Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/13/2001 Adjourned Meeting / Study Session 11 5 CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON ADJOURNED MEETING - STUDY SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 13, 2001 - 7:30 A.M. POLICE STATION /LEGAL CENTER - 200 SOUTH 3 STREET 1. ROLL CALL Present: Council: Mayor Mary Place, presiding, Council Members Clarence Barnett, Henry Beauchamp, John Puccinelli, and Bernard Sims Absent: Council Members Lynn Buchanan and Larry Mattson (excused) Staff: Glenn Rice, Acting City Manager; Larry Peterson, Assistant City Attorney; Bill Cook, Director of Community and Economic Development; Al Gillespie, Fire Chief; Don Blesio, Police Chief (present after 7:50 a.m.); Doug Maples, Code Administration Manager; Jack Lovell, Supervising Code Inspector; and City Clerk Roberts Others: Barbara Cline, Don Moen, Howard Moore, and Bill Maier, Council Economic Development Sub - Committee members from the construction industry 2. REVIEW OF UNIFORM CONSTRUCTION CODE AMENDMENTS • Bill Cook introduces the code amendments for discussion Bill Cook displayed a typical set of plans that his staff reviews to ensure that the building is designed and built to "codes ". He also displayed the five books that comprise the 1997 Uniform Building Codes (UBC). He stated that a committee was formed with a goal of reviewing the UBC to determine amendments for our local codes. Cities may amend the UBC for clarification, but the local codes cannot be made less restrictive than the UBC. Mayor Place interjected that the State Legislature is asking the state to adopt the International Building Code. Doug Maples stated that in the WAC it is identified as the UC, in our ordinances it is identified as the International Building Code (IBC). The Committee was asked to utilize the International Building Code as an alternate process. It is contained in Section 104.2.8 in the Building Code, Section 103.1.2 in the Fire Code and • Section 105.2 in the Mechanical Code; the Plumbing Code does not have it in it. He reminded Council that the City does not do electrical review or inspections; that is under the purview of Labor and Industries. • Council reviews the amendments Council Member Barnett stated he has four areas of concern: (1) power of law enforcement officer; (2) right to enter; (3) limitations of authority of the Board of Appeals; and (4) power to adopt supplemental regulations. 116 FEBRUARY 13, 2001 — ADJOURNED MEETING (2) Right to enter Council Member Barnett directed Council's attention to Chapter 1 of the Building Code where it talks about the right of entry. He said it is basically the same in the other codes; however, the Fire Code has been written separately using different language. He suggested that the right of entry used in the 1997 UBC Chapter 104.2.3 could be incorporated into all the ordinances. The last sentence could be changed from "If entry is refused, the building official shall have recourse to the remedies provided by law to secure entry' to read "If entry is refused, the building official, or authorized representative, may apply to any court of competent jurisdiction for an inspection warrant authorizing access to such property. The court may, upon such application and a proper showing, issue the inspection warrant for the purposes requested. "Council Member Barnett stated they should have to get a warrant. Mr. Maples agreed, stating his understanding is that was the remedy provided by law. It was the consensus of the Council to accept this modification. (4) Supplemental regulations: Council Member Barnett commented that the authority of the Building Official to adopt supplemental regulations was changed in one of the codes, but did not get changed in all the codes. He asked that the other codes be changed to make it uniform in all the codes. He stated he would like to see the language changed to what is on page 42 in the Uniform Housing Code. The new language would read, The building official shall have the power to render interpretations of this code and enforce rules and supplemental regulations to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, rules and regulations shall be in conformity with the intent and purpose of this code." Mr. Maples concurred. (1) Power of law enforcement officer: Council Member Barnett pointed out that the term law enforcement officer is used in lieu of police officer in the Fire Code, which he doesn't object to; however, he noted it was not used in all the ordinances. He asked if it is needed in the other codes. After discussion about the ordinances having different language in them but the same intent, Larry Peterson offered to bring back standard wording for Council's review that can be utilized in all the ordinances. (3) Limitation of authority of the Board of Appeals Council Member Barnett voiced his concerns with the language on page 6 in the Building Code relating to administrative provisions that cannot be appealed to the Board of Appeals. Mr. Maples addressed this issue stating he researched this further after an earlier discussion with Council Member Barnett. The administrative organization of the Building Department is in part one of the ordinance, and regulations and enforcement of rules, which relates to the technical portion, is part two of the ordinance. Chapter One of the ordinance relates to the purpose and organization of the ordinance and defines terms contained in the ordinance. If there were an appeal, it would be on the technical merits and not the administrative portion of the Code. The administrative portion is the Council's responsibility to address. The technical portion is the 2 117. FEBRUARY 13, 2001 — ADJOURNED MEETING responsibility of the Building Code Official. For example, if he were to deny a certificate of occupancy, there is a mechanism in the ordinance that allows that decision to be appealed to the Board of Appeals. It is a ten -day process. The Board would hear the technical merits that he based his decision on to deny the certificate and hear from the appellant his side of the issue. Bill Cook interjected that perhaps the word procedural could replace the word administrative. We don't want this Board to have to hear procedural issues. Assistant City Attorney Peterson urged the Council to maintain the language in the ordinance that limits the power of the Board of Appeals to interpret the Code and not be able to waive any regulation or requirements in the Code. Council discussed the appeal process, including who makes the final decision — Council or the court. • Comments from the Committee Members are heard Also discussed was the composition of the Board, increasing the membership to seven from five to add a Washington State plumber and journeyman mechanical contractor. Mr. Moen had a concern about being so specific as to require a journeyman mechanical contractor. He asked if the word "shall" is necessary when speaking about the composition of the Board. Mr. Peterson stated he would look at that language again. Discussion ensued regarding the relationship of the size of the building to the parking requirements and the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. For example, Mr. Moen pointed out that when the Catholic Credit Union was built, they allowed for storage in the basement and since that space was calculated into the total size of the building the parking requirements were increased. A restricted certificate of occupancy could have been issued that would not allow that space to be occupied by people and then not be included in the parking requirement calculation. Mr. Maples interjected that the parking requirements are contained in the zoning ordinance. Mayor Place suggested that perhaps a meeting could be arranged in the future to discuss this issue. Council Member Sims suggested that more people from the construction industry should be invited to attend that meeting. Acting City Manager Rice suggested that Doug Maples work with the industry and then bring back their results. Mr. Maples suggested using this same committee to look at that issue. • Executive Session re Pending Litigation At 8:50 a.m. Council adjourned into Executive Session for approximately 10 minutes to discuss pending litigation with immediate adjournment thereafter. 3. ADJOURNMENT TO FEBRUARY 20, 2001 AT 7:30 A.M. AT THE POLICE STATION /LEGAL CENTER FOR REVIEW OF IRRIGATION STUDY Following the conclusion of the Executive Session the meeting adjourned at 9:25 a.m. 3