HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-09-25 Bd Comm minutes APPROVED
MINUTES
IOWA CITY BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, dUNE 4, 2001,4:30 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gary Haman, Anna Buss, John Roffman, Doug DuCharme, Tom Werderitsch, Wayne Maas
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Fehr
STAFF PRESENT: Tim Hennes (Sr. Building Inspector), Sue Dulek (Asst.
City Attorney), Pat Hansen (Building Inspector) and
Jann Ream (Code Enforcement Assistant acting as
Minute Taker)
OTHERS PRESENT: Roger Hansen (1600 Sycamore Street - Central States
Theater Corporation)
Dave Moore (425 Davenport Street) Stan White and Jim
Schoenfelder (201 S. Clinton -Diamond Dave's)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
None
CALL TQ ORDER:
Chairperson Roffman called the meeting to order at 4:35 P.M.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES:
Meeting minutes from the March 5, 2001 meeting were reviewed. MOTION:
Buss motioned to approve the minutes with a second by Werderitsch.
Motion passed unappposed on a 6-0 vote.
Request for a Variance from the Uniform Plumbinq Code. (1600 Sycamore Street
6 Plex theater)
Roffman requested an explanation of the variance request from Tim Hennes.
Hennes explained that during plan review for the building permit application, it
was revealed that there were not enough fixtures planned in the men's and
women's bathrooms. Hennes supplied a graph that showed the fixtures required
by the City according to the current adopted code (1997 UPC) as amended, the
fixtures that would be required by the UPC not amended, the fixtures that would
be required by the 2000 IPC, and the fixtures proposed by Central States
Theaters. Also supplied by Roger Hansen of Central States Theaters were
surveys of several of their theater managers listing fixtures existing in other
theaters and if they experienced problems with lines at their restrooms. Hennes
suggested that it was an appropriate time for Sue Dulek to give a legal opinion as
to whether the Board of Appeals had the authority to approve a variance. Dulek
stated that the Uniform Plumbing Code refers back to the by-laws of the Board of
Appeals when dealing with requests for variances. The by-laws adopted by the
Iowa City Board of Appeals stipulate that the Board cannot waive any specific
requirement required by the UPC. So what the Board needed to determine is if
the number of fixtures were a specific requirement of the UPC. If they decided it
was a specific requirement, the Board did not have the legal authority to grant a
variance. Roffman noted that the 2000 IPC required less fixtures and stated that
in the past they allowed alternatives allowed by different building codes and
could they do that do that in this instance. Hennes stated that specific language
in the Uniform Building Code allowed that but the Uniform Plumbing code did not
have that language. Dulek also noted that she could not find that the UPC
allowed alternative methods. Haman also stated that as far as he knew Iowa City
was not even going to adopt the 2000 UPC. Discussion occurred about which
codes were going to be adopted by the State. Hermes verified that, currently,
Iowa City's plumbing code is the 1997 UPC as amended and gave some history
as to why it was amended per direction by City Council. Hermes recommended
that a new look be given to the required fixtures during the next code update.
Roffman asked what the recommendation of Bernie Osvald (Iowa City Plumbing
Inspector) was in this case and Hermes said that Osvald recommended that the
City stay with what was required by the 1997 UPC as amended except for the
drinking fountains. Hennes also asked that the Board look at the surveys
provided by the applicant in which many of the theater managers state that there
are problems with lines in their theaters at the restrooms. He specifically pointed
out that Iowa City would require less fixtures than what were installed in the Coral
Ridge Mall theater for the same occupant load and that the Coral Ridge theater
manager stated that there were problems with lines. Roffman wondered how
other jurisdictions had allowed the variances. Roger Hansen (Central States
Theater) made a statement concerning his application saying that he wanted to
make it as honest as possible. He stated that these other jurisdictions had
avenues within their own code system that allowed for the variances. He also
said that in order to put in the required number of sinks, they would have to move
them across from the toilet stalls in the women's restrooms and he did not think
that would be aesthetically pleasing. He felt that the reduction they were
requesting was reasonable and fair.
