Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Building Board of Appeals Minutes 01/06/2020 Page | 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS AMES, IOWA JANUARY 6, 2020 CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairperson David Carnes at 4:00 p.m. on January 6, 2020, in Room 235 in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue. Present were Board Members David Carnes, Andrew Mott, Brad Sydnes, Duane Wolf, Andrew Tulp, and Oren Geisinger III. Nathan Werstein was absent. Staff members present were Sara Van Meeteren, Adam Ostert, Jason Ziph, Nick Patterson, Ryan Cable, John Shaver, Travis VerSteegt and Jane Chang. Moved by Sydnes, seconded by Mott, to approve the minutes from the November 4, 2019 meeting Vote on Motion: 6-0 Motion passed OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS A. Appeal of the Ames Municipal Code Chapter 21, at 2801 E. 13th Street, by Britni Andreassen, Kum & Go, LC Sara Van Meeteren, Building Official, presented the staff report. The sign at 2801 E. 13th Street for Kum & Go is already up. The Sign Code allows three square feet of signage for every one foot of street frontage. For the pylon sign in question, the Code states if there are more than 30 inches between the two faces of the sign, then both faces must be counted toward the total sign allowance for the property. The site has 265 feet of street frontage, therefore, the sign allowance is 796 total square feet. There are currently 786 feet of signage that the appellant would like to use, but that number includes only one face (side) of the pylon sign. Counting both faces as the Sign Code requires would put them over the square footage allowance. The appeal was submitted November 4, 2019 stating there are specific fixed conditions that make compliance impracticable. The appellant feels that the distance between the faces is impracticable in this situation due to the size of the sign and the ability of motorists to see the sign from a distance to be able to make a safe decision to exit the highway if they want to visit the gas station. Staff’s decision is that the fixed conditions presented do not make strict compliance impracticable. Britni Andreassen, Appellant, and Keith Weggen, Engineer on the project, presented their appeal. Weggen gave the history of the project. Kum & Go is planning to completely rebuild the Page | 2 site: the building, fuel canopy, and everything would come down and be replaced. They would also like to replace the existing sign with one that is more current with Kum & Go’s branding. They are allowed to have the pole sign because they are within 1500 feet of the interstate. The pole sign is quite tall and large. The size of the sign is driven by the need to give motorists enough time to be able to read the sign from the interstate and make a decision to exit the interstate. Motorists could see that gas is being sold and see the Kum & Go logo. When a sign is as high as the pole sign is, the cabinet needs to be thicker than 30 inches. The Kum & Go site has developed properties on both sides, so there is no opportunity to gain additional frontage to increase the signage allowance. The total signage is 786 square feet. By only counting one face of the pole sign, they are below the maximum threshold. The appellant believes their appeal meets the spirit and intent of the Code. Duane Wolf asked if the post and sign are new and what the diameter of the post is. Britini Andreassen replied that the post exists, but they are going to replace the cabinet on top. She does not know the exact sizes of the sign and the post as the sizes were not noted in the plans they have on file for the existing sign. The sign was installed in 2010 and was sized to the cabinet at that time. The appellant is wanting to reduce the size of the existing cabinet in order to comply with the Sign Code. The typical depth of a sign of this size is 42 inches. The existing sign is deeper than 30 inches, but they do not have the exact measurements. It is likely larger since it is an older sign. David Carnes summarized that the appellant is reusing the pole, decreasing the sign face square footage, and increasing the depth of the cabinet. Andrew Tulp asked if the existing sign meets the Sign Code. Weggen and Van Meeteren said they did not believe so. He then asked if the 30 inch requirement was a newer requirement in the code. Van Meeteren replied she did not know how long the requirement has been in the code. Andrew Mott asked if the letter addressing the Sign Code had been submitted to City Cou ncil yet. Van Meeteren replied that the letter was signed by Carnes and would be in the next agenda packet to Council. Van Meeteren explained the letter to the appellant: The Board heard an appeal with a similar issue of signage square footage at a previous meeting, and the Board wanted City Council to review the Sign Code to see if there should be a text amendment to change the way the City applies the square footage to signage. Potentially, the Sign Code could change in the future and the current situation might in compliance, but at this point there is no way to know. Tulp asked about the 42 inch cabinet piece, the impracticable claim of 30 inches, and whether a 30 inch depth with this size of sign even exists. Andreassen said she spoke with their sign provider and was told they could probably create something that would work, but access for maintenance would be limited. The appellant added that the sign needs to be practicable for their needs as well. Page | 3 Weggen asked if the previous appeal that Van Meeteren referred to was for an interstate sign. Van Meeteren replied that it was for a