Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Property Maintenance Appeals Board Minutes 03/01/20121 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE APPEALS BOARD MEETING Thursday, March 1, 2012 at 4:00 PM Conference Room: 235 MINUTES Call to order: 4:07 PM -- Al Warren Roll Call: Bert Schroeder, Jeff Drury, Al Warren, Jill Smith, Dee Betts, Pat Brown & Mary Fitch Staff: Macaley Johnsen, Sara Kramer, Natalie Herrington, David Brown, Julie Erickson, Judy Parks, Bruce Kinkaid Motion to approve minutes from February 2, 2012 – with correction under third paragraph that Al Warren requested a fireman be present – not Jeff Drury. Correction made. Motion: Schroeder/Drury – MC Unanimously Old Business: None Appeal: Warren explained the appeal process to all in attendance. Natalie Herrington introduced herself and presented a power point presentation. The basis for the appeal is Section 13.108B of the Ames Rental Housing Code. They are appealing on the basis that the provisions of this code do not fully apply. Herrington showed an aerial view of the buildings in question, the 320 Stanton Avenue and 2317 Knapp Avenue addresses and reviewed the dimensions and layout of the buildings. The only windows and means of egress are on the lower levels of these properties. Staff Findings: The inspection took place on September 22, 2011. At that time Property Management advised that they would submit a proposal for compliance for our review. After their proposal was submitted, an action plan was going to be issued to formulate a time frame for completion of the windows. A deficiency letter was mailed out on September 23, 2011 and Property Management then submitted a proposal for a secondary egress option. The decision of the building official was that the units needed to either be equipped with sprinklers, or the loft areas not be used for sleeping, or to move the sleeping area to the main level. Property Management indicated that they wanted to move forward with an appeal, which had already been submitted in advance. The appeal was submitted in a timely fashion. Herrington also explained that the rental housing code requires that means of egress comply with the 2006 International Fire Code which states that basements and sleeping rooms below the fourth story above-grade plane should have at least one exterior emergency escape and rescue opening. Herrington noted that the 1967 Uniform Building code required the emergency rescue escape and windows for sleeping rooms. This situation most likely fell under the 1964 Uniform Building code. It is assumed that the builders did not comply with code at the time the property was built in the 1970s. Warren asked if the City of Ames had adopted this code and Herrington confirmed. The Board was curious about the original building permit for the properties, so staff produced the file and the board was able to view the original building permit and pose questions to staff. 2 Herrington then provided the option for board action. 1. Uphold the decision of the building official to require the units to either be equipped with sprinklers or not be used for sleeping purposes and the sleeping areas be moved to the main level of the unit. 2. Table it and request additional information from City staff and applicant 3. Grant the appeal based on Section 13.108B that the provisions of the code do not fully apply. A question and answer time then ensued between the board and staff regarding how staff came up with these alternatives and how it related to the proposal that was given to staff by Property Management. The board also inquired about the original permit and would the City be liable now, if it was discovered that the property didn’t meet code at the time it was built. Parks advised no and explained that there would not be any liability on the City’s part because this is the Rental Housing code, not the Building Code. Parks further explained that new codes can be added over time, such as requiring sprinkler systems, which would then require the rental properties to install sprinklers. David Brown explained that the property does not comply with the current codes today. There are not two forms of egress, therefore, something must be done. Macaley Johnsen also advised the board that this is not a new issue as it was noted during an inspection process in 2008. John Engelman – owner of 320 Stanton Coop, presented his case. He thanked the Board for their time. He feels the main issue is what the definition of the units are. He submits they are ‘efficiency’ units and were most likely submitted as that when they were built. He advised that under Section 1208.4 there are different requirements for means of egress. He shared photos of the unit and explained that the unit is one room, with an open mezzanine area and there are clearly unobstructed ways of travel from any point in the room leading to an exit. He also asked the board to consider that the original construction was permitted and there are 34 years of compliance with city code. Also, the property hasn’t changed in structure or use during any of that time. He asked the board to grant the appeal since the additional egress or sprinkler system do not apply to this