Henries asked Dulek if she thought the fixture count was a specific requirement
of the code. She responded that that was the determination of the Board but if
they determined that it was a specific requirement, then the by-laws did not allow
them to waive the requirements. Roffman discussed further how other
jurisdictions allowed a variance and then asked for a motion.
MOTION: Haman moved to deny the appeal on the grounds that the number of
fixtures were a specific requirement of the 1997 UPC as amended by Iowa City
and that the Board did not have the authority to grant a variance. Motion was
seconded by Maas. Motion passed 6-0.
Appeal of the Buildinq Inspector's interpretation of the Buildinq Code (425
Davenport Street.)
Hermes reviewed the issue at 425 Davenport. The property owner at 425
Davenport Street (Dave Moore) wants to switch his electrical panel from a 60
amp fuse box to a 60 amp breaker panel. Current City Code requires that when a
service is changed it must be upgraded to current requirements which for this
particular property would require a 100 amp service. Because the 100 amp
service would also require new service conductors, MidAmerican Energy (utility
provider) is requiring that that the location of the service be moved from the back
of the house to the front of the house. MidAmerican's position is that the service
coming in off of the alley to the back of the house was located across adjoining
properties without easement agreements and therefore is illegally located.
Hermes stated that the hardship is not being caused by the City's requirement of
the upgrade from a 60 amp service to a 100 amp service but rather by the
requirement of the energy company to relocate to service location. Discussion
occurred concerning the legality of the current service location and if it was legal
at the time it was installed. Henries stated that he thought MidAmerican Energy
saw this as an opportunity to change the service location so it did not cross
neighboring properties. Moore agreed with the assessment of the situation.
Moore stated that last fall, Perry Sparks of MidAmerican had told him there were
no written easements that allowed the location on the neighboring property.
However, three weeks ago he called the central office in Davenport and they
found written easements but they thought the easements were written incorrectly.
Hansen thought that the problem was that the pole was placed on the wrong side
of the easement. Hennes asked Moore if he would object to the requirement of
the upgrade to a 100 amp service if the energy company was not requiring the
relocation of the service. Moore said he would not object. There was discussion
concerning whether the pole could be moved and if that would satisfy the energy
company. Hansen stated that he could not speak for MidAmerican but that it was
a specific requirement of the 1999 N EC that the service be upgraded to 100 amp
service because the main over current protection of the structure would be
replaced. Moore and Hansen discussed how the current fuses worked in the
house. It was reiterated that the real issue was the requirement of the relocation
of the service not the specific code requirement of the upgrade to a 100 amp
service. It was suggested to Moore that he appeal the decision of MidAmerican
to relocate the service to see if they can really fome him to relocate the service.
Roffman stated that the Board does not have the power to waive a specific
requirement of the 1999 NEC or allow an alternative method.
MOTION: Werderitsch moved to deny the appeal based on the grounds that the
100 amp upgrade was a specific requirement of the 1999 NEC and the Board did
not have the authority to waive the requirement. Motion was seconded by
Haman. Motion passed 6-0.
Appeal of the Buildinq Inspector's interpretation of the Buildincl Code (201 S.
Clinton, Old Capitol Town Center- Diamond Dave's)
Before discussion, Werderitsch verified that there was no conflict of interest
because, although his company was not the contractor, his company had bid on
the job. Hermes reviewed the issue. A new restaurant is being established on the
1st floor level of Old Capitol Town Center in a space previously occupied by a
retail use. Because it is new construction and a change of use, the restaurant
must meet the handicap requirements required by State code and adopted as
part of Iowa City's building code. The proposed plan shows a 12 inch change in
elevation (down) to access the bar location. This would not be handicap
accessible and would not be allowed under current code. The level change is
necessitated by a proposed mezzanine which requires 7 feet of head room
above and below it and by the location of existing mechanical locations in the
main structure of the mall building itself. Hennes stated that the handicap code
requires that floors on the same story be a common level throughout or be
connected by a ramp. Hennes verified with Stan White that the only issue on
appeal was the down level to the bar area and not the proposed up level to
another seating area which also was shown on the plan. White said that the up
level could be changed and that the only issue to be appealed was the down
level to the bar area. Schoenfelder stated that the floor level needed to be
dropped because of existing systems within the mall that could not be moved
without major construction. He feels that this would allow for the accessible
standards not to be met because it is structurally impracticable to do so (Section
4.1.1 (5)). He also stated that putting a ramp to make the bar area accessible
would take out the tables in that area which presents an economic hardship to
the restaurant owner. Hennes commented that the mezzanine was creating the
hardship and although they were trying to fit it into an existing structure, the
mezzanine itself was new construction and their choice to build. Hennes also
stated that the same service being offered in the bar area was not being offered
to a handicapped person in other areas of the restaurant. He felt that a ramp was
a viable alternative and was something the restaurant owner could install.
