Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Property Maintenance Appeals Board Minutes 06/01/2017Property Maintenance Appeals Board Meeting June 1, 2017 Call to Order The regular meeting of the Property Maintenance Appeals Board was called to order by Chairman Al Warren at 4:01 pm. Warren read the opening statement. Present from the Property Maintenance Appeals Board were Al Warren, Bert Schroeder, Gary Denner, Dustin Mason, Jeff Drury, and Delores Ball. City of Ames staff present were Scott Ripperger, Holly McDonald, Natalie Herrington, Shawn Bayouth, Vickie Feilmeyer and Amy Colwell. Approval of Minutes Approved April 6, 2017 minutes with corrections noted by Delores Ball. Corrections were on page 2, paragraph one changing the word “commission” to “board” and the word “choice” to “choose”. On the same page under Testimony from Appellant in the first paragraph with the sentence “Mr. Warren asked if the joists run east to west which means the sewer line could be possibly be run through the joists to the west wall” it was as ked to delete the two “be” to make an appropriate sentence. In the second paragraph it was recommended by Al Warren to remove the word “windows” after egress. It was then requested under Board/Staff comments in the second paragraph the board wanted more clarification on the sentence “Mr. Bayouth stated probably not until a new Building Official is hired as currently short staffed”, would like to add “the department is” in front of currently. A motion was made by Jeff Drury to approve the April 6, 2017 minutes with the above corrections; Bert Schroeder seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0 Old Business No old business to report New Business 1. Hearing on Appeal of owner at 214 Main Street #201 regarding a full bathroom; stating it would be costly to add another full bathroom and would displace a tenant and deem apartment uninhabitable (Continued). Natalie Herrington, Rental Inspector, stated that the appeal at 214 Main Street was regarding the strict compliance with the code, the appellant thought it was impractical or not reasonable. She stated there were two apartments that were registered and inspected and when the Letter of Compliance expired she went back and did a routine rental inspection and at that time both units were rented. Per Natalie’s pre vious deficiency letter it was stated that if the back unit was rented then the front unit would need to be brought into compliance regarding the bathroom. The bathroom is currently located outside of the unit in the hallway. In the Chapter 13 code provisions, section 13.201 defines a dwelling unit as a single unit providing complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation and also in section 13.601 it states that “every dwelling unit shall contain its own bathtub or shower, lavatory, water closet and kitchen sink.” She stated that at the last meeting the board had tabled their decision to allow time for the appellant to get some additional information regarding cost. Testimony from Appellant Steve Wedeking, Property Owner, for 214 Main Street came up to the lectern. He stated that since the last meeting he does have a couple of estimates for building a walled off unit in the storage room and moving plumbing, electrical, drywall, and everything that goes with it. Steve mentioned that it is incomplete because the contractors are not sure what they are going to run into when they get into the flooring. He stated that they will take the ceiling out from the store below and go up into the joists and that consists of a suspended ceiling, the contractors are unwilling to give a definitive quote but was given a ballpark figure of about $12,000. Mr. Warren asked what the quote excludes. Mr. Wedeking stated it excludes any problem areas that they encounter while tearing out the floor and moving the sewer line. Mr. Warren asked the appellant what the appeal was based on. Mr. Wedeking stated it was based on cost, inconveniencing the tenant that is located in that unit, and the store down below. Ms. Ball questioned why the contractor has to go through the ceiling instead of coming through the floor. Mr. Wedeking stated that was what he was told by the contractor as they felt they would need to go through the ceiling. Mr. Schroeder asked how much rent he gets for the unit. Mr. Wedeking stated about $500 a month and he pays for all utilities. Mr. Schroeder mentioned that it would take about two plus years to recover the cost to make the changes. Mr. Wedeking stated his other tenant will be inconvenienced as well having to go through all the construction to get to his apartment. Mr. Denner asked if there was only the one estimate. Mr. Wedeking stated he got two estimates but they are for two different parts and he had a hard time getting someone to come out and give him an estimate. He also stated that if he gave the word today to go ahead he is not sure any contractor would be able to start on the project right away. Mr. Warren asked the appellant what his thought process was when he received the deficiency notice from the rental inspector that stated “If Unit 202 (rear unit) is rented, a full bathroom must be provided for this unit within the unit itself,” back on September 15, 2014. Mr. Warren further stated that Mr. Wedeking knew going forward that if both units were rented that a bathroom would need to take place. M r. Wedeking stated he knew that was the code however did not know how strictly it would be enforced as he thought it was more of a suggestion then a demand. Mr. Wedeking also stated that he was under the understanding that as long as his tenants were OK wi th the current layout his letter of compliance would be extended. Mr. Warren asked if he had any conversations with the rental inspector during the time he thought about renting the additional unit to when he did rent it out as to what her intent/meaning of the deficiency letter was. Mr. Wedeking stated he did not. Ms. Ball asked if it was decided that there was no place to put an entry at the back of the building , it was stated that was not feasible. The board asked Natalie Herrington to come back up to the lectern. Mr. Drury asked if she had any similar instances like this one since she has worked for the City, she stated she has not. Mr. Drury then asked Scott Ripperger, Acting Building Official, if he had any recollection, which he stated he did not. Mr. Wedeking stated that his tenants are happy with the situation they have now. The one tenant that would be mainly effected is opposed to the change. Board Discussion Mr. Schroeder stated he would have a hard time approving without meeting the code, it has not come up before but another one could come up and doesn’t want to set a precedence. Mr. Drury stated he agreed with Mr. Schroeder as nothing was hidden as to what the expectations were and he feels bad about the cost but the code needs to be maintained. He thought maybe more time could be offered to get ready. Ms. Ball agreed with Mr. Schroeder and Mr. Drury. Mr. Denner stated he agrees as well and there are numerous times where there are things they may not