Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Building Board of Appeals Minutes 07/09/2018 Page | 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS AMES, IOWA JULY 9, 2018 Call to Order The regular meeting of the Building Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Larry Cormicle at 4:00 p.m., July 9, 2018, in Room 235 in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue. Present from the Building Board of Appeals were Larry Cormicle, Brad Heemstra, Brad Sydnes, Andrew Mott, Dan Nutini, and David Carnes. Nathan Werstein was absent. Staff members present were Sara Van Meeteren, Adam Ostert, Ryan Cable, Stephen Pohl, and Jane Chang. Moved by Carnes, seconded by Mott to approve the minutes of May 7, 2018 Vote on Motion: 6-0 Motion passed unanimously Old Business None New Business A. Appeal of the Ames Municipal Code Discharge, Subsoil Drains, Section 5.208[51] and Section 1101.6.1 at 1232 20th Street by Somak and Bidisha Dutta Appellant, Somak and Bidisha Dutta, of 1232 20th Street presented their appeal. Mr. Dutta stated they received a notice in regards to their sump pump line. They purchased the home in 2016. They hired a home inspector who mentioned nothing of the sumpline being noncompliant with the current code. Since they purchased the home, their sumpline had been discharging into the backyard. They have been monitoring it and do not believe that their sumpline is the cause of the pooling in their neighbor’s, backyard. They believe it is because three ajascent yards all slope to one location that crosses all three parcels. They do notice standing water, but it after heavy rainfall and. They have shortened the discharge line to fifteen feet as a precaution and noticed that, even after doing so, their property still had standing water after severely heavy rainfall. Dave Carnes asks if that is the only sump pump they current have. Mr. Dutta confirms that it is true. Dan Nutini asks if their sump pump is operational. Mr. Dutta says that does currently run. The amount of time is dependent on the amount of rain. Larry Cormicle then allows City staff to present their position. Sara Van Meeteren, Building Official, stated that the Codes Liaison, Matthew Stern, was called to their property by a neighbor that was affected by the ponding of water they believed was caused by the Dutta’s sump pump. Current code requires all sump lines be connected to the storm sewer. Steph Pohl, Plumbing Inspector, came to the property and confirmed that the home was noncompliant. Additionally, the neighboring property was issued the same letter as Dutta’s and complied with city code. Van Meeteren goes on to say that, although they are not actively looking, when matters are brought to their attention they must make sure homes are brought up to code. Page | 2 Brad Sdynes asks if there is a reason for the Duttas not to comply besides cost. Mr. Dutta responded that he was told that if the Ames storm-sewer line fails, it would back up into their basement. Thus, causing more financial burden. The board discussed with city staff about the area and the issues that may ensue in regards to the property and its location, and the work that would entail hooking up the sump pump to the city in that area. Mr. Dutta said that it was expressed by neighbors, and in the paper, that many houses were flooded by the storm sewer line because of heavy rain. Mrs. Dutta listed other problematic times where weather had caused homes to flood. Cormicle asks the age of the home and if the homes built in their area would be compliant with today’s code. Ryan Cable, City Plumbing Inspector, stated it most likely would’ve run up to the curb and Pohl concurred. Heemstra asks city staff about grants that could be applicable to this situation. Van Meeteren responded saying there were grants roughly ten years ago, but the funds have since run out and there has not been interest in bringing it back at this time. Heemstra reiterates that that cty is not actively searching for this code violation. Van Meeteren states they do not, but when it is brought to their attention they will go through the proper channels for a property to do so. The board and city staff discuss the heavy rain of 2018 in particular being a factor in this situation. Cormicle reconfirms that the Dutta’s have changed their discharge line. Mr. Dutta says it has always been in the backyard, but they shortened it. Carnes feels the code is being appropriately activated, but does address that the complaint was what brought it to notice. Van Meeteren agreed it was the complaint, but once it was brought to the city’s attention they have to acknowledge it. They cannot pick and choose who it applies too. Heemstra makes the point that the code doesn’t acknowledge triggering events. Heemstra makes the point that this is complaint-based and puts those who purchase homes not in compliance may be singled-out in this situation. It becomes selective instead of uniform. Dan Nutini asks about the complaint process, and Van Meeteren elaborated how these issues are addressed. Andrew Motts asked if there is a time frame, and Van Meeteren explains how there is no specific time frame in these matters, and the city is willing to work those involved. The city does need to that they are making progress, however, in the event the complaintent reaches out