Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Building Board of Appeals Minutes 02/06/2023 Page | 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS AMES, IOWA FEBRUARY 6, 2023 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Andrew Mott called to order the Regular Meeting of the Building Board of Appeals at 4:00 p.m. with the following Board members present: Brent Bagley, Brad Sydnes, and Andrew Tulp. Staff members present were Sara Van Meeteren, Scott McCambridge, Matt Stern and Vikki Feilmeyer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Tulp, seconded by Sydnes, to approve the minutes from the November 7, 2022 meeting. Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion passed. DEMOLITION OF DANGEROUS BUILDING AT 814 WILSON AVENUE Building Official Sara Van Meeteren presented the staff report. She stated the property at 814 Wilson Avenue had been struck by a vehicle in multiple locations on December 30, 2022, which resulted in significant damage to the structure. Staff inspected the structure and found a substantial renovation had been going on inside, which in itself was dangerous; the stairs to the basement had been removed, much of the floor had been removed and planks were being used in places to walk across the structure. Staff declared the building dangerous on December 30, 2022; the water meter was shut off at the curb and the electric and gas meters were removed from the building. Staff spoke with the owner and the owner’s father about the situation. The father indicated he was willing to board up the structure, but was not interesting in doing anything more as it was his understanding that the property was in foreclosure. As of January 10, 2023, the house had still not been boarded up, so staff purchased plywood and screws, boarded up the openings and locked the front door. Ms. Van Meeteren said the Dangerous Building Declaration gave the owner 15 days to submit an intent to comply with a timeline, to appeal the decision, or to request an extension. Staff has not received any communication from the owner, however, they have been in communication with the owner’s father who does not have legal authority regarding the property. The indication is there is no intent by the owner to repair the property. Ms. Van Meeteren stated staff is requesting permission to demolish the building and assess the costs back to the property as well as the costs incurred to board it up. Andrew Tulp asked if the owner simply elected not to attend the Building Board of Appeals meeting. Ms. Van Meeteren said the owner was aware of the meeting and was notified by mail about the meeting, but he does not have a working phone. She added that she also spoke to the owner’s father about the meeting, but he was not interested in attending. Page | 2 Rodney Kleitsch, attorney with South Law, addressed the Board. He stated that his client (Idaho Housing and Finance Association) found out last week what had been done to the property and immediately got involved. They have an active foreclosure case going on the property and are close to taking judgement this month and acquiring title a couple months thereafter. He said it is the intent of his client to fix up the property and bring it up to code and there is insurance money to do that. Mr. Kleitsch asked the Board to grant a stay until the next meeting, so his client will be able to show what progress has been made on the property. Mr. Kleitsch added it is in the interest of the City to have the property as an actual, functional residential property that is generating tax revenue as opposed to a vacant lot. Mr. Tulp said the Board meets once a month, and he asked Mr. Kleitsch what changes he anticipated by the next month. Mr. Kleitsch said they should have judgment and foreclosure by then and would ask for additional time at that point. Brent Bagley stated the building would sit the way it is for possibly four months. Mr. Kleitsch said his client has property preservation people who will be securing the building and added if there are any actions the City would like to see done in terms of further securing the property, his client will take those actions. Mr. Tulp asked if those actions could be done if the foreclosure has not been completed. Mr. Kleitsch said they are able to do it now as the mortgage authorizes it. Ms. Van Meeteren added the property preservation people will also do the mowing and assist in helping the property not look vacant. Mr. Bagley mentioned the insurance money covering the vehicle damage to the property and asked about completing the interior renovations. Mr. Kleitsch said his client is willing to cover the costs for the renovations as well, as their ultimate goal is to be able to sell the property. Mr. Sydnes added they would have to take out permits and bring the structure up to code. Ms. Van Meeteren concurred. Mr. Tulp said he liked the proposed idea and asked staff their opinion. Ms. Van Meeteren stated she also liked the idea and said it is in the best interest of the City since demolishing the structure is not the best use of taxpayer money, but the City would do it to keep the community safe. The only downside is that the structure would sit vacant for a while. Ms. Van Meeteren said if the Board decides to table the item, one month might be too soon and the April meeting might be better. In the meantime, the City could be reimbursed for the money spent securing the building. She added staff is eager to work with the client to get permits issued and get the building up to code and would hope to see major progress by the summer. If the City were to demolish it, that would also take time as it is not easy to find a contractor to do the work and lead and asbestos testing would have to be done. Ms. Feilmeyer agreed it is a good solution, but added that if the Board decided to table the item, she would want it tabled for a limited amount of time to be able to check back in with each other. Ms. Feilmeyer also requested, as part of tabling the item, that Mr. Kleitsch’s client reimburse the City $66.48 for the money spent to secure the structure. Ms. Van Meeteren asked if it was tabled until April, but the client did not have possession of the property at that time, could the Board vote to table it again without everyone having to come in.