Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Council Action Form dated September 26, 1995 ITEM # 33" DATE: September 26, 1995 SUBJECT: Request approval to change Chapter 13, Rental Housing, of the Ames Municipal Code. BACKGROUND: Since we updated to the local building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical and fire codes on April 1, 1993, staff have found direct conflicts with our local rental housing code. Staff met with the landlords association and discussed changing the rental code to eliminate these conflicts and also add some additional life safety items which were recommended by various groups, such as, fire fighters, landlords, tenants, and the Housing Board of Appeals. We resurrected the Housing Board of Appeals and discussed concerns of our staff/landlord association meetings. There were a few cases where the Housing Board of Appeals requested more restrictive standards than either staff or the landlord's association agreed upon. The feeling of the Board is to improve the condition of the housing stock. They do not feel safety items shall be compromised, therefore, they have asked for certain standards to be adopted and appeals made on a case by case basis. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize the staff to work with the city attorney to draft an ordinance change regarding the attached proposed changes. 2. Deny the request. MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative #1 directing the city attorney to draft a change of Chapter 13, Ames Municipal Code. COUNCIL ACTION: RENTAL HOUSING CODE CHANGES Sec. 13.3 Definitions and Rules of Construction (13) Operator Change "living close enough to Ames" to "living in a 20 mile radius of City Hall in Ames" (a) The problem: The current code "living close enough to Ames," is a judgement. Is 20 minutes close enough, 1 hour, 1 day, etc.? (b) The Board feels that someone, either the owner or manager should be able to respond within 20-30 minutes in case of an emergency. (c) Slight disagreement , but not controversial. (15 ) Owner-occupied single family dwelling Add "Also includes dwelling with a nanny, live in nurse, AFS student or similar" (a) The problem: Inspector may get complaint or stumble on a nanny or an AFS student. If we catch 1 or 2 , how many others are out there we don't know about. Impossible to enforce. (b) Consider these cases as an extension of the family and don't waste time tracking these situations. (c) No disagreement. Sec 13.5(d)(ii) Application for letter of compliance Change "living close enough to Ames" to "living within a 20 mile radius of City Hall in Ames" See comments - Sec. 13.3(13) Sec 13.22 Construction Add (3) All building related items repaired or replaced shall meet current building codes. If standards are to general in rental code then Uniform Building Code will be used as a reference." (a) The problem: Rental code is to vague in many areas. (b) Use current building code as a reference. (c) No disagreement as long as do not retroactively enforce new codes on existing structures. Sec 13.23 Doors & Windows Add "we recognize storm windows and screens are not necessary for life safety. These items are tenant preference and will be enforced on a complaint only basis." (a) The problem: Many tenants destroy storm windows by removing them to set stereos in sills, crawling in when locked out, etc. Inspectors could fail almost all rental properties by violations concerning storm windows. This may require many reinspections using time which could be spent on more important issues. (b) Only enforce storms where tenants request them to be available and working. (c) No disagreement. Sec 13.26 Handrails & Guardrails Refer to UBC for new rental properties. Existing properties shall have one safe handrail per stairway. Some cases need more than one handrail and will be requested by the inspector and appealed to the Board on a case by case basis. (a) The problem: There are many illegal and unsafe handrails throughout the City. (b) It is the position of the Board that this is a tremendous liability problem to the landlords, and the cost of repair is minor, so they feel the inspection staff shall retroactively pursue at least one safe handrail per stairway. (c) Some disagreement - landlords do not want to add a second rail, but understand the need for one safe rail. Sec 13.28 Plumbing & Heating Change (3) to read "Gas fired appliances shall not be in or open directly into bedroom or bathroom. The dwelling units where hazardous conditions exist shall be corrected immediately. (a) The problem: A bedroom or bathroom may have been installed next to furnace or water heater illegally and could cause injury or death if an appliance malfunctions. (b) The Board wishes to retroactively correct hazardous conditions where they exist, immediately. (c) Slight disagreement - landlords agree these items can'be corrected at the time of appliance replacement, otherwise, these situations should be grandfathered in. Add "(7) Gang meters in multiple dwelling units shall be clearly labeled." (a) The Problem: Fire fighters and others need to know which meter belongs to each dwelling unit. (b) Label the meters by any method that clearly shows which meter belongs to a given apartment. (c) No disagreement. Add "(8) All clothes dryers shall be vented directly to the outside." (a) The problem: Clothes dryers are not being vented to the outside for moisture control nor gas emissions. (b) Solution is to require all clothes dryers be vented to the outside. (c) Slight disagreement - question of electric dryers vs. gas dryers. The solution is to require all clothes dryers be vented to prevent somebody from switching