Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Building Board of Appeals Minutes 07/13/2020 Page | 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS AMES, IOWA JULY 13, 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 4:01 p.m. with the following Board members participating: Justin Dodge, 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. Moved by Mott, seconded by Dodge, to elect Andrew Mott as the Chairperson Roll Call Vote: 5-0 Motion passed Moved by Mott, seconded by Tulp, to elect Justin Dodge as the Vice Chairperson Roll Call Vote: 5-0 Motion passed Moved by Dodge, seconded by Sydnes, to approve the minutes from the June 1, 2020 meeting Roll Call Vote: 5-0 Motion passed OLD BUSINESS A. Abatement request of the dangerous conditions at 1126 Grand Avenue Building Official Sara Van Meeteren explained the request. At the June 1, 2020 Building Board of Appeals meeting, the Board authorized demolition of the structure at 1126 Grand Avenue if staff confirmed that it was dangerous after their inspection. Upon inspection of the structure, staff determined that the interior of the structure was not dangerous. There were some dangerous areas, but as a whole, the interior was in sound condition and the property could be rehabilitated with some repair, time and money. The roof, however, has two specific areas that need to be repaired immediately to prevent water from entering the structure. Minor abatement - some framing and new roofing - would resolve the issues for staff. Staff was asking the Board to authorize abatement for the ability to repair the roof to ensure it would be watertight, and no further deterioration could occur. The property owner had the ability to request a stay, in which several criteria would have to be met. The owner would have to: agree to a timeline, grant the City the right to award a contract, reimburse the City for the cost, and post a bond or a line of credit to show that they have the financial means to make the repairs. John Dirks, attorney for the appellant, requested more time to complete the repairs since progress was being made. The buyer was working on the structure and was in the process of repairing the roof and the front bay window . An agreement between the current owner and Page | 2 the buyer was for the buyer to make the repairs and the owner would then sell the property to the buyer. A third party coming in and performing the work and adding an assessment would hinder the process. Improvement on the property would be seen shortly. Justin Dodge asked if the appellant was able to meet the criteria for a stay. Dirks replied the appellant would not be able to afford a bond, but the other criteria could be met. Dirks asked if there was still a need to stay the abatement since the building was no longer considered dangerous. Sara Van Meeteren replied the structure was still declared dangerous; the City was simply no longer requesting demolition. Staff believed the dangerous items could be corrected without demolition. Van Meeteren said she spoke with the buyer who stated the materials had been purchased to repair the roof, but there was an insect problem that had to be dealt with before the roof could be repaired. Andrew Tulp asked Van Meeteren to clarify the options for the Board. Van Meeteren said if the Board denied the request, they would essentially be saying that it was not necessary to abate the items. The Board needed to determine if the items were dangerous enough to require abatement by the City, or they could give the owner the chance to abate them through the stay. Vicki Feilmeyer added if the Board ordered abatement, then the City would begin with the abatement unless the appellant requested a stay in writing with the criteria being met. At the time of the meeting, the City had not received a written request for a stay. Dirks asked what the criteria was for abatement. He acknowledged the hole in the roof, but since it was in the process of being repaired, asked if the hole itself was dangerous. Van Meeteren replied the ability for water and critters to enter the structure was what was considered dangerous. More water damage could significantly impact the west wall and the existing foundation problems. Van Meeteren said if the appellant was able to abate the hole before the City, it would save the City from doing the work and having to assess the cost back to the owner. Dirks noted that Van Meeteren and Feilmeyer had been very fair about the entire situation and they were very grateful for their help. Moved by Dodge, seconded by Wolf, to approve the Building Official’s request, authorizing abatement by the City of the dangerous items Feilmeyer asked Dirks for confirmation that if the owner made the repairs, staff would be allowed into the structure to inspect the work. Dirks and the property owner agreed. Roll Call Vote: 5-0 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 209 and 221 S. Oak Avenue by Keith Denner with Professional Property Management. Van Meeteren