Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Property Maintenance Appeals Board Minutes 10/05/2017Property Maintenance Appeals Board Meeting October 5, 2017 Call to Order The regular meeting of the Property Maintenance Appeals Board was called to order by Chairman Al Warren at 4:00 pm. Warren read the opening statement. Present from the Property Maintenance Appeals Board were Al Warren, Bert Schroeder, Gary Denner, Jeff Drury, and Delores Ball. City of Ames staff present were Sara Van Meeteren, Holly McDonald, Natalie Herrington, Shawn Bayouth, Mark Lambert and Amy Colwell. Approval of Minutes Minutes from the July 1, 2017 meeting were approved. A motion was made by Bert Schroeder to approve the July 1, 2017 minutes; Jeff Drury seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0 Old Business No old business to report New Business A. Hearing on Appeal of owner at 135 Wilmoth Street regarding Paving Driveway and strict compliance with the code is impractical/not reasonable. Natalie Herrington, Housing Inspector, stated that the appeal property was located at 135 Wilmoth Street. She noted that there is a picture of the property in their packet. She stated that a routine rental inspection was done back on February 22, 2017 and at that time they did give the appellant two options. Option one was to replenish the gravel on the driveway inside of the sidewalk and option two was to have the driveway paved, at that time they gave the option of paving due to the gravel being very sparse and the slope of the driveway. Ms. Herrington mentioned that the gravel driveway was a noted item on the previous inspection done back on March 20, 2014 stating that the gravel driveway can remain if it is properly maintained and to replenish the gravel. Re-inspections were done and a few emails were exchanged with the appellant. She stated that she was told by Brandon, a representative for the appellant, that he had been having trouble reaching Damion Pregitzer, the City’s Traffic Engineer. Ms. Herrington reached out to Mr. Pregitzer and after discussion with him she contacted Brandon back to let him know that since the gravel hasn’t been done they needed to pave the driveway and the Public Works Department preferred it be paved as well. She notified Ms. Anderson on August 2, 2017 that the driveway would need to be paved and on August 31, 2017 the appeal was filed. She then displayed some photos of the property showing the grass was completely overgrown where the driveway used to be. Ms. Herrington reviewed the applicable code provision that apply to this appeal, citing Sec.13.406 Exterior Property areas and identified number 3 and 8(d) to be applicable in this case. Number three states that for sidewalks and driveways: all sidewalks, walkways, stairs, driveways, parking spaces, and similar areas shall be kept in a proper state of repair, and maintained free from hazardous conditions. Number 8, the continued use of pre-existing noncompliant parking areas may be approved provided: (d) non-approved pre-existing crushed rock or gravel parking areas that have not been maintained with a minimum 5 inch cover and fixed boundaries, must be brought into compliance with this standard within 90 days after notification by the Building Official. Ms. Herrington stated this is also in conjunction with requirements within the zoning ordinances. She stated that due to Mr. Pregitzer’s input, the fact that it has not been maintained, and with the conditions onsite it would be better for people driving by in terms of safety with the slope of the driveway to pave it. Ms. Herrington gave the Commission three options: 1. The Property Maintenance Appeals Board can uphold the decision of the Building Official which requires the off-street parking area to be brought into compliance with the current code. 2. The Property Maintenance Appeals Board can approve the appeal with modifications. 3. The Property Maintenance Appeals Board can grant the appeal allowing the appellant to replenish the gravel instead of paving the parking area. Ms. Herrington stated that one and two family properties have to have two onsite parking spaces and this is referenced in the rental code. Mr. Drury asked if the garage would count as one spot and the driveway the other. He also wanted to know what the minimum size of the parking spot would need to be as the driveway is short. Ms. Herrington stated that the Planning Department requires 9x19 and the rental code requires 9x18. Mr. Denner asked what the size was from the garage to the sidewalk. Ms. Van Meeteren stated that she measured it from the aerial view on beacon and it measures 18 feet which she believes is about 19 ½. Mr. Warren wanted to know when the owners initially got the noted item back in 2014 did the owners put in an application for approval of a pre-existing condition. Ms. Herrington stated that to her knowledge no application was submitted. Mr. Drury wanted to know about the requirement for approaches as he knew at one time they had discussed making this a requirement to be paved when updating the code, as gravel kept getting into the streets. Ms. Herrington stated that it has amendments to it. Mr. Warren thought he remembered that there was some push back and it never got approved. Ms. Herrington stated it might have been because the approach is not actually on the property