Schoenfelter felt that a ramp installed where Hennes suggested would create a
change of level for the restaurant staff that would not be safe. Stan White
(restaurant owner) stated that as a business owner who has to compete with
other businesses in town, he has to look for ways to make his business
aesthetically pleasing and cost effecient. The mezzanine will allow him to add
more seating area without having to pay for more in square footage rent to the
mall. He referred to other restaurants in Iowa City who have recently remodeled
who have not been required to meet these standards. White also stated that the
same service available at the bar is available to anyone in the handicap
accessible areas of the restaurant. Anyone can sit at a table and order a drink
and watch television; they do not have to be in the bar area to do so. White felt
that the codes create illogical irregularities because the code does not require
that the bar itself or the tables be at a handicap level. So even if the bar area is
made accessible, a handicap person could not sit at it. Haman provided an
example of a wheelchair bound person he is acquainted with who goes into bars
and is assisted onto a bar stool. Roffman said that it was his understanding that
the handicap code only required that the same service be made available to a
handicap person in a premises otherwise how could there be restaurants with
second levels. Werderitsch agreed saying it would only present a problem if the
restaurant refused to serve just drinks in the dining area. Hermes reiterated that
the code refers to a common level on the same story and any common level on
the same story needs to be accessible. The mezzanine is considered a different
story and therefore is not required to be accessible. Hennes reminded the Board
that the other restaurants in Iowa City with multi level dining area were built
before the handicap code was required. Hermes stated that the issue was that
there was a service being provided in the restaurant that was not accessible.
Buss and Roffman felt that the same service was being provided. White said that
the "dining area" as defined in the handicap code is ambiguous and he didn't
consider the bar area a dining area. Henries agreed and said that is a separate
area that is open to the public that will not be handicap accessible and therefore
would not be allowed at its current planned level. White disagreed because the
same service is being offered in accessible areas of the restaurant. Henries
reiterated that this issue is being created by the restaurant owner since it is new
construction and the mezzanine is his choice to build. He added that allowing this
area not to be accessible would be precedent setting. Roffman reiterated that if
the same services were being provided then there is no problem and asked the
Board for their opinions. Werderitsch stated any handicap person who came into
the restaurant could get the same service.
Hermes provided the example of a retail occupancy that wanted to put a table
and chair on the first floor to provide handicap accessibility for a second floor
restaurant. This would not be allowed; it is not the intent of the handicap
accessibility codes to isolate handicap persons by only providing a similar service
without accessibility to the public area. Roffman re-addressed design questions
about putting in a ramp. Hennes restated that there were alternative design
choices that could be made. White stated there are aesthetic choices that need
to be considered also. Henries felt that accessibility issues should not be
sacrificed for aesthetic issues. More design alternatives were discussed. White
explained some of the restrictions caused by the existing mall structure to those
design alternatives. Buss asked for clarification about services that were going to
be in the bar to make sure that the same services would be provided in the
restaurant. White stated that all services including televisions would be provided.
