Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Property Maintenance Appeals Board Minutes 05/03/2012 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE APPEALS BOARD AMES, IA MAY 3, 2012 Call to Order The regular meeting of the Property Maintenance Appeals Board was called to order by Chairman Al Warren at 4:03 p.m., May 3, 2012, in Room 235 in City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue. Present from the Property Maintenance Appeals Board were Al Warren, Jill Smith, Mary Fitch, Bert Schroeder, Jeff Drury, and De Betts and Pat Brown. Staff members present were David Brown, Judy Parks, Natalie Herrington, Macaley Johnsen, Sara Kramer and Tom Hendrickson. Al Warren read the opening statement regarding the operating policy of the Property Maintenance Appeals Board. Moved by Betts, seconded by Smith to approve the Minutes from April 5, 2012. Vote on motion: 6-0 Motion passed unanimously. Old Business Continuation of the hearing on 320 Stanton and 2317 Knapp regarding egress window requirements. Judy Parks reminded the board that as a quasi judicial board an oath needs to be given to the witnesses prior to speaking. David Brown provided background pertaining to this appeal. At the last meeting John Engelman advised he was going to submit a new proposal along with videos and measurements for the May meeting. Brown stated that he had met with Engelman’s architects and that his opinion and recommendation remains the same. Brown further explained that he had reviewed the 1964 code, which was in effect at the time these dwellings were constructed. He focused on the phrase from the code “rooms used for sleeping purposes”. He reiterated that the areas that are under appeal are the areas in the lofts that are used for sleeping purposes and they shall be provided with windows. In response to the question “how did the dwellings get built if they were in violation of the code?” Brown stated that he did not have a good answer as to why, but the fact is that the 1964 code was in effect when they were built and they did not comply. Al Warren asked Tom Hendrickson if he had ever inspected or walked through these buildings? Hendrickson advised no and explained that he does not normally get involved in rental properties or dwelling units. He works with commercial and common areas in apartment buildings. Warren asked if Hendrickson was aware of any fire calls at these addresses? Hendrickson advised not that he is aware of. Warren also inquired about any other fires in relation to structures such as these and asked about other properties with loft areas? Hendrickson noted a situation with loft areas on Chamberlain, but he wasn’t aware of egress issues. Warren inquired if the lofts have windows? Macaley Johnsen noted that they were blocked off for use and the building does have a sprinkler system. John Engelman then presented his case. He summarized that the main issue is with the sleeping areas. The importance of the definition of an efficiency unit is such that it makes a single room out of the entire living area. The occupants are not trapped inside any room area inside these dwellings. He maintains that according to 1208.4 of the Code he is in full compliance and the means of egress is satisfied. He shared some photos showing the inside of the unit as well as a short video showing how long it would take to get from the loft area out the front door. Engelman finished by stating that he believes that since this property has had letters of compliance in the past that other building officials were in agreement th at the units were in compliance with the code. 2 Discussion was held. Engelman stressed that he is overwhelmed by what is happening and feels persecuted by the City. He shared frustration over a code, 1208.4 that defines what a single-dwelling efficiency is and that the board is not looking at this. More discussion was held regarding different terms and phrases that are noted in the code(s) that are being referred. David Brown stated that the discussion about the term efficiency unit is irrelevant as it can be called an efficiency but it has a sleeping area/roo m within it and by the Code from 1964 and every code since then, sleeping rooms/areas are required to have a second means of egress directly to the exterior. Macaley Johnson shared that this is not the first time that this has come up as the previous owner had received a letter stating that egress windows needed to be installed. Engelman advised that he received that letter after he had bought the property. The letter was dated July 1, 2008. Jeff Drury left the meeting at approximately 5:15 PM More discussion was held regarding the terms and definitions of sleeping areas/sleeping rooms, units within the code(s) that are referred to with this appeal. The Board asked Judy Parks for clarification on the definitions of sleeping areas, rooms as they pertain to code. Parks did not find in the 2006 IBC a separate definition of either of the terms. More discussion was held. Motion to table this appeal for a month in order to get more clarification from Legal. Brown/Schroeder. Vote on motion: 6-0. Motion passed unanimously. New Business Brian Torresi, attorney for the appellants, noted that they are not ready to address the appeal related to 4203 Westbrook and wish to continue that appeal. He advised they have the same argument for all of the other properties regarding egress windows. David Brown reviewed these cases and Macaley Johnsen presented a power point presentation. These particular properties had been unregistered rentals. After Triplett took them over, they eventually registered them with the City and an inspection was conducted. It was then determined that each of these units had windows that do not comply with the 2006 RHC. Johnsen explained how the inspectors measure the openable area of a window and how they determine compliance or