and the rental code only deals with the property itself and that the approach is more of a Public Works issue. Mr. Drury stated that the sidewalk is only about three feet from the curb and that approach is going to be really steep, it will be hard to keep rock from falling into the street. Ms. Herrington stated that is why Mr. Pregitzer was recommending it be paved and that the applicant should work with a professional to design it. Ms. Van Meeteren stated she did find the code section that states all driveway approaches adjoining paved streets must be paved between the edge of the street and the property line. This was found in the Chapter 13 rental code, section 13.406, 6(a) which was last updated in 2014. Mr. Drury wanted to know if there were any other driveways that are similar to this same design. Ms. Herrington stated that they do require driveways to be maintained and kept up to code. Mr. Warren asked if Staff was aware how long this residence has been listed as a rental. Mr. Herrington stated she was not sure. Ms. Ball wanted to know what the garage is currently being used for. Ms. H errington stated it was a storage area before but not sure at this time as new tenants have moved in. Testimony from Appellant Greg Gertstein, ex-husband of the appellant, spoke on behalf of Barbara Anderson. He stated he can give a little history that was given to him by Brandon, the maintenance guy. He said the house was bought by Barbara’s parents, Harry and Helen Anderson, in 1968 or 1969 and there was no sidewalk at that time and they were going to make the garage a storage unit, and in 1970 a sidewalk was built. Mr. Gertstein stated Brandon measured from the face of the garage to the sidewalk it was 17 feet 6 inches and for the approach he measured 2 ½ feet from the sidewalk to the curb. He felt that if a car tried to go up the driveway a car wou ld bottom out even if it was paved and in the winter with as steep as it is a car wouldn’t be able to get up the slope into the driveway. Mr. Gertstein stated that in Brandon’s opinion if a car was parked in the driveway the car would stick out into the path of the sidewalk. Mr. Warren stated that if he understands correctly the house was bought as a rental back in 1968-69 and at that time there was not a rental code and the garage could be used as a storage unit, the first rental code was adopted in 197 7 and the current code states the garage has to be vacant to be counted as a parking stall and then another space that is 9 x 18 to get the two stalls needed for a residential rental. He asked what the thought process was three years ago when it got noted as a problem and why wasn’t action taken back then. Mr. Gertstein stated he is not sure as Helen was the owner and landlord and then Barbara took over a couple years ago and he is not sure if the notice was sent to Helen and she just never addressed it a s Helen has dementia, but he cannot state for sure why it wasn’t addressed. Mr. Warren stated that Barbara has been the property manager since the most current inspection. He stated she has been. Mr. Warren asked what kind of action Barbara was planning to do besides email back and forth. Mr. Gertstein stated he doesn’t know as she didn’t tell him anything. Mr. Drury asked if she understood that in order to be a rental it has to have two parking spaces and if doesn’t comply can lose its rental status. Mr. Allen stated that what the City is saying that at first they could do gravel on the driveway aspect but not the approach but after not getting any feedback or action from them, it has been decided that it would be best to pave the driveway and approach. Ms. Herrington stated that she was able to look at the property file the City has and the first letter of compliance was from 1998 which required two off-street parking. Board Discussion Mr. Drury asked if it was possible to add parking to the front of the house or does it have to go to a garage. Ms. Van Meeteren stated it has to lead to a parking space behind the front of the house or in this case the garage is that space, you could add it behind the garage, to the west of the garage, something in the backyard area but would have to be paved. The board then discussed if there were any other options available to the owner that would be more cost effective then paving a new driveway on the west side. Mr. Denner stated that the code requires there to be two parking spots it doesn’t require them to be used. Jerry Litzel, a family friend, came up to the lectern. He asked if Staff knew when it was bought as a rental unit. Mr. Schroeder stated that the City Assessors website says ownership changed in 1986. Mr. Litzel stated he wanted to know when it was made a rental because when the sidewalk was put in it took about three feet of the driveway. Mr. Drury made a motion that the approach be paved and the driveway can stay gravel but needs to be maintained properly and give them 30 days to get into compliance and 30 days to get a bid from a concrete company for approach work and if not done within this time it would need to be paved. Mr. Denner seconded. Motion failed (3-2) Mr. Schroeder made a motion that the approach and the driveway both be paved to bring it into compliance with the current code. Ms. Ball seconded. Mr. Schroeder asked for an amendment be made to his motion that would allow