Werderitsch asked Dulek if the Board had the authority to allow the down level
bar area or if they were bound by the strict letter of the code. Dulek stated that
Board had to refer to language that would allow them to permit the bar area as
proposed. Roffman polled the members of the Board to see what their opinions
were. Some members felt that if the same services were provided, the Board
should look for a way to allow the bar area and others felt that the language of
the code did not provide for that flexibility. Roffman wondered if the City would
have a defensible position if the Board allowed the bar area to be built as
proposed. Dulek said that Section 104.2.7 of the 1997 UBC allows for
modifications in individual cases if there are practical difficulties in carrying out
the provisions of the code and the modification conforms with intent of the code
and does not lessen any fire protection requirements or structural integrity. Dulek
said that if the Board found that there was no difference in terms of service
between the bar and dining area then allowing the down level bar area would be
a defensible position since the entirety of the restaurant would conform to the
intent of the code. Discussion occurred that in this particular case the larger
percentage of seating in the restaurant that was required to be accessible was
accessible and therefore conformed with the intent of the code. Hennes stated
that the code specifically requires that floors on the same story be on a common
level or connected by a ramp and that Section 105.2 states that the Board is not
empowered to waive specific requirements.
MOTION: Werderitsch moved that the Board allow the appeal per Section
104.2.7 (Modifications) because the plan conforms with intent of the handicap
accessibilty code (since over 50 % of the seating is handicap accessible and
every service available in the bar is available in the accessible areas), does not
lessen fire protection requirements or structural integrity and that there are
practical difficulities with the constraints of the existing construction in conforming
with the strict letter of the code. Buss seconded the motion.
FURTHER DISCUSSION: Dulek stated that code being referred to was not the
national ADA code but the accessibility code of the State of Iowa which the City
has adopted. Werderitsch stated that a strict interpretation to the letter of the
code is not practical and would be simply a politically correct interpretation and
he did not think that would be a correct way to look at the issue.
Maas agreed with Werderitsch since over 50 % of the seating area was handicap
accessible and that practically, it was enough.
Dulek reiterated that a certain percentage of accessible seating does not apply
and that only the practical difficulities as per Section 104.2.7 applied.
DuCharme did not think the appeal could be allowed.
Haman did not think the appeal could be allowed.
Roffman called the question stating that he wanted the motion stated as clearly
as possible in order to clearly demonstrate and defend the City's position.
VOTE: 4-2 in favor of allowing the appeal.
OTHER BUSINESS: 426 Bayard - A trial setting date conference ~s scheduled for
6/5/2001.
13 S. Linn -Scott Kading has requested to go back to the State Board of Review
and they have not set a date.
Hennes spoke of the next code cycle and which codes were going to be used.
Werderitsch mentioned that when the next set of amendments are considered
that Board consider applying the same degree of fiexibilty to the NEC and UPC
that the UBC now allows.
ADJOURNMENT:
Roffman moved to adjourn the meeting with a second by Buss. The meeting was
adjourned at 6:42 P.M.
|
FINAL
MINUTES
IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
CIVIC CENTER, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lyra Dickerson, Mike Kennedy, Jim Anderlik
STAFF PRESENT: Sylvia Mejia, Karen Jennings, Matt Johnson
OTHERS PRESENT: None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY MANAGER AND STAFF: Commissioners instructed
staff to conduct entry-level Police Officer testing.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Commissioners recommended that
Council accept the certified list for the position of Police Sergeant.
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT DISCUSSION:
Chairperson Kennedy called the meeting to order at 8:15AM. The first order of business
was the certified list for the position of Police Sergeant. Mejia briefly summarized the
exercises used in the assessment centers, which included a citizen interview, employee
interview, tactical exercise, and a watch meeting. Mejia noted that she had received
positive feedback from numerous participants who felt that the exercises were realistic
and applicable. Captain Johnson also noted that he had heard positive comments
regarding the assessment center from officers who participated. Kennedy moved and
Dickerson seconded a motion to certify the list as presented. Motion carried
unanimously.
The second order of business was entry-level testing for the Position of Police Officer.
Mejia reviewed the testing process as described in a memo to the commissioners. The
process is the same as has been used in the past. Anderlik questioned whether the City
has had cause to question the process after a list has been certified. Mejia explained
that while there have been past circumstances where a new officer did not satisfactorily
complete the probation period, it has never been determined to be a direct result of the
testing process. Dickerson moved and Anderlik seconded a motion that the process for
entry-level police officer testing be approved and City staff proceed with the testing
process. Motion carried unanimously.
Old Business;
None.
