Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Building Board of Appeals Minutes 06/01/2020 Page | 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS AMES, IOWA JUNE 1, 2020 CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairperson Andrew Mott called to order the Regular Meeting of the Building Board of Appeals, which was being held electronically, at 4:00 p.m. with the following Board members participating: Justin Dodge, Oren Geisinger, Brad Sydnes, Andrew Tulp, and Duane Wolf. Staff members participating were Rich Higgins, Tom Hackett, Jason Ziph, Sara Van Meeteren, Adam Ostert and Vicki Feilmeyer. Vice Chairperson Mott read a statement that due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the closure of City Hall until July 1, 2020 by City Council, it was impractical to hold an in-person meeting, thus the meeting was being held by electronic means. Public input would be accepted during the meeting with a time limit of five minutes per speaker. Moved by Sydnes, seconded by Tulp, to approve the minutes from the March 2, 2020 meeting The minutes were approved OLD BUSINESS A. Request to authorize demolition for non-compliance of Dangerous Building at 1126 Grand Avenue Building Official Sara Van Meeteren presented. At the March 2, 2020 Building Board of Appeals meeting, the Board authorized a 90 day extension to the owner of 1126 Grand Avenue, Katherine Fisher, to have the property repaired or demolished. Staff took pictures of the property on June 1, 2020 and found the structure in the same condition as it had been previously. No changes or improvements had been made to the exterior of the building. Staff was before the Board to request permission to demolish the structure. Van Meeteren stated the property owner could request a stay of demolition, which includes a list of criteria that must be met for the Board to consider it. Staff received a memo from John Dirks, attorney for Katherine Fisher, requesting more time as there was a buyer for the property lined up. John Dirks stated Katherine Fisher had to self-quarantine for the last couple of months due to the coronavirus and was not able to hire a contractor to repair the structure during that time. Dirks had discussed requesting additional time or a continuance of the hearing with Van Meeteren with the understanding that there would be a demolition, but performance on it would be held back since the owner agreed to allow City inspectors into the structure to determine the extent of the damage and whether or not it is repairable. The buyer, Jessica Jane, stated intent to repair the house after the purchase. Justin Dodge asked the appellant what a suitable timeframe would be to complete the work and bring the structure into compliance. After discussing the work needing to be done, 30 days was proposed. Jessica Jane reported there was not significant structural damage except for one basement wall with a split cinder block that could be removed and repaired. Page | 2 Van Meeteren explained a stay of demolition required specific criteria; therefore “continuance” was a better word to use for this situation. As she had discussed with Dirks, a continuance would be contingent on staff being able to go inside the structure within the week and the Board would authorize demolition effective June 8, 2020. Assuming the property would be found in the condition as stated by the buyer with no structural issues, staff would not need to proceed with demolition. If structural issues were found with the property, staff would then pursue demolition under the assumption that it would not be able to be structurally repaired in a timely manner. The 90 day extension given to the owner had been exhausted, which was on top of a 30 day extension issued by the Building Official in addition to multiple notices. The situation has been going on for six months and it was the City’s stance that it was time to take the structure down. Staff was interested in seeing the structure repaired if possible, but staff was not willing to agree to that option without physically inspecting it. Discussion was held regarding the options to the Board. Vicki Feilmeyer summarized that the condition of the structure must be verified and that all time extensions had been exhausted. Moved by Tulp, seconded by Dodge, to offer a continuance with the stipulation that City staff will be able to enter the structure as agreed to by the property owner to inspect it by June 8, 2020 and demolition will occur if the structure is found to be unsound Roll Call Vote: 5-0, Geisinger recused himself from the vote Motion passed NEW BUSINESS A. Appeal of the Ames Municipal Code Chapter 8 and the 2015 International Fire Code, Fire Alarm System Retrofitting Requirements, at 720 Kellogg Avenue by Kellogg Housing Cooperative Inc., David Klatt Fire Chief Rich Higgins presented. Beginning in 2008, an extensive community involvement process began which resulted in the adoption of a revised Chapter 13 Rental Housing Code. In 2009, Fire Alarm System retrofitting requirements were written into to the Rental Housing Code which had been in place for many years in the International Fire Code. The requirement was recommended by a citizen advisory committee for buildings with more than 16 rental units. A compliance deadline of July 1, 2014 was established with the possibility of two time extensions that ended up going through the Building Board of Appeals