want to do but the code requires them. He understands that the building was built in 1880 but needs to meet the standard. He feels that if they could give a reasonable timeframe to get it done that might help. Mr. Mason agreed with all comments from the board. Ms. Feilmeyer, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the board is only to decide on the appeal of the Building Official’s decision and their options are to either agree with what the Building Official has done or you don’t. In terms of enforcement that is a matter of the department and if any extra time is given to come into compliance is up to them. Ms. Herrington stated they are always working towards compliance and they are also going to be reasonable. It was asked how long the lease was currently on Unit 201. Mr. Wedeking stated that Unit 201 was just renewed until 2018 and Unit 202 has yet to confirm but it looks like he will as well. Mr. Warren stated that one of his biggest concerns was that Mr. Wedeking knew when renting the additional unit that the deficiency would come ba ck around and he didn’t contact the City for clarification on what would need to be done. Mr. Wedeking stated he didn’t know at the time that this was going to be cut and dry and would need to be done, along with given a deadline as this is a very old building. Mr. Wedeking wanted to know what his options are. Mr. Denner stated that a few options were given last time and one of them was to make it one whole unit making a larger unit where he could raise the rent. Mr. Wedeking stated that the tenant in Unit 201 does not want to have the apartments combined and have to share the flat. Mr. Denner stated that if he turned the units into three bedrooms he would not need to do any plumbing and would not disturb the business below, there will be some construction to make the separate rooms but is relatively less destructive. Mr. Denner stated that it is probably out of the board’s hands but if both leases are not up until 2018 maybe the City will allow the extra time and then bring the apartment up to compliance once the next lease is up. Ms. Feilmeyer stated that the code is fairly straight forward as to what the boards authority is, in section 13.108 subcategory 9, “the board has the authority to affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the Building Official” and this is where the focus of their decision needs to be. Mr. Drury made a motion to approve Alternative one that board upholds the decision of the Building Official to require the bathroom to be located completely within the unit that it serves with a friendly suggestion to allow an extension until August 2018. It was seconded by Ms. Ball. Ms. Feilmeyer stated that the board does not have the authority to make an amendment to the alternative. Mr. Drury withdrew his motion. Mr. Drury then made a motion to approve Alternative one as written. Mr. Schroeder seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Board/Staff comments Mr. Drury stated there is a yard in Campustown that has something similar to prairie grass in their yard and with the exterior maintenance code that requires grass to be a certain height, where does this type of grass fall. He asked if there was something in the code. Mr. Ripperger stated he doesn’t believe it is allowed and the community codes liaison has gone out to look at it and she is currently working with the property owner in regards to the grass. Mr. Drury then mentioned that about two days prior to garbage pick-up day and about five days after, garbage cans are still on the sidewalk or out in the street and wanted to know if there is something in the code that requires them to be brought back up to the house or is it done on a complaint basis only. He wanted to know if a letter can be sent out to the landlords to remind their tenants to pull their garbage cans back in. Mr. Denner thought it was within 24 hours after pick up that the garbage cans had to be brought back up to the house. Ms. Herrington stated that there have been complaints in the past and is mainly on a complaint basis only and in the code it states they have to move their garbage containers to and from the curb but it doesn’t state where they have to put them so if they are back from the curb that is all they can enforce. Mr. Bayouth stated that hopefully they would have gotten invitations notifying them that there are three candidates for the Building Official position. He stated the presentations are on June 8, 19, and 22 from 1:00 pm to 1:30 pm. There are two internal candidates and one external. Mr. Warren asked if able to state the names of the candidates. Mr. Bayouth stated the two internal are Sara Van Meeteren and Adam Ostert and the external is Timothy Crabb. Mr. Bayouth stated that going back to the garbage can discussion there was a report sent to council with a few recommendations a couple years ago. If someone would like a copy of the staff report they can email Mr. Bayouth to get a copy sent to them. Ms. Feilmeyer stated that some neighborhoods have covenants that cover this as well. Mr. Drury stated that the State house passed the four bedroom ruling and wanted to know where the City is at with this. Mr. Bayouth stated they met about two weeks ago with Iowa City, Des Moines, Cedar Falls, and another City and discussed some potential options but the consensus was each City to enforce the same thing. Mr. Bayouth stated can always rely on the rules that are already in place, sound ordinance, parking and ensuring proper enforcement. Mr. Warren stated that will go into effect January 01, 2018. Mr. Drury stated that he had a landlord ask him what would happen if he rented his house out as a four bedroom and then the City enforces a different rule. Mr. Bayouth stated that the hope is to have something in place before the law takes effect but technically can’t enforce it until January. Mr. Warren stated that leases are already being signed for next year. Mr. Bayouth stated he is unable to answer that question and with the way the state wrote the law it is going to be challenging to come up with something. Mr. Denner stated that he had heard a Carbon Monoxide detector would need to be installed in every unit but what about some of the multi-plexes that only have a laundry room and a boiler, would he need every apartment to have a carbon monoxide detector. Mr. Bayouth stated that he and Scott Ripperger just discussed this topic the other day and they are aware of this and looking into it to see if there is any flexibility as to how the state code is written. He stated that he is sure there is not hing in the Chapter 13 rental code regarding this and may have to go to Council with our own ordinance with whatever flexibility they can do, he is also speaking with the Fire Inspector to see what can be done. Mr. Ripperger stated that the fire code may come into play and may give the City some direction along with the building code as both of these codes have sections on CO2 detectors, will look into the codes a little more. Adjourn Schroeder moved to adjourn. Ball seconded. Motion to adjourn passed unanimously at 4:56 PM.