New Business:
Mejia noted that the certified list for entry-level Firefighter may be exhausted by the
summer of 2002 which will require testing for a new list.
Kennedy moved and Dickerson seconded the motion to adjourn. Motion passed
unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:25AM.
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES - August 22, 2001
CALL TO ORDER Chair John Watson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
ATTENDANCE Board members present: Leah Cohen, Paul Hoffey, Loren
Hotton and John Watson; board member absent: John
Stratton, Staff present: Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh, City
Clerk Marian Karr, and PCRB staff Kellie Tuttle and Kathy
Venem. Also in attendance was Captain Matt Johnson of
the ICPD.
CONSENT
CALENDAR Motion by Hoffey and seconded by Horton to adopt the
consent calendar as amended:
a. Minutes of the meeting on 6/20/01
b. Minutes of the meeting on 6/25/01
c. ICPD General Order- Bomb Threats/Emergencies
d. ICPD General Order - Written Directive System
e. ICPD General Order - Officer Involved Shootings/Lethal
Incident Investigations
f. ICPD Use of Force Report - May 2001
g. ICPD Use of Force Report - June 2001
h. ICPD Department Memorandum 01-33 (Use of Force
Review)
i. ICPD May/June Training Report
j. ICPD Training Newsletter, July 2001
k. Watch Training 00-48 - Fireworks
I. Watch Training 01-41 - Bomb Threats/Emergencies
m. Watch Training 02-01 - Legislative Update 2001
n. ICPD Training Bulletin 01-60
o. Memorandum from City Manager regarding PCRB
Complaint 01-01 (previously mailed on 8/1/01 )
Motion carried, 4/0, Stratton absent,
ANNUAL REPORT Watson brought up question regarding race of complainants
of complaint 01-01. Complainant is white and the report is
correct.
Motion by Horton and seconded by Cohen to approve PCRB
Annual Report July 1,2000 to June 30, 2000
Motion carried, 4/0, Stratton absent.
NEW BUSINESS Watson informed the Board that Council has appointed two
new Board Members, Bill Hoeft and Bev Smith. Watson has
spoken with both.
City Clerk Karr introduced new staff. With the ordinance
change effective last July, the assistant to the PCRB was
eliminated and staffing assigned to the City Clerk's Office
with current staff. Kellie Tuttle will be staff contact for all
meetings. Kathy Venem will do minute taking and will leave
for Executive Sessions. Karr will be available if needed.
Staff will maintain current procedures; in a few months after
new Board members begin, arrangements can be re-
evaluated if the Board wishes to make changes.
Karr questioned the NACOLE web site, which currently lists
Sandy Bauer as contact. At Watson's suggestion, Karr will
change the contact to her office. All e-mails will be printed
for later review by the Board Chair for possible distribution.
Karr noted the City has created a new web site with Board
and Commission member's names and term only.
Addresses and phone numbers will not be on the site;
however, staff contact information is available to the public
upon request. Karr distributed member information for
updating. Watson asked that this be added as an agenda
item for next month.
The PCRB brochure and related information has been
updated removing PCRB office phone number and replacing
it with the City Clerk's phone number.
The Board discussed the request from City Manager
regarding Complaint 01-01. Watson asked Pugh the
following:
· Is the Board required to respond to the request? Pugh
found nothing in the ordinance that requires the Board to
produce anything more than it's final report. 8-8-7(B)(8)
the ordinance specifically says that "no findings or reports
submitted to the Board or prepared by the Board shall be
used in any other proceedings."
· Does anything prevent the Board from responding to the
request? Pugh says there is "nothing in the ordinance
that prevents the Board from cooperating or trying to
assist the Council and City Manager in achieving the
goals that they are trying to achieve."
2
The Board's position is that it provides a recommendation
and it is up to the Chief and City Manager to decide what to
do with it. The Board's report is their last word and they do
not wish to debate their conclusions. However the Board
would be willing to discuss its recommendations and
concerns. There is concern from members about setting a
precedent in providing additional information. The Board
discussed Watson and Pugh would write a letter to the City
Manager..,
· including a summary of the interviews indicating it is the
only information the Board had that the Chief did not
· indicating that if there am legal questions, the Board
releases Pugh to speak to the City Attorney
· stating that if there is anything that is unclear about their
recommendations to be specific
· pointing out that the Board is not required to respond but
is choosing to do so
· Inviting the City Manager and the Chief to an Executive
Session to discuss this issue further [See further
discussion regarding the meeting after the Executive
Session].