not. Brian Torresi presented his case. They argue that it is impracticable and that strict compliance is not necessary because it doesn’t lessen life, safety, fire and health. If it did, the City would require every other rental property to comply. He stated that he is not asking the board to take away the provision, but requests that the board look at each property on a case by case basis to determine if it is practical or not. Al Warren noted when creating the 2009 Rental Housing Code, part of the process was that the current rentals would have more latitude with regard to the window size, but that any future rentals or new rentals would have to meet the new code. Kelly Excell requested that since one bedroom is compliant, the 3413Coy rental property records change from a 2-bedroom rental to a 1-bedroom rental due to the personal circumstances of the renter as well as the owner of this property. When this tenant moves out of the property, it will be put up for sale and will no longer be a rental. She said this has been done with several other properties in Ames. Discussion was held regarding various types of windows and how they open and close and the possibility of gaining more openable area with special knowledge of how the window works. Discussion then focused on how the new window requirements were going to be handled with any new rental properties as the 2009 Rental Housing Code was being formed and how there had to be a ‘line drawn in the sand’ on when enforcement would begin. David Brown explained again what chapter 801.3 of the Rental Housing code which was referred to earlier ‘required emergency escape openings shall be maintained in accordance with the code in effect at the time of construction’. Brown then read from the 1964 code “Windows – all rooms used for sleeping purposes…shall be provided with windows with an area not less than 12 sq feet…nor 1/8 of the floor area, and when such windows are installed not less than ½ required area shall be openable”. So in 1964, which could be the most liberal code, as codes become more restrictive as they come up through recent 3 history, the window should have been 3x4 feet and half of it should have been openable. Discussion was then held on whether or not these properties were built up to code from the beginning and how could the City have allowed it to be built then? Discussion was held regarding when the 2009 Rental Housing code was being written and the knowledge that there would be issues with the egress window requirements and that any decision the board makes will set precedent. The Board asked two questions of Parks. Is it legal to have the tenant/owner sign a document that would have this be a letter of compliance for one-bedroom? Also clarification in the code when it says ”total openable space of the windows”. Motion to table 3413 Coy Street for further clarification on these two issues. Fitch/Smith Vote on Motion: 5-1 (Pat Brown). Motion Carries. Johnsen then explained the issues with 814 Duff, #301. This is a unit within a condo building and this unit is owned by an individual, as are other units in the structure. Brian Torresi stated that this is a perfect example of where it would be not only impracticable but absurd to require this unit to change out the window. He noted that besides the fact that the association documents don’t allow them to modify the structure because of uniformity, but to cut that wall to make one of the windows bigger, but to keep every other window the same size because they aren’t rental properties would be absurd. More discussion arose regarding the definition of openable space and the correct sizes. Warren asked for clarification from Parks that the legal opinion is that each openable space will be 5.7 sq. ft consid ered in its entirety. Parks stated yes. Excell asked how does she comply with both the city and the HOA? She noted that this owner is in a tough spot, he can’t make both people happy. Johnsen addressed the group with regard to the issue of the condo situation and the aesthetics of the windows. She advised that she had another case which was a new rental and the owner had to change out his egress window. He ended up doing a casement window to get that full openable area requirement. He lives in an area where they have a covenant for what the structures have to look like. He was able to purchase, for $30 more, a window that kept the exact same features of his previous windows. Motion by Betts to uphold the decision of the Building Official to require the window to meet code. Seconded by Brown. Roll Call Vote on Motion: Fitch = No, Smith = No, Brown = Yes, Schroeder = Yes, Warren = No. Motion tied. Parks explained that Jeff Drury will need to hear this motion before a decision can be made. The appellant requested a continuance on the 4203 Westbrook Dr. issues. Motion by Fitch, seconded by Brown to grant the appellant’s request for a continuance on the 4203 Westbrook Drive appeals. Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion Passed Unanimously. Other Comments Fitch noted that she liked the flyer that was received in her bill for her annual rental housing fees. She felt the information was relevant and she also thought it would be a good thing to send out with utility bills. David Brown asked the board if they would be interested in having some board training from Gary Taylor with Iowa State University who specializes in governmental boards and with coaching and tips on running more efficient meetings. It appears there are going to be more appeals in the future and while the b oard is doing a wonderful job, we have to be as efficient as possible during our meeting times. The dates we are looking at are June 14 at 4:00 PM, June 25-29 at 4:00 PM. 4 Moved by Fitch, seconded by Betts, to adjourn the meeting. Vote on motion: 6-0. Motion passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 6:43 p.m.