building with a driveway cutting through the lot which caused a large reduction in the amount of street frontage for the sign allowance calculation. She added that some cities use the building frontage for sign calculations instead of street frontage and others have an allotment per tenant space. How the City of Ames came up with the number in the current Sign Code is unclear. Tulp asked if it is known where the 30 inches came from, as it is an odd, arbitrary number. And, from the highway, one would not be able to tell 30 inches from 42. Van Meeteren suggested the code is probably more catered toward monument style signs, which are lower and more noticeable. It was probably not intended to be applied to pole signs. Tulp agreed. Discussion was held about the side panels and maintenance access for the sign. Carnes asked if there was any delineation between replacing an existing sign and installing a new sign. Van Meeteren replied that because the appellant will be changing the size of the existing sign, the requirement for a sign permit was triggered, which then requires compliance with the current code. Brad Sydnes asked if there were any other regulations or State codes about interstate signs that would affect this appeal. Van Meeteren replied that because the Kum & Go is within 1500 feet of the right-of-way to the interstate, they are allowed a 100 foot pole sign. The DOT does have regulations for signs, but their main concern is off premises advertising signs. Tulp stated he agrees with the impracticability of the 30 inch requirement. Moved by Tulp, seconded by Mott, to grant the appeal and allow the interstate sign to be erected as proposed with 42 inches between faces Wolf stated he would oppose granting the appeal. He did not receive an explanation about where the 42 inches came from, and it was his understanding that the sign builder was still exploring whether a 30 inch deep sign is practical. His question had not been answered. Carnes added that because it is a large sign and it is not clear where the 30 inch requirement came from, if the depth needs to be 42 inches to be structurally sound, then he was inclined to grant the appeal. Sydnes addressed the issue of safety in accessing the sign for maintenance after it is in place. With the sign being so high and large, he was in favor of allowing 42 inches if that was what the appellant felt they needed. Roll Call Vote: 5-1 Motion passed Page | 4 B. Appeal of the Ames Municipal Code Chapters 5 and 8, at 301 S. 16th Street, 315 S. 16th Street, and 1505 Buckeye Avenue, by NLA Duff, Chad Williams Chad Williams with NLA Duff, LLC and Brian Torresi, Attorney with Davis Brown Law firm, were present. On speaker phone were: Patrick Morgan, Architect; John, Electrical Engineer; Dustin, Mechanical Engineer; and Monte, Plumbing. Van Meeteren presented the staff report. The appeal is fo r the old Kmart site, Duff Plaza. There are three separate addresses being discussed. At issue is the way that the lot lines have been constructed does not easily allow the services to come into each building without crossing property lines, and the IBC, NEC and UPC all prohibit services from crossing property lines. A Code Modification Application was submitted in November 2019 asking to allow the services to cross the property lines with the backing of an easement. Staff determined that the easement did not guarantee that each property would still have access to their services, so the application was denied. On paper it looked like it would work, but practically speaking, if something happened on site or there was a maintenance issue, it could take a great deal to go through the legal process to enforce the easement if someone needed to. This determination is what is being appealed. The Appeal Application was submitted in December 2019 citing the true intent of the Code has been incorrectly interpreted, the requirements of the Code are adequately satisfied by other means and the specific proposed alternative action will increase the degree of general code compliance of the specific system or the building on the premises, and there are specific fixed conditions that make strict compliance with this Code impracticable. Staff’s decision was that the modification utilizing the easement did not provide the necessary compliance to meet the Code criteria. Chad Williams presented the appeal. Patrick Morgan is the architect/consultant for the project and was on speaker phone. Williams began with some background information. He went before City Council in November of 2018 to get the integrated site plan approved along with the subdivision. The existing building has a central utility room that all of the utilities come in through. From the utility room, the utilities would be branched out to each tenant. Lot 1 is going to be self-storage. Lots 2 and 3 are out front. Subsequently, they set up a Reciprocal Easement Agreement (REA) that gives the tenants of Lots 2 and 3 access to Lot 1 should utilities become inoperable, etc. This arrangement is how the company has done developments in the past. They just recently completed a similar development in Cleveland, Tennessee with utilities crossing lot lines and having easements in place for the tenants to gain access if needed. A conference call was held on January 3, 2020 with Fire Inspector Jason Ziph to walk him through what the appellant was proposing. The REA is a recorded legal document that will stay with the development forever. The only way to amend it from a legal standpoint is to have each tenant buy off on it and sign it. Brian Torresi stated that this is the first ever integrated subdivision that the City of Ames has approved