OLD BUSINESS PCRB Ordinance will be passed out at the next meeting.
PCRB Videotape will be presented at the next meeting.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION None
MEETING SCHEDULE
· Regular Meeting September 11,2001,7:00 P.M.
Discussion was had about extending the Police Chief's
report deadline, which is currently September 7, 2001 for
#01-02. Deadline extension discussion was postponed until
Executive Session later in the meeting.
BOARD
INFORMATION Watson will be appointing a nominating committee in
September. Officers will be elected in November. Watson
asked the item to be added to the next meeting agenda.
STAFF
INFORMATION Hoffey brought up concern about a phone call regarding
Charter Amendments in the Office Contact report.
Pugh stated she would be concentrating on mediation cases,
and could be reached at her home.
EXECUTIVE
SESSION Motion by Cohen and seconded by Horton to adjourn into
Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1 )(a) of the Code
of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or
authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or
to be kept confidential as a condition for that government
body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and
22.7(11 ) personal information in confidential personnel
records of public bodies including but not limited to cities,
boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police
officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is
authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18)
Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that
are made to a government body or to any of its employees
by identified persons outside of government, to the extent
that the government body receiving those communications
from such persons outside of government could reasonably
believe that those persons would be discouraged from
making them to that government body if they were available
for general public examination. Motion carried, 4/0, Stratton
absent. Open session adjourned at 7:56 P.M.
REGULAR
SESSION Regular session resumed at 8:24 P.M.
Motion by Hoffey and seconded by Horton to direct Chair
write City Manager regarding 3 concerns for complaint 01-01
and let the Board know exactly what he needs clarified. And
inviting the City Manager and/or Chief for an open session
meeting with the Board to discuss their recommendation.
Motion carried, 4/0, Stratton absent.
Discussion regarding the content of the meeting with the City
Manager and/or Chief. The Board concluded that they
would discuss their recommendation in the public report, but
would not go into detail about the case. They would not
discuss field notes taken at the interview. This meeting
would be open to the public.
4
Cohen and Hoffey requested a copy of the letter be sent to
them since their term will be ending, so they can attend the
meeting.
Motion by Hoffey seconded by Cohen directing staff to
prepare correspondence to the Chief extending the Chief's
deadline to October 7, 2001, on 01-02. And also request
that the complainants inform the Board of the timeline for
resolution of the case and that the extension will expire on
October 7, 2001, if the Board or Chief does not hear from
them. Motion carried, 4/0, Stratton absent.
Watson thanked Cohen and Hoffey for serving on the Board.
Cohen and Hoffey both enjoyed working with past and
present members of the Board.
Hoffey expressed a few thoughts to the remaining Board
members and the new members to come: (1) Police
pursuits kill innocent people. (2) Traffic stops should only be
made by marked cars and officers in police uniforms. (3)
Citations and release of individuals for alcohol offenses, etc.
can be done when you release that person to a responsible
adult. You don't have to put them in jail. Putting them in jail
to teach them a lesson is not a good enough reason. (4)
Local control over local police is absolutely necessary for
two reasons: (a) power of arrest that police have (b) power
of detention. Meaning there should be boards like the Police
Citizens Review Board, where the Board has sufficient
power to do something. There is opportunity for abuse and it
does often happen. Not as frequently is the US as
elsewhere. The police have tremendous power, it must be
controlled.
Cohen stated that she thought the PCRB was a wonderful
board and the time and energy put into the board by its
members from day one is tremendous. The board is a
tremendous asset to the City and the City should be thankful
that the board is there and she will always lobby for the
board if it is ever in jeopardy again.
ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Hoffey and seconded by Cohen.
Motion carried, 4/0, Stratton absent.
Meeting adjourned at 8:34 P.M.
5