presented the staff report by summarizing the history of the Fire Alarm System Retrofitting Requirements and the appellant’s reasons for appeal. Page | 3 The property owner, Lucinda Doty, introduced herself. She stated she does not believe the properties in question were intended to be covered by the code updates. Property Manager Keith Denner presented the appeal. He has managed the properties since 1977. When the appellant received the letter about the Fire Alarm System Retrofitting, he thought it did not apply to the properties on S. Oak Avenue since the buildings do not have central hallways. Almost all of the apartments have exterior exits. Two apartments exit to a 4 x 4 landing and then an outside door. Denner said he could modify those units so they exit to the outside by eliminating the exterior door. The buildings have two stories, no central hallways, and 221 has metal fire escapes. Denner also does not believe the code intended to address the types of buildings in question. The appellants want the buildings to be safe, and if the Board was to find in their favor, they would add hard-wired fire alarms to the units that have the landings. They were also willing to add 5/8” sheet rock to the common walls. Andrew Tulp asked about the four exceptions in the Fire Code. Jason Ziph replied they are in Section 1103.7.6 Group R-2 as listed in the staff report. Exception 4 has two subsections that the properties do not meet: 4.1 Each dwelling unit is separated from other contiguous dwelling units by fire barriers having a fire-resistance rating of not less than ¾ hour, and 4.2 Each dwelling unit is provided with hardwired, interconnected smoke alarms as required for new construction in Section 907.2.11. Denner stated he could not find the definition of a ¾ hour wall. Tulp said Denner would have to refer to UL assemblies or assemblies from gypsum wall board companies; but basically, 2 layers of half inch type C and wood in between. Denner said he could attest to the fact that the walls have half inch sheet rock, but he did not know if it was type C. Mott clarified the properties would be required to install fire notification systems only, not sprinkler systems. Denner addressed the third reason for appeal stating he believed the appellant would be increasing the degree of general code compliance by having the double ½ inch sheet rock in place in addition to having interconnected smoke alarms. Discussion was held about hardwired, interconnected smoke alarms and the layout of the buildings. Mott revisited the issue of the ¾ hour wall requirement. Feilmeyer stressed the burden of the appellant to prove that the proposed alternative action w ould increase the degree of general code compliance of the specific system or the building and premises. Denner reiterated they would be willing to eliminate the exterior doors that open off the and the doors that enter into the stairs to create exterior exits. Dodge suggested giving the appellant more time to find out what the wall profile was at each property. Duane Wolf agreed and welcomed an engineer’s report addressing Section 4.1 and the ability for the appellant to get back to the Board regarding Section 4.2. Page | 4 Moved by Dodge, seconded by Sydnes, to approve the exemption of the appellant with the condition that the requirements of Section 4.2 are met with each dwelling unit having hardwired, interconnected smoke alarms as required by Section 907.2.11 and the appellant is to provide evidence that the buildings meet the exemption identified under Section 4.1 that each dwelling unit is separated by a fire barrier of not less than ¾ hour. Discussion was held about interconnecting fire alarms and fire barriers. Denner questioned the intent of the code applying to the types of buildings at 209 and 221 S. Oak Avenue. He called attention to the fact that the stairways in the buildings were not corridors and the buildings only have two stories. Van Meeteren expressed Reason for Appeal number 1 on the Appeal Application might be applicable in the situation at hand. Perhaps it was not the intent of the code to apply to the types of structures in question. Tulp stated the City did interpret the code correctly, but the code offers exceptions for buildings that do not have interior corridors. Mott proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to give th e appellant until August 3, 2020 to obtain documentation from a design professional with the answer to the ¾ hour wall question and 120 days to have the system installed if needed. Dodge accepted the amendment. Roll Call Vote: 5-0 Motion passed BOARD OR STAFF COMMENTS Discussion was held to decide the format of future meetings due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Moved by Mott, seconded by Dodge, to continue electronic meetings unless an appellant specifically requested an in-person meeting Roll Call Vote: 5-0 Motion passed ADJOURNMENT Moved by Dodge to adjourn at 5:22 p.m. Eileen Carter, Recording Secretary Andrew Mott, Chairperson