the type without knowing about whether it needs vented or not. The solution is also an inexpensive repair. Add "(9) Plumbing and mechanical items repaired or replaced shall follow current uniform plumbing and mechanical codes. Any items not written clearly here will be referenced to current plumbing and mechanical codes." (a) The problem: Rental code is vague in many cases. (b) Use an existing plumbing code as a reference. (c) Slight disagreement -agree with principal, but don't want entire structure brought into current standards. Sec. 13.29 Electrical Add to (5) "Additional outlets may be required at the discretion of the housing inspector." (a) The problem: Large or complex rooms may need more than two (2) outlets, because of the number of appliances in use, room size, room layout, etc. (b) In a dangerous circumstance an additional outlet(s) would be required even if two already exist. (c) No disagreement. Change (6) to "require all bathrooms to have GFCI outlets even if there is an existing duplex outlet." (a) The Problem: Electrical shock caused by hairdryers, electric razors, etc. being to close to bathroom sinks. (b) Most landlords are doing this already and the majority respect the need for this requirement. (c) No disagreement. Add "(7) Gang meters in multiple dwelling units shall be clearly labeled." See comments - Sec. 13.28(7). Add "(8) Emergency lighting shall be provided in all common hallways and stairways in multiple dwelling units greater than two (2) units to an amount of one (1) foot candle at the floor level." (a) The problem: No light available to see the exits and the exit path when/or if the power goes out. It may be a tremendous hazard pawing down a dark hallway looking for an exit while the building is on fire. (b) Add emergency lights with battery backup in all hallways in structures containing two (2) or more dwelling units which currently do not contain them. (c) No disagreement. Add "(9) All electrical items shall comply with most restrictive codes when repaired or replaced. If items are not clearly written here, then the current National Electrical Code will be used as a reference." See comments - Sec. 13.28(9) Sec 13.32 Paint Change 2.) to read "Interior and exterior of dwelling units with" rather than "in dwelling units". (a) The problem: Inspectors can enforce correction of peeling paint on interior, but not on the exterior. This seems odd since both can be an eyesore and a safety concern. (b) Enforce correction of paint throughout the structure, to improve environmental concerns on the lead paint issue especially as it pertains to children. Also, this enforcement would improve the looks of neighborhoods and the city as a whole. (c) Board recommended. Not discussed with landlords. Sec 13.35 Minimum Requirements, Fire Safety Add to (1)(b)(ii) "have an openable area of 5.7 sq. ft." (a) The problem: Vital information is missing from rental code. (b) Add 5.7 sq. ft. of openable area for clarity. (c) No disagreement. Add to (1)(b)(iv) "Egress windows below grade shall have a window well as wide as the window and thirty- six (36) inches from the glass to the well. If it is deeper than forty-four (44) inches, it must have a permanent affixed ladder or steps." (a) The problem: It doesn't do any good to have an egress window if the window well is not large enough to open the window and escape or large enough for fire fighters to perform a rescue. (b) Correct unsafe conditions that currently exist and verify compliance for all new installations. (c) Slight disagreement because some cases may have a physical hardship because of lack of space. Add to (6) ...maintained around meters, "electrical panels,"... (a) The problem: Electrical panels were left out of current list, but is dangerous if not accessible. (b) Add this additional area of clearance for safety reasons. (c) No disagreement. Add "7.) Areas which contain furnaces and water heaters shall be clearly labeled with permanent signs stating all items to be kept no closer than three (3) feet from appliances." (a) The problem: Tenants think of mechanical rooms as storage closets. We have had many scary situations where severe property damage and loss of life could have occurred. (b) The sign would be a constant reminder to the tenants to think before they act. (c) No disagreement. Add "8.) All basements and similar areas shall be signed "No Sleeping unless applicable codes, such as, egress, ceiling height, relationship to furnace room, etc." Signs to be permanently affixed. (a) The problem: Tenants think nothing of sleeping in a basement for solitude, coolness, etc. without concern for the unexpected danger that may be present. (b) The sign is a constant reminder for the tenants to question their habits before jumping into dangerous situations. (c) No disagreement. Sec 13.38 Owner's & Occupants Responsibilities Add to (3)(1) ...as lawn furniture "or within public view." (a) The problem: Tenants bring couches and upholstered chairs onto decks and covered patios. (b) The chairs and couches are still eyesores and a harborage for rats, mice, etc. even though they are not in the yard. (c) No disagreement. Add "(3)(m) There shall be no grills in use or stored on decks, in units or within fifteen (15) feet of the building. (a) The problem: There is a potential hazard of destroying an entire apartment complex, or the loss of life of many people from the foolishness of one tenant by making a mistake. (b) Create a safe zone at least 15 feet from a structure to cut down on the potential ignition source surrounding the grill. (c) Some disagreement: The Board approved 15 feet, which differs from current fire code regulation of 25 