the owner 60 days to get bids done and accepted. Ms. Ball seconded the amended motion. Motion passed (5-0) B. Update on Occupancy Changes: Sara VanMeeteren, Building Official, presented a power point presentation to the Board giving them an update on Occupancy Changes. She did note that they are currently working on a process for wording with three students and at the last City Council meeting, the Council did ask them to come back with options to base occupancy on the physical characteristics of the property and not the people living on the property. She mentioned that they are recommending to create an overlay zone that would cap the number of rental properties in an area by a certain percentage. Council has directed staff to increase occupancy enforcement by inspecting all single family and duplexes annually. Staff was approved to hire a third rental inspector to accommodate the increase in inspections. Once the moratorium is in effect, no new rental applications or building permits that would enlarge a current rental property will be accepted. Ms. VanMeeteren stated that one thing they will be taking back to City Council is the increased enforcement. Staff has been asked to determine what types of violations should be enforced proactively. She said that staff is proposing violations regarding nuisance issues and non- property maintenance issues, their primary enforcement tool will be education. Ms. VanMeeteren mentioned staff is going to present different types of issues that would revoke an LOC and stated that once a Letter of Compliance is revoked the owner may not be able to get it back. She also showed what type of issues would suspend a Letter of Compliance. Ms. VanMeeteren stated this will be proposed in some form to City Council on October 24, 2017 and wanted to get some feedback from the Board. Mr. Schroeder wanted to know what they define “student” as, since “student” can be very broad. Mr. VanMeeteren stated that Mr. Lambert is working on language to define the word “student”. Mr. Schroeder asked if a Letter of Compliance is suspended what is going to happen as there will be people living there and under a lease contract. Ms. VanMeeteren stated that the code gives them the ability to revoke any Letter of Compliance for any violation of the code if not resolved within 30 days. Typically if a Letter of Compliance needed to be revoked they would post it on the property and they would have 30 days. Mr. Denner asked how this would apply to a 10-plex that has three violations. Ms. VanMeeteren stated this will only apply to Single Family homes and duplexes in the specified overlay zones. Mr. Warren stated that he has other landlords come to him wondering what an annual inspection is going to do as they feel these resources could be used differently. Mr. Denner stated that staff should focus on places that have issues and they should be only able to have one year Letter of Compliances. Mr. Drury thought the landlords should get rewarded for having properties/tenants that do not have any issues. Mr. Warren stated that a lot of landlords won’t come to City Council to voice their concerns as they are afraid of retaliation by the neighborhoods and inspections. Ms. VanMeeteren stated if they are concerned they could email a City Council member directly. Mr. Warren mentioned the landlords would prefer active enforcement where if one of the rental inspectors is driving by and sees an issue at a rental property, they could stop and educate the tenants etc., and if still there in a couple days then can issue a violation. Mr. Bayouth stated that education is going to be key and they will take into consideration how many times there have been complaints and how much education has been done. He stated it will be in writing but City Council would like education to be front and center. Mr. Bayouth also wanted to encourage any landlords to come forward and email a City Council member or Sara either as an individual or as a group. Mr. Drury asked if there have been a lot of issues regarding over occupancy. Ms. Herrington stated that she is aware of three properties that are in the process of being corrected. Mr. Schroeder commented that a few years ago there used to be a lot of unregistered rentals and was wondering if this is still the case. Ms. VanMeeteren stated it is still an issue . However, staff is only aware of the problem when reported to them as they are not actively looking for them. Mr. Drury asked if it would help to have a rental “tag” or notice posted on the front of the house indicating it is a rental property. He stated that a lot of people have the perception that a rental property is run down, cars everywhere, etc. and he thinks a lot of people would be surprised at some of the houses that are actually rentals. Board/Staff comments Ms. Herrington provided follow up on a previous appeal regarding 214 Main Street. She stated that the building has been sold to Chuck Winkleblack and will be taking possession on October 2, 2017. Mr. Winkleblack stated to Ms. Herrington that it is still their goal to get the bathroom corrected in 35-40 days after possession. The only hold up may be getting a contractor hired but he is fully on board with bringing the building into compliance. Adjourn Schroeder moved to adjourn. Drury seconded. Motion to adjourn passed unanimously at 5:52 PM.