Loading...
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 '