for development, and probably the last, because of how difficult it has been to go through the platting process, development agreement and site plan approval. Basically, there is an existing building that they are adding lot lines into. The issue arises in trying to cross the lot Page | 5 lines to serve other parts of the building. In accordance with the development agreement, they still need to have fire wall rating and all the other requirements that would otherwise be required as part of a regular lot line. However, like any other integrated/strip mall kind of development process, there is a declaration of reciprocal easements, covenants, conditions, restrictions, etc., where everyone has rights to all common areas and easements for all of the other “lots” in a single building that has lot lines between it. That is the impracticable part. The tenants have rights to have utilities and everything they need to serve their space. The appellant will address what they are trying to do and explain why this is a reasonable alternative, and that doing the project in strict compliance with the Code is impracticable. Torresi referred to the Code Modification Application. The appellant followed the guidance of Adam Ostert, Assistant Building Official, on which code sections would need to be modified. They looked up those code sections and posted the application. The Staff decision states that the proposed modification does not comply with the intent of the Code and it does not increase the level of safety. Torresi does not see anything in the Code that says the appellant needs to increase the level of safety. It says one needs to increase the level of general code compliance, which is everything in the Code. Therefore, they feel they do not need to increase the level of safety, so the appellant believes the Code has been incorrectly interpreted in the denial of the Code Modification Application. The appellant is hoping to come to an agreement to make the development work in a practical way that an integrated subdivision should work. Integration is what they are doing: that was the entire purpose of their development agreement and site plan, which the appellant went through the Planning Department and City Council to get approved. To get to this phase in the project and be told that it cannot be done is disheartening. Williams added that the walls are fire rated for what they need to be and penetrations will be fire sealed for what they need to be. He then asked if section 7061.1 refers to openings as being doors. Adam Ostert replied “openings” is a general term for doors and windows. Carnes asked for clarification on whether the primary utilities will go to each space individually or if there will be one central mechanical room and the utilities will run from there to each tenant. Patrick Morgan replied that there is an existing utility room in the Southwest corner of the building, and along with the sprinkler fire riser, all of the utilities come into the building at that location. Currently, all of the services go throughout the building. The plan is to break up the fire sprinkler. It will come out of the main room and then be distributed so each tenant will have its own riser or main sprinkler line. It is the same idea with the electric: it would come into one room and then get distributed to the new tenant location. Carnes asked if each tenant will have its own mechanical room. Morgan replied that each tenant will not have its own mechanical room, per se, but will have its own location for its own panels to distribute to that tenant space. Monte stated that for the water, fire and gas lines, there is a designated area within each space where the shut off valves will be for the gas, water and fire sprinkler services. The main shut offs will be back in the main utility room, and then in each space, there will be a shut off valve for each particular service. Page | 6 Andrew Mott asked if the appellant was planning on running the electrical service under the floor or overhead. Williams said overhead, so as to not have to break up the slab to run it underground. The storage units do not go up to the top of the structure; there are three to six feet of clear space, depending on the slope, bet ween the joists and the beams where all of the utilities will be run. The utilities could then be accessed and maintained without disrupting a storage unit. Dustin explained that the electric will run to each tenant’s own subpanel from the main distribution panel. After the initial installation, there should not be any work required in the self-storage. Mott said in that scenario, those would be considered service feeders coming from the distribution panel out and, per the NEC, they cannot cross party walls or addresses, although they could go under the slab floor. Nick Patterson, Electrical Inspector, agreed with Mott. The question was asked if it would be acceptable to run the electrical underground. Patterson said he would interpret it as still crossing lot lines. Williams then asked if running the electrical underground would be preferable to overhead. Patterson said that utility companies prefer to keep their utilities on common property lines or easements, so they are not crossing over. The utilities are accessed for each customer on each side in case there is a situation where customers do not get along and they deny access to each other. Torresi expressed that is exactly why they have the declaration of reciprocal leases and covenants, to prevent denied access from happening. Discussion was held on lot lines and easements. Torresi said the City Planning Department reviewed the declaration and the development