feet, because the size of some yards may restrict the use of grills completely. Landlords agree with charcoal grill restrictions, but not gas grills. Fire personnel know of accidents concerning both types of grills. Add "(3)(n) Live Christmas trees are prohibited inside dwelling units or in common areas indoors." (a) The problem: There is a tremendous ignition source by a live Christmas tree regardless of being watered or not. (b) Eliminate the concern. (c) No disagreement, many landlords prohibit this already. Add -"Existing items grandfathered by the retroactive conversion permit will be allowed to continue and will be exempt from new code changes unless those specific areas are remodeled for any reason. If they are remodeled they shall be brought into current compliance as best as possible. Those situations with extreme hazards where inadequate knowledge occurred at the time of issuance of the permit may have their status reevaluated." (a) The problem: Inspectors have found some severe potential problems with existing units having a retroactive conversion permit. These conditions may have been by passed because of the large number going through the process, a lack of information or direction from national code bodies, etc. No matter what the reason, there are a few hazards that need reviewed. (b) Correct the major issues where obvious violations occur that contain a large potential for injury or loss of life. Also, require only those areas to be brought to current standards when remodeled. It is not our intention to require all items to be corrected when only a small part of dwelling unit is remodeled. (c) Some disagreement: The Board wants the Inspection Staff to review hazardous situations even if they have a retroactive conversion permit. Landlords do not want to reevaluate the situations and believe they should be grandfathered in. Dwelling units are currently inspected every three years. Most dwelling units will continue to be inspected in this time frame. (a) The problem: Often, inspectors, the public and landlords feel we are spending time, dollars and effort in good rental locations and not spending enough time on the more hazardous rental properties. (b) Two exceptions for our current three year rotation of rental inspections have been proposed. The first is to allow new apartments to be inspected on a five year schedule until they are fifteen years old and then drop back to a three year plan. Fifteen years seems to be when water heaters, furnaces, roofs,, etc., tend to start to wear out and need attention. The second exception is to reward those landlords who maintain their properties in a near new condition all the time. This would also be an incentive for some landlord's to strive for continuuous maintenance on their properties. The list of violations is for a reference only and is in no way a complete list. (c) Slight disagreement because of questions on how this would work and specific details. Exception 1.) Entire buildings (all dwelling units and common areas and mechanical rooms etc.) that meet the rental code with the following schedule of violations upon the initial inspection will be inspected on a five (5) year schedule: no Class I violations, no more than five (5) Class II violations, no more than eight (8) Class III violations. 2.) Buildings or structures less than 15 years old will be inspected on a 5 year schedule. SCHEDULE OF VIOLATIONS CLASS I CLASS II CLASS III - smoke detector - battery missing in - dripping water faucets missing smoke detector - torn screens - fire extinguisher - fire extinguisher not - storms missing charged - unkept-unclean - gasoline or explosives - cracked glass - minor peeling paint inside - loose handrails - minor penetrations - open flames in a - interior peeling paint less than 1" in structure, on a deck, without children diameter within 25' of structure present - minor mold/mildew - no egress or blocked - meters not labeled egress - basements, storage - peeling paint with not labeled small children present - minor maintenance - structural safety - minor tripping hazard - missing guardrails- - penetrations in wall handrails or ceiling less than - drop cords under 3" in diameter carpet, through a - excessive mold/mildew door, etc. - minor draft at windows - lack of occupancy & doors separation - minor water leaks - severe broken glass - dilapidation - hardwired detector disconnected - fire panel not working - gas leak - damaged fire doors - penetrations greater than 3" in diameter - excessive draft through walls - lack of heat ventilation - major waste or water leaks September 19, 1995 To Ames city council members and the Rental housing board: Re: Proposed changes to the Rental Housing Code. My wife and I have owned rental houses in Ames for the past nine years. Over this time we have had our differences with the rental code. By and large the rental code has done its job and has eradicated sub-standard housing throughout the city. When I came to Ames to live in 1970, some of the places that we looked at that were available to live I wouldn't have wished on my worst enemy. The by product of the code is that it is now illegal to rent basement rooms to students as many families did up until the late seventies, This rule eradicated a source of interaction between residents and students that socially and practically benefited both parties. My wife has fond memories of the family she stayed with until she was forced out by the rental code being enacted. My purpose in relating this is not to portray the rental code as a totally negative document, my feeling is that it has use as a minimum standard and guide for rental housing. I do however feel that