why the appellent is still not up to code. Carnes asks if the complaint was because of a code violation or because of ponding in their yard. Van Meeteren answers that it was because of the ponding. Moved by Cormicle, seconded by Mott, to approve the appeal on the grounds that the Dutta’s have rerouted their sump line to no longer discharge where the ponding has been affecting their neighbor’s property. Vote on Motion: 5-1; Carnes denied the appeal. Motion passed Page | 3 B. Appeal of 2012 International Energy Code Economizers, Section C403.3.1 at 1404 S. Duff Avenue by Darin Stoll with Mechanical Comfort, Inc. Darin Stoll, with Mechanical Comfort Inc, represented 1404 S. Duff (Hickory Park). Stoll has been contracted to replace a rooftop unit for the property. Current code requires an economizer be added to the unit. Stoll, and the business owners of Hickory Park, agree that in their particular situation, an economizer would not be efficient. Stoll referred to a letter he sent on June 2, 2018 to the city. He believes the Iowa Code is trying to enforce the 2012 Energy Conservation Code and does not necessarily apply to existing building unless there was an addition, renovation, or remodel. None of which occured in this situation. He also reached out to authorities in other communities and some believe if you remove a unit that does not have an economizer, you may replace it with one that does not have one. He has not found code that states that replacing an existing unit, it must be brought up to code. All he can find is reference of updating when engineering a new building or doing renovations and additions. He reached out to Sara Van Meeteren, which he claimed, she checked with the state and they sided with city of Ames’s decision. Stoll shared additional information on how an economizer would be ineffective in Hickory Park’s situation. Hickory Park opens at 10:00am, and there are very few days the economizer would actually function. Hickory Park has a complex mechanical system, and requires a particular set-up to keep the dining room and kitchen air flow balanced. If they were to add an economizer to this system, they would lose control of that balance. Hickory Park has nine units total, and do not want one unit to cause issue because it has an economizer. Cormicle asks if, based on Stoll’s interpretation of the energy code, there is an alternative for Hickory Park to be code compliant without the economizer. Stoll answered that the minimum requirements are applied the air conditions, but not the economizer specifically. There is no data available that is added to economizers. Manufacturers simply don’t produce that information. The current air conditioner, as it is now, does meet the minimum efficiency requirements. There is no code on economizers and efficiency code. Syndes asked if they were still bringing fresh air into building, which Stoll did confirm. Stoll added that Hickory Park’s current airflow is compliant and consistent with industry standards. The current system does meet all the ventilation requirements. Stoll continued that he believed that this economizer requirement, in the state of Iowa, could be detrimental to several businesses in the future. Cormicle asks if the there are question from the board. Syndes inquires about the cost difference between an unit with, or without, an economizer. Stoll says, at first, about eight-hundred dollars, but they are very high maintenance and that cost builds greatly over time. The board continues to discuss with Stoll the specificities and efficincies of an economizer in this situation. Cormicle asks staff their position in regards to a reference in their information that relates to climate and economizers. Van Meeteren explains that their is table the references the requirement of an economizer based on climates. Currently, the city’s climate is not listed. Stoll elaborates stating that cooler and dryer climates will receive more days of operation on an economizer. He feels ours does not Page | 4 fall under this currently. Stoll goes on to say they have successfully installed and utilized economizers in 24-hour businesses, it just isn’t beneficial in this instance. Van Meeteren states that if amendments arise, they can adopt them, but their current stance is based off the state restrictions. Adam Ostert, Plans Examiner, agreed stating the city has the right to be more restrictive, but not less. Ostert continues saying the reached out to others in regards to this matter. In other areas, there was a 50% agreement rate, and the state of Iowa also agreed with their interpreation. They did have recommend showing having a someone show the benefit of efficiency of having an economizer or not. Heemstra addresses the issue that, with remodels, there are many variables and, in the instance, the code is requiring to address a certain value that may not benefit the business. The board and staff discuss the difference between the energy code, and the situation-at-hand. The board discusses with staff and Stoll about the variance of the current code, opposed to previous representation. Moved by Heemstra, seconded by Mott Vote on Motion: 6-0 Motion passed unanimously Board or Staff Comments None Adjournment Moved by Cormicle to adjourn the meeting at 5:00 p.m. _____________________________ Ben Lievens, Recording Secretary