situation. After some discussion, Engelman then advised he wished to withdraw his appeal proposal at this time as he now believes after doing more research, that there is no need for any additional means of egress in his units at all. Much discussion was held regarding the layout of the room, the safety issues pertaining to the property. Herrington then shared the definitions of rooms within a structure within Rental Code Section 13. Warren inquired how the units are marketed? Engelman stated as 1 to 2 person units as efficiencies. Smith commented regarding the definition of bedrooms. She advised that she has been in the Knapp property. There were two people living in the bedroom and her issue with the definition of a bedroom is the ‘use or intention’ to use the space as a bedroom. The main living room area is obviously not intended for use as a bedroom. Further, it is very obvious in the upstairs that there are two separate bedroom areas. Stott clarified that they do agree that they are sleeping areas and they are all part of one big room, on the mezzanine level. The board then asked for clarification on what Property Management was proposing since the original proposal was regarding a ladder option coming off the mezzanine area into the bottom living space as the second means of egress. Engelman advised that they are now withdrawing that proposal after having done more research on the property and the definitions of living spaces. They now believe that they are currently in compliance and offer no alternatives to the board at this time. Warren noted that since they are now withdrawing their proposal, that the board needs a new proposal to be drawn up and submitted before any action can occur. 3 David Brown then addressed the group. He brought attention to the staff report, page 3. This contains the basis of the interpretation and what staff is asking the appellant to respond to if they want to continue with this appeal. The structures were constructed in 1975 and 1976. This was determined from the building permit. At that time the Building Code that was in effect would have been at least the 1964 Uniform Building Code. The earliest code information that is available in our archives is a 1967 Building Code which states the following: Section 1405. (a) Windows. All living rooms, kitchens, and other rooms used for living, dining, or sleeping purposes shall be provided with windows with an area not less than 12 square feet, nor one- eighth of the floor area of such rooms. When such required windows are installed, not less than one-half the required area shall be openable. Required windows shall open directly onto a street, or public alley, or a yard or court located on the same lot as the building. So, the discussion of mezzanines and room areas, etc, might be useful in some discussions, but Brown asserts that they are not relevant to this discussion. He supported that by stating that “as we know that every code addition that comes out every three years has more restrictive rules, generally. The point is that in the 1967 UBC, this is the text. In the 1970 UBC the text is more restrictive and so on. The language regarding egress windows and the second means of egress especially become more and more restricted, generally.” Brown stated that for the appellant the challenge is to bring information to the board that demonstrates that for some reason these three sub-sections are somehow irrelevant or are being misread. Brown reiterated that the rooms that are used for sleeping purposes need to have windows, of a certain size, and they need to open to the street, public alley or yard. Warren then closed this portion of the meeting and the applicants left the room. Comments/Concerns Motion to table the appeal: Brown/Drury – MC Unanimously More discussion was held with staff and the board regarding this appeal. New Business Johnsen shared some photographs of residences in need of repair that they have recently inspected. Schroeder inquired of the Clark Property and Johnsen advised that the owners are still working on their items and reminded the board that they have 90 days to do the work. She did receive a call from the manager who advised that they are getting things done. Herrington also gave an update on 126 Welch and the possible revocation of the LOC. David Brown then wrapped up the meeting stating that the ball is in the applicant’s court regarding 320 Stanton and 2317 Knapp, they will meet with staff and decide whether they want to go ahead with the appeal or not. The board discussed the time frame and stated that if within 30 or 60 days staff hasn’t received some form of communication, they should not be able to drag this on for months/years. Parks agreed that they will have to get back on an agenda within a couple months. 4 Kramer advised the board that she and Johnsen had attended a training session in Minnesota and it was very beneficial. They also set up a booth at the Housing Expo to talk to tenants, however, turnout was poor, but they were still able to visit with some landlords and help answer some questions. They anticipate doing more public talks in the near future. Adjourn: Motion: Schroeder/Brown. 5:55 PM Julie Erickson Recording Secretary