when the rental code requires more of landlords than the average homeowner, the code becomes overbearing. I feel that we are legislating out problems that don't exist and I wonder if well meaning board members have lost sight of the fact that a rental code should provide a minimum standard for occupancy. In short some of the provisions of the existing code as well as many of these new proposals have gone too far. Over the past several years a cry has gone up to provide for affordable housing. One of the byproducts of increased standards is that less expensive basement and older properties drop out of the market or are removed and replaced by new units with their attendant higher rents. These older units were not necessarily unsafe just a hassle to maintain to the ever increasing standards. Ceiling height, GFCI's, handrails and windows are a few of the main culprits. Let me emphasize that these buildings were considered adequate when they were constructed and our increasing expectations were their downfall, not any real health and safety concerns. Let me also emphasize that older is not necessarily less safe, just older. In closing, let me say that in general the rental inspection personnel have done a fair job in enforcing and interpreting the regulations. I have enclosed a list of my itemized objections to the proposed changes in the rental code and hope that at minimum, the council will act to force the rental housing board and inspection department to engage in a dialogue with landlords to come up with revisions in the code not just policy makers ideas with landlord reaction submitted to the council for action. Yes rely, L. Gunning_ General Pa ner for R.G. Properties RENTAL HOUSING CODE CHANGES ITEM BY ITEM SUBMITTED BY R.G. PROPERTIES Sec. 13.3 Definitions and Rules of Construction (13) Operator Change "living close to Ames"to "living in a 20 mile radius of City Hall in Ames" This rule is not enforced now. If the operator is a management company, does each employee have to live in this radius in order to respond? In emergency situations, police and fire units do not access rental records to contact operators now, how would changing this rule improve anything? (15) Owner occupied single family dwelling No comments Sec. 13.5(d)(ii) No comments (see above under operator) Sec. 13.22 Construction Add "(3)All building related items repaired or replaced shall meet current building codes. If standards are too general in the rental code then the Uniform Building Code will be used as a reference. No comments Sec. 13.23 Doors & Windows Add "we recognize storm windows and screens are not necessary for life and safety. These items are tenant preference and will be enforced on a complaint only basis." I would think that storms and screens would have an effect on the overall appearance of a property and neighbors would appreciate the enforcement of this type of a rule. This change should be repealed. Sec. 13.26 Handrails and Guardrails Refer to UBC for new rental properties. Existing properties shall have one safe handrail per stairway. Some cases need more than one handrail and will be requested by the inspector and appealed to the Board on a case by case basis. I think that landlords should be able to recognize liability concerns on their own. A rental board should not use this as their only basis for enacting a regulation. I personally agree with this requirement when it is enforced on interior locations. This should not be extrapolated to include retroactive exterior applications. Sec. 13.28 Plumbing & Heating Change (3) to read "Gas fired appliances shall not be in or open directly into bedroom or bathroom. The dwelling units where hazardous conditions exist shall be corrected immediately." A malfunctioning gas fired appliance anywhere in a dwelling unit could cause injury or death. If an appliance has been installed originally in a bathroom etc., this is not tantamount to a life threatening situation. The key here is that appliances should be in good working order or danger is present regardless of their location. No new situations should be created however there is no pressing need for existing situations to be changed. Gas stoves are "gas fired appliances" are they banned from these areas? What about efficiency apartments? This rule needs to be repealed and re-thought. Add(7) Gang meters in multiple dwelling units shall be clearly labeled." I assume that the meaning here is for gas meters? No other argument. Add "(8) All clothes dryers shall be vented directly to the outside." Common sense should rule here. No argument. Add "(9)Plumbing ...repaired to the current plumbing and building codes" No argument Sec. 13.29 Electrical Add to (S) "Additional outlets may be required at the discretion of the housing inspector." What is a "dangerous circumstance"? I am uncomfortable in allowing such broad discretionary interpretation of what this means. As I have said before I have had no quarrel with the last three inspectors, however I must argue that a concrete standard should be in place here. Two should be enough. Change (6) to "require all bathrooms to have GFCI outlets even if there is an existing duplex outlet." Once again I wonder what we are trying to solve here. All hair dryers, razors, etc. are now double insulated. Only the most freakish accidents would involve any risk of shock. I seriously doubt if the is any concrete basis for this requirement. For the cost involved, what are we really gaining. Let individual landlords and tenants workout the desires for these type of issues. I wonder if the writers of this rule have watched a few too many murder shows where the victim is electrocuted. Add "(7) gang