who extended the deadline to July 1 2019. In 2013, the code section was moved from the Rental Housing Code to the Fire Code. Several letters were sent to impacted properties noticing them of an upcoming City Council meeting and effective dates of the requirements, as well as offering assistance with the process. Council eventually changed the deadline to July 1, 2020. To date, of the 18 properties impacted, eight are in different stages of having the fire alarm systems retrofitted or are in the process of having them installed. Dodge asked if the Fire Department had made it known that they could be contacted for help with the process if needed. Higgins replied that on May 6, 2014, building owners and property managers that could have been impacted by the requirement were invited to the City Council Page | 3 meeting. After City Council acted, on June 6, 2014 a letter was sent to the impacted parties with additional letters sent in 2015 and 2016. Dodge asked if the appellant reached out seeking consultation or assistance. Higgins explained Fire Inspector Tom Henriksen retired during that time and was replaced by Jason Ziph, and no records were found showing that the Fire Department had worked with the appellant. Jason Ziph added that he had emails going back one year working with Lyn Terril, a representative for the co-op at 720 Kellogg, asking about the specifics of the code. During that same time period, Ziph received a quote from a fire alarm company indicating that they had been contacted and what they had proposed for the property. Dodge asked if there was a dollar amount for the quote. Ziph did not have the amount. Dodge asked for clarification on the status of the eight out of 18 impacted properties. Higgins stated eight were in the process or had already reached compliance. There are still 10 that they have had no contact with or knowledge of where they are at. Potentially, there could be 10 more appeals like the one being heard. Higgins explained there is a fire alarm permitting process in place, so he or Ziph would be notified if work was started, but if someone just got quotes or put together a fire alarm retrofit package, they would not be aware of it. Van Meeteren added the appellant filed the appeal requesting a waiver from the requirement because he considers the construction of the building and what is in place enough to satisfy the intent of the code and provide an equivalent level of safety. The Fire Code gives the Building Board of Appeals jurisdiction to determine if the alternative materials and methods are reasonable. The Board could determine that what the appellant ha s in place is sufficient or not sufficient, but the Board would not be able to issue an extension as that would have to go to City Council. The appellant, David Klatt, reviewed the pertinent facts of the appeal. The building has five floors with four units on each floor. Each unit is basically in a concrete cube with concrete block walls and prestressed concrete beams for the ceilings and floors. A few years ago, upgrades to the elevator system and common area fire alarm notification system were installed. If an alarm goes off in any common floor area, it will go off on every floor and the elevator will return to the first floor and shut down. The building is all electric with no gas, it is a non-smoking building and grills are not allowed on patios. Since at least the late 1990’s, there has not been a fire call to the building, possibly even longer than that. Given the construction type of the building along with the fire alarm system in place, the appellant and the owners of the co-op believe they are meeting the spirit of the code and providing a safe place to live. Klatt has received estimates of $25,000-$35,000 to bring the fire alarm system into compliance. Dodge asked for clarification about which code the requirement fell under, the Rental Code or the Fire Code. Higgins clarified that it is the Fire Code and each building needs to adhere to the Fire Code whether there are rental units or not . The building is an R-2 occupancy, is higher than three stories, and has more than 16 units, so it meets the criteria for the fire alarm retrofit requirement per the Fire Code. Dodge asked the Fire staff about their personal and professional thoughts about the building. Higgins stated the fact that the building is compartmentalized and Page | 4 prestressed concrete is a desirable thing. The construction type is the best choice for fire safety and preventing fire spread. However, what kills people is not the fire itself, but the biproducts of the fire: the smoke and the heat. The doors, HVAC/venting system, and pipe runs allow smoke to travel from one compartment to the next. So regardless of compartmentalization of the units, smoke is the major concern. Klatt countered that each unit has its own HVAC system, so they are not tied to each other. Higgins continued by saying smoke spread is the major concern and not being able to notify all the occupants if there was a fire. The benefits of having a fire alarm system are that everyone in the building would be aware of a fire and be able to evacuate. The building construction is great at preventing fire spread; however, it does not limit the spread of the fire biproducts which can prevent people from getting down the stairs and exiting the structure. Another concern with the building is that it is a high rise and people