agreement, because the appellant had to show that they had the easements. They were under the impression that the easements solved their problems. Carnes asked if there were building plans submitted. Williams was not sure. Torresi emphasized that the City always knew it was going to be a single structure and lot lines were being added as part of the development agreement. Jane Chang, Assistant City Attorney, asked when the appellant provided the easement to the City. She stated the document she had was dated August 2019. The development agreement was from June, the plat was recorded the 23rd of August, and another document was dated August 27. Torresi and Chang separately discussed the dates of the documents submitted. The conversation returned to the discussion about electrical service. The appellant stated the electrical service does not cross the property lines. Only the feeders are crossing the property lines. Patterson said he agreed with the interpretation of feeders, however, the property lines would still be crossed with the service feeders that would be provid ing power to each space. If the development was one common building with no property lines, then it would be a different situation. He questioned what would prevent one tenant from disabling another tenant’s electric feeder coming in. Williams replied that the main would be in the landlord room which would be perpetual with the Lot 1 owner, so tenants would have to get the property management company to open the landlord room. It would be similar to a mall situation with a main electrical room. Page | 7 The definition of electrical service was discussed. Morgan asserted that everyone in attendance at the meeting understands what the situation is, but he questioned what the major concern was other than what the NEC calls out. By creating the property lines, they are not creating anything that would be a detriment to health and safety. He asked if the concern was mainly about someone doing something nefarious and cutting off power. Carnes replied that there may be an emergency situation where a tenant , or emergency services, needs to turn off their own utility immediately without having to go through another building. Torresi and Williams stressed that the development has a mix of general public utility easements and private easements, which the City required. They were required to have the REA in order to do an integrated site plan, which was recorded and reviewed by the City. They also had to prove that they had an enforcement mechanism in place to alleviate some of the concerns. Tulp asked what spawned the need for the lot lines. Williams said that due to the nature of development these days, it was how they had to do it to get the project done in terms of funding, lending, equity. For example, Lot 1 has a different mortgagee than Lots 2 and 3. Carnes asked the appellant to explain why they cannot have three separate mechanical rooms with three separate utilities. Williams answered he would not know what the City would do from the subdivision standpoint if they had to unwind this development. He would have to move property lines again and may end up in front of the Building Board of Appeals again. Torresi added that the main impetus of their argument is that the requirements of the code are adequately satisfied by other means, and their alternative complies with the purpose and intent of the Code. Morgan reiterated that with their design, they do not believe they have created any life safety or fire hazards in any way. Williams added that the tenants are all aware of the REA in the leases. Discussion was held about lot lines and public utilities. Tulp asked what the risk was from the City’s perspective. Ostert said his concern was maintaining access to the utilities for the life of the structure. In a hypothetical scenario where the storage facility was damaged, where all of the services come through, what would stop that owner from tearing down that structure resulting in no service to the other spaces. Torresi replied that the declaration and the association would prevent that from happening. Carnes asked the inspectors if they had specific concerns. Ryan Cable, Plumbing/Mechanical Inspector, said his concern was damage occurring to any of the services underneath the building. Tulp asked if the appellant had a color coded diagram that showed where the utilities were going. Morgan replied he does have one, but he would not be able to provide it to the Board until the following day. Discussion was held about the sewer lines on the property. Page | 8 Fire Inspector Jason Ziph asked if the risers would all be located in the landlord space and use a common fire department connection located in the Southwest corner of the building. Morgan responded affirmatively. Ziph said his main concern is that the Fire Code references the NFPA 13 which does not specifically talk about running fire lines and fire sprinkler systems through intervening properties, so this is a gray area. The Fire Code also references NFPA 25 which covers the maintenance aspect for the sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems. He needs to know whether or not everything is specified to be able to maintain the fire sprinkler and fire alarm system. He would prefer the 8 inch lines being tapped and have an individual sprinkler room in each property, especially for emergency response. Torresi explained to the Board that the reason the appellant did not list a specific code section on the Appeal Application for the Fire Code was because there is not a specific code section that applies to the situation. The REA does specifically address fire suppression