meters in multiple dwelling units shall be clearly labeled." No comment Add "(8)Emergency lighting shall be provided in all common hallways and stairways in multiple dwelling units greater than two (2) units to an amount of one (])foot candle at the floor level." This is a prime example of an idiotically written proposal. What good is one foot candle of illumination measured in non-smoke conditions going to be in a smoky corridor. This requirement makes sense in areas that have no other sources of illumination (windows). A more logical standard should be proposed to include hall length to the exit, whether windows are present, and a more logical amount of light required. Add "(9)All electrical items... repaired to the most restrictive code." No comment Sec. 13.32 Paint Change (2) to read"Interior and exterior of dwelling units with"rather than "In dwelling units". In principle I have no quarrel with this except that to what extent is peeling paint an enforceable issue? Is ten percent enough to require repainting. Twenty percent? Thirty? Is alligatoring a problem? What about fading and just general wear? I suspect that this issue is already controlled in the marketplace. Many people make their choices in a dwelling based on its general upkeep. If you wish to improve the looks of a neighborhood, perhaps you should dictate the colors to be used as well. Don't hide behind the lead paint issue on this rule. Many houses don't have lead paint on them and in most cases the culprit in lead paint poisoning is the soil not the paint itself. The State Department of Health already has rule in place to deal with lead paint poisoning issues. Do yourselves a favor and leave well enough alone by leaving this rule as it is currently written. I find it interesting that this rule change was not put before landlords prior to introduction to the council. Sec. 13.35 Minimum Requirements, Fire Safety Add to (l)(b)(ii) "have openable area of S.7 sq.ft." Is 5.7 sq. ft. a traceable requirement? I assume it is traceable to the UBC. Add to (1)(b)(iv) Egress windows... No comment Add to (6) ... maintained around meters, "electrical panels,".... No real disagreement Add "(7.) Areas which contain furnaces and water heaters shall be clearly labeled with permanent signs stating all items to be kept no closer than three (3)from appliances. One again this is unclear and unreasonable. Why should this be required of rental properties and not homeowners. Are we implying that renters are less intelligent than owner occupants? What type of sign is required? How big and where exactly is it to be placed? Exactly what wording is required? What color? What size of type? Get my drift? Add "(8) All basements and similar areas shall be signed "No sleeping unless applicable codes, such as, egress, ceiling height, relationship to furnace room, etc." Signs to be permanently affixed. Once again if some one is renting a house aren't you denying them the full use of the house if they are not allowed to sleep in the basement if they so desire? I grew up sleeping in our basement as a kid. I do agree however that apartments totally located in basements should come under the rules listed for egress, ceiling height, etc. As I outlined above, where are these signs exactly to be displayed? How big? What color? etc... Sec. 13.38 Owner's and Occupant's Responsibilities Add to (3)(7) as lawn furniture "or within public view" This rule should be transferred to the city general code if rats, mice, etc. are the concern. If they are eyesores then it should not matter if they are located in rental housing or at owner occupied dwellings. Other than that I have no disagreement. Add "(3)(m) There shall be no grills in use or stored on decks, in units or within (IS)feet of the building. I assume that the rule covers barbecue grills. Once again I can't believe that a rule would be imposed that covers rental properties and is at least unknown, if not unpalatable,to the general Ames populace. This is at least unenforceable. Maybe you should propose a rule banning cigarette smoking since that is the number one cause of fires in America. Add "(3)(n)Live Christmas trees are prohibited inside dwelling units or in common areas indoors." I'm sure the Ames Jaycees will be happy with this one! I for one would like to know how you are going to enforce this. Will Mike Fry be conducting Christmas Eve tree raids? Incidentally, since trees are cut off when they are sold they are technically dead. Maybe we should ban any religious display during the holiday season. I think that the intent is sincere, but smoking is as valid a target. Add "existing items grandfathered by the retroactive conversion permit will be allowed to continue and will be exempt from new code changes unless those specific areas are remodeled for any reason. If they are remodeled they shall be brought into current compliance as best as possible. Those situations with extreme hazards where inadequate knowledge occurred at the time of issuance of the permit may have their status reevaluated." Once again this rule is vague and unclear. What is an "extreme hazard". What does "inadequate knowledge" mean? I would want to have this whole issue more clearly defined before any judgments are made to include this type of a rule into the code. Dwelling units inspection..... No real disagreement Exception..... Many of the Class I violations are more occupant driven and have little to do with the age of the unit. Many of these could occur in a relatively new building and if the concern is there to make these more "serious hazards" I would submit that none of these should be grounds to allow a more lenient inspection schedule.