Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Building Board of Appeals Minutes 03/02/2020 Page | 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS AMES, IOWA MARCH 2, 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 March 2, 2020, in Room 235 in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue. Present were Board Members David Carnes, Andrew Mott, Brad Sydnes, and Andrew Tulp. Duane Wolf and Oren Geisinger III were absent. Staff members present were Sara Van Meeteren and Vicki Feilmeyer. The minutes from the January 6, 2020 meeting were discussed. Andrew Tulp pointed out that during that meeting, the property lot lines discu ssed were referred to as “implied” and “imaginary”, but the lots lines are indeed real. The Board should strike the words “implied” and “imaginary” from the minutes. Moved by Sydnes, seconded by Mott, to approve the minutes from the January 6, 2020 meeting with the updates to the lot line verbiage Vote on Motion: 4-0 Motion passed OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS A. Request for Time Extension on Dangerous Building at 1126 Grand Avenue Building Official Sara Van Meeteren presented the staff report. Pictures of the property at 1126 Grand Avenue were shown comparing the condition of the building from the date when it was declared dangerous versus the current condition. The eaves have rotted off, the gutter has fallen off, and there is plywood covering the hole in the roof. Staff met with the property owner, Katherine Fisher, and her brother on November 20, 2019. At that meeting, the parties agreed to delay the dangerous declaration date until the first of the year so Fisher could find other means of housing. The Code states a building cannot be occupied once it is declared dangerous and staff did not want Fisher to be homeless. The structure was declared dangerous on January 10, 2020. On January 24, 2020 staff received a time extension request. After reviewing the request with the Legal Department, it was determined that an extension request requires the Building Official to grant an official extension prior to an extension request to the Board. The official extension had not been issued at the time the extension request was received, so Van Meeteren granted an official extension to the date of the next Board meeting. The extension has now been exhausted, so the Board Page | 2 has the authority to grant one extension of time. The owner must show that they have the financial ability to perform the work and that the work cannot practicably be completed within the time provided. The general guideline is 90 days for an extension for repairs. The options for the Board are to deny the extension request which would result in a demolition request at the April Board meeting, or approve the extension request , which would result in staff reporting back to the Board after the extension is up with a status update on the property. John Dirks, attorney for Katherine Fisher, asked the Board for as much time as possible for Fisher to take care of the situation. Fisher is retired with limited means and needs time to raise the funds to make the repairs to the house. She has spoken to three people who are interested in making the repairs, but they all wanted to wait until the snow melted before attempting to go onto the roof. One of contractors suggested a rollout placement for the top of the roof that would harden and adhere and temporarily patch the roof. Now that the weather has improved, hopefully Fisher will be able to get a contractor to actually begin the work and bring the house into compliance with City Code. Fisher does not currently live in the house and it is very difficult for her to keep up with the repairs. Her goal is to sell the property , and two people have expressed interest in purchasing it to fix it up. David Carnes asked if the only structural concerns are what is visible in the photos. Van Meeteren replied that she cannot confirm the amount of damage as she has not been able to enter the property. She is under the assumption that the water damage has compromised the integrity of the framing of the structure as well. Carnes asked if the appellant knew what the extent of the repairs needed inside the structure were. Fisher replied that the hole in the roof is above a bowed window, so the water is coming inside and being caught only in the window space. Carnes mentioned the type of repairs necessary would require a building permit and inspections of the work, which would probably spill into inspecting the internal structure. If more work is required than what is obvious in the photos, more time might be required to accomplish the work. Fisher stated she has contacted five to seven contractors and handymen to perform the work and most of them would no t attempt the work because they could not guarantee that it would solve the problem and that could risk their insurance coverage. Dirks reiterated that Fisher does have the funds, it would just take some time to raise them. Andrew Tulp asked about the two requirements to grant the extension: financial ability and the practicability of being completed in time. Dirks replied that the practicability of completing the project in time is an issue as Fisher has not been able to get a contractor to look at it because of the snow. However, now that the snow has melted, he believes the work will be able to be completed within 90 days. Brad Sydnes asked if the property needs to be deemed structurally sound to sell. Dirks replied that, legally, it does not. Practically, if a buyer would be seeking financing, a lender would want that, but Fisher is going to be selling the property at a deep discount which would give potential buyers the ability to purchase it and repair it. Page | 3 Carnes summarized that the appellant seems ready to move forward and has ideas about what needs to be done and how to get it done. The Board needs to decide if 90 days is the right amount of time. Sydnes stated that a 90 day extension is acceptable. Vicki Feilmeyer added that before the Board decides on an extension, it must make a finding that the owner has affirmatively shown that she has the financial ability to perform the work that is involved and that the work cannot practicably be completed within the time provided. The time provided would have been until March 2, 2020, based on the extension provided by the Building Official. Dirks addressed the financial ability by stating Fisher has a monthly retirement income and her expenses are limited. The house does not have a mortgage and she would be able to make the house repairs a priority. Van Meeteren asked if the goal was to make the repairs so the appellant could sell the property for a higher price. Dirks replied that the preference would be for the appellant to find someone to purchase the house and repair it. Two people have expressed interest in purchasing the property as is. Discussion was held about contractors working in the winter. Andrew Mott asked the appellant how much time was needed if she was planning to sell the property. Dirks replied that the appellant has not yet received an actual offer from the party interested in purchasing it. Fisher added that it would be a shame to demolish the house when there is a shortage of housing in Ames. Tulp said he is inclined to grant the 90 day extension. Moved by Tulp, seconded by Mott, to grant the Time Extension for 90 days as the owner has affirmatively shown that she has the financial ability to perform the work needed and the work could not practicably be completed in the time provided Vote on Motion: 4-0 Motion passed BOARD OR STAFF COMMENTS Van Meeteren announced that Nathan Werstein has resigned from the Board. Carnes asked about the Sign Code letter sent to Council. Van Meeteren said the Planning Department has also been looking at updating the Sign Code and is addressing the issue with Council at the March 10, 2020 meeting. The Sign Code may end up be moved to the Zoning Code. Staff is also moving forward with review and cleanup of Chapter 5 and adopting the new plumbing and mechanical codes.