equipment exclusively for each lot owner just like all the other easements. Carnes stated that he was struggling with the appeal because it involves several codes and factors that need to be taken into consideration: areas of safety, maintenance, longevity for the property. He did not feel that he had enough information to prove that the easement satisfies the modification request. Williams asked what the easement would need to say to satisf y that request, and added that the easement has been under the review of the City Attorney. Jane Chang clarified that the City Attorney’s office has not reviewed the easement. Carnes said the details of the easement are not really a huge concern or area for this Board to speak on. The area of expertise for this Board is the code, code compliance, staff’s interpretation of the code, and if a proposed alternative is going to make sense and retain the code’s integrity. Carnes added he does not understand how the inordinate details of the easement and how permission on paper creates immediate access or increases the safety. Torresi questioned the need to increase safety. The proposed modifications do not decrease safety. Carnes replied that not meeting the code decreases safety. Torresi reiterated that the modification is an alternative means to satisfy the code. Dustin asked how emergencies are handled in malls; does the Fire Department have keys to the access rooms. Ziph replied that in malls, the Fire Department will either have Knox Boxes or they will force entry. The difference with a mall is that there is one overall la ndlord and the other spaces are tenants. The sprinkler system and life safety systems are controlled by that landlord. In this case, the appellant is proposing to have different owners to properties who will then each have a stake in the water supply comin g off for their sprinkler system. The comparison is like comparing apples and oranges. The different lots could have different sprinkler companies servicing the sprinkler systems and could end up with multiple contractors servicing multiple sprinkler lines. The appellant responded saying that would not happen because the landlord and the association control the easement rights. Williams returned to the topic of the electrical service. He wanted to know if the Electrical Inspector would be okay if the electrical ran under slab if the Board approved it. He added that Page | 9 would be great if they could resolve the fire and electrical issues at this meeting. Discussion was held on running the service under slab and the electrical code requirements. Torresi expressed that all of the back and forth discussion lent support to the appellant’s argument that it is impracticable the way it is, the proposed alternative does not decrease life and safety, and it meets the intent and spirit of the Code. He asked the Board to approve the appeal. Van Meeteren referred to the means of appeal and the staff report for the claims picked for the appeal: the second one listed is verbatim from the Code Section 5.601(3) which does say that that appellant needs to increase the degree of general code compliance. Torresi asked for a definition of general code compliance, since he believes the appellant is increasing the degree of general code compliance by providing the alternative means that gets the same job done , while at the same time protecting everyone’s rights. He continued by saying the alternative is adequate, with the purpose and intent of the Code, and does not decrease safety. Morgan asked for confirmation that the Code states that the alteration must go above and beyond what the standard code would have. Carnes read the code section, “The proposed alternative action will increase the degree of the general code compliance of the specific system or building of the premises.” Morgan reiterated that they are going to be installing higher than necessary fire ratings, which is an example of increasing the degree of general code compliance. Ostert responded to Morgan’s example stating it does not apply to this situation, as the increase needs to address the specific code in question. Discussion was held on general code compliance and level of safety. Carnes said the City of Ames Code cannot be less restrictive than the State of Iowa Code. He asked the appellant if the utility easement alternative maintains the safety aspect of all of the codes that they are appealing so they are not less restrictive. In Carnes opinion, the utility easement creates more steps for access to the utilities instead of fewer steps. Being more restrictive would create fewer steps. Torresi responded that the Building Official’s denial did not state that the proposed alternative was less restrictive than the State Code. Tulp summarized the situation and asked if the appellant was asking the Board to determine if an easement equates to the Code language. Torresi replied that the appellant is asking if the way the project is laid out with the fire protection between the lot lines, the reciprocal easement with the utilities controlled by the landlord in the overall integrated development , with the development agreement, the association and all the other requirements, is that an adequate alternative or other means that comply with the spirit and intent of the Code. Tulp questioned what other things the appellant has done - other than the cross access agreement- to bring it to an equivalency. Morgan responded he does not see anywhere in the design where there is decreased safety. They could put locks on the doors for additional safety. Williams suggested they could increase the 2 hour wall separation for the partitions to 3 hours