may have difficulty getting down the stairs if there was a fire. Andrew Tulp asked if the current smoke alarm system notified all the occupants. Klatt replied if a fire were to leach out into a hallway, a detector would go off which would notify all floors and set off an alarm on all floors. Higgins clarified that it would set off an alarm in the common areas but not the sleeping areas of each unit. Klatt added that there are smoke detectors in each dwelling unit bedroom and common hallway as part of the Rental Code requirements. He also pointed out the building is not a typical Ames building filled with students. The residents are mostly retired with an average age of over 70. A concern of the residents is that under the new system, if an alarm was to go off in every unit, it could ensue panic since the alarms are probably more likely to be set off accidentally rather than because of an actual fire. Some of the residents are physically challenged. Dodge asked Higgins what he would recommend in his professional opinion. Higgins stated his recommendation would be a fire alarm retrofit. The building does not have a notification system nor a sprinkler system. A similar building built today would have both as required by the Fire Code. Ziph explained the requirement was adopted under Chapter 11 - Construction Requirements for Existing Buildings. Its intent is to provide a minimum degree of fire and life safety for people occupying existing buildings. He repeated if the building at 720 Kellogg Avenue was built today, it would be required to have both a sprinkler system and alarm system. The argument from the appellant is that by the nature of the construction of the building, a fire alarm system is not necessary as called for in the code. The building is a concrete structure, but one of the main benefits about having an alarm system is to provide notification to the occupants of the building giving them time to get out and seek safety. The smoke detectors currently in place only go off in each individual unit. So other than someone leaving the unit and starting the escape or knocking on other doors, the other residents would most likely not know a smoke detector was going off. By installing a fire alarm system, it would be ensured that there is notification throughout the building as well as notification to emergency services so they could respond. Page | 5 Van Meeteren said the Board needed to determine if what the building had in place met the criteria of the two major components that Ziph discussed: alerting all residents and al erting the dispatch center. If the building met the criteria, the Board could find that the appeal was just, and the appellant had additional methods in place that met the minimum intent of the code. Or, if the Board found that what was in place did not meet the criteria, they would deny the appeal. Discussion was held about the requirement of increasing the level of safety. Tulp addressed the six year time frame. He asked the appellant why it had taken so long. Klatt replied that they had discussions with the previous Fire Inspector, Tom Henriksen, about the general requirements and what the code was asking them to do. The building owners believed they had met some of the requirements with the elevator upgrade that they had done, which cost several thousand dollars and addressed fire safety. They thought they were headed in the right direction, but nothing came out of it and follow up lapsed. Conversations about it resumed about a year ago and they obtained some estimates. They reached out to the City to talk about the appeal process, but after being in contact with the Legal Department it came to a standstill. Someone in their group eventually contacted Jason Ziph and received an email explaining the process with the appeal paperwork. Klatt expressed that he and the others at 720 Kellogg were not arguing the merits of fire safety or the merits of the code. Instead they believe that the building, with all things considered, is a very safe building. The spirit of the code has been met already with not only the construction of the building, but the demographics of the residents, the fact that there is no gas in the building, and the fact that there is a common notification system in the hallways. With the construction of the units, if a fire broke out, it would not take over the building very quickly. If someone pulled an alarm or opened a door and smoke got into the hallway, the common areas would be notified. An accidental setting of an alarm is a genuine concern of the people living in the building. The residents consider what is in place to be adequate. Dodge asked the appellant to speak to what a $35,000 fee would do to the co-op and if they had the funds readily available. Klatt replied they would have to do a special assessment and he pointed out that they spent close to $100,000 upgrading the elevator system as well as $10,000 on the smoke detector system. Dodge then asked if the co-op had discussed the option of a full suppression system. Klatt said they had discussed it and they deemed it unnecessary for a concrete building that has never had a fire call. Discussion was held on smoke detectors and notifications. Van Meeteren pointed out that not all of the units in the building are registered rental units, so they do not all get the benefit of a regular rental inspection to ensure the smoke detectors are functional.