know
that they are the only source a private individual has in order
to understand the Codes of the City. It is impossible for an
• average citizen to know what is going on with all of the codes.
Mr. Malcolm.stated that he believes that the buck must be
stopped some where and -that it is in the hands of the contractor.
It is also in the hands of the City Staff to make sure that all
codes are known as much as possible and that all contractors be
advised in such a matter that they will be held responsible for
any corrections.Mr.Malcolm also stated that he believes that
a property owner has a right to go to the contractor and demand
corrections.
lie
The variance at 330 South Summit Street was denied by the Board
as the variance must be approved by three members of the Board.
Mr. Leff questioned whether it- had _to be a majority of the mem-
bers present or a majority of the members of the entire Board.
lie asked that the Staff get a ruling from the City Attorney on
this matter and that he be contacted with the results. He also
asked that if the variance was denied, that he be able to pre-
sent his case before the entire Board.
FRONT YARD VARIANCE AT 836 KESWICK DRIVE
Mr. James Roelofs, the owner of this property, was present to
speak in favor of this variance. He stated the following rea-
sons for erecting the fence:
1. He has a two year old child and a black labrador dog.
2. He wants to construct a barrier along Benton Street.
Mr. Roelofs called the City offices and described the fence
as a wooden fence, but does not recall describing it as a 6
foot high fence. The information given him was the specified
feet he would have to remain from the curb, and with this he
complied.
The fence was constructed in the last week of June. It is a
wooden fence on the Benton Street side with a rail fence around
the remainder of the back yard.
Mr. Roelofs stated the following reasons for desiring to keep
the existing fence:
1. Time and expense involved.
2. Benton Street makes the visual and noise barrier
from the back _yard is convenient. The fence is, at
6 feet high, much _better since at 4 feet high the
people walking on the sidewalk could see over a
4 foot fence. Also because a public park, Willow
Creek, Park is being.constructed across the street.
3. All lots which are directly to the east of Mr.
Roelofs' lot have back yards on Benton Street and
these people would be able to build fences as high
as his'on their lots.
Mr. Roelofs. also stated other locations on Benton Street where
people have put up barriers to Benton Street. However, Mr.
Gillett pointed out to the Board that several of these fences
were in University Heights, which operates under a different
code than Iowa City.
Mr. Dueker asked Mr. Roelofs if the fence could be cut down
2 feet. Mr. Roelofs stated that due to the construction of
the braces on the fence, it would be impossible to cut the
-fence off 2 feet without reconstructing the entire fence.
Mr. Roelofs also brought to the attention of the Board that
he had done the work without the aid of a contractor
Mr. Dueker read a letter from 0. J. Gode, Jr, opposing the
fence as he felt it was an obstruction .to traffic.
Mr. Roelofs submitted four letters to the Board which speak
in favor of letting the fence remain as it is. These letters
are on file with the Building Official.
Mr. Gillett stated that the fence type and construction are
within Code.
Mr. Dueker stated the issues as being as follows:
1. The extent to which there was error in the interpre-
tation conveyed over the telephone.
2. The extent to which the 6 foot fence violates the
spirit which provides for 4 foot fences on property
lines which abut streets.
Mr. Malcolm made a motion to defer the decision of the Board
until the next meeting. Mr. Goedken seconded the motion. It
carried unanimously. The next meeting is set for January 16,
1974 at 9:00 a.m.
The members decided to change the meeting time from 10:00 to
9:00 a.m.
A discussion was held and names weresubmittedto Mr. Gillett
for new Board members. These names will be submitted to the
City Council for their approval.
The meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary '