Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Property Maintenance Appeals Board Minutes 10/04/2012 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE APPEALS BOARD AMES, IA October 4, 2012 Call to Order The meeting of the Property Maintenance Appeals Board was called to order by Chairman Al Warren at 4:00 On September 6, 2012, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 515 Clark Avenue. Present from the Property Maintenance Appeals Board were Al Warren, Jill Smith, Mary Fitch, Bert Schroeder, Jeff Drury, De Betts and Pat Brown. Staff members present were Judy Parks, Natalie Herrington, Macaley Johnsen, Scott Ripperger, Sara Van Meeteren and Shawn Bayouth. The opening statement was read by Chairman Warren. Approval of Minutes from September 6, 2012. Motion Betts, Second Drury. Motion Carried Unanimously Old Business: Attorney Parks requested clarification of the Board motion and decision regarding the properties at 320 Stanton and 2317 Knapp Street, concerning the egress requirements pursuant to Ames Municipal Code § 13.102(1)(b). She explained that there was confusion with the item on the agenda and the motion that was made. Based on the wording, she was not able to discern the intent of the motion, whether it would apply to all of the units in these buildings , or just the interior units or just one unit, as the wording was singular based. She requested clarification on the motion. Regarding 320 Stanton and 2317 Knapp Street, Jeff Drury made a motion that John Engelman, the Fire Chief and Inspection Staff will design a plan that would not require a sprinkler system, but rather hard wired smoke detectors in the interior units and/or egress windows on the exterior units. This does not need to be revisited by the board, unless one of the parties is not satisfied with the outcome. Second Schroeder. Scott Ripperger, interim building official, asked for clarification if the intention is to put hard wired smoke detectors in the end units, or install egress windows? Drury clarified his intention is for smoke detectors in all of the units, but if staff feels that since egress windows can be installed in the end units, that can be done as well, but he would leave that to the discretion of staff. Pat Brown shared that she felt that they had the smoke alarm system worked out and she asked to keep it consistent and simple and only require hard wire smoke detectors. Jeff Drury reread the motion to say that John Engleman, the Fire Chief and Inspections staff will design a plan that would not require a sprinkler system at 320 Stanton and 2317 Knapp, but rather to install a hard wired smoke detector system in all units. This does not need to be revisited by the board unless one of the parties is not satisfied with the outcome. Second Schroeder. Roll Call Vote: Fitch = Yes, Schroeder = Yes, Warren = Yes, Betts = Yes, Drury = Yes, Smith = Yes, Brown = Yes. Motion Carried Unanimously. New Business Hearing on appeal of owner of 1102 Top-O-Hollow an appeal that the true intent of this code has been incorrectly interpreted and there are specific conditions that make strict compliance impracticable. Inspector Johnsen explained that this residence is a two-family conversation that was built in 1972 and is owned by Mr. Vahid. The upper unit is occupied by his daughter and family and the lower unit is occupied by another tenant, the ex -wife of the owner. An inspection was conducted on the property and a deficiency list was provided. The owner is appealing the fact of whether or not the property should be registered as a rental. The only unit that is required by our code to be registered as a rental is the lower unit, because of it being the ex-wife of the owner living there. Johnsen explained the definition of ‘family’ in the Code is any number of people related by blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship or other duly authorized relationship. This is why the upper unit is not required to be registered as the owner’s daughter is living there. Inspector Johnsen also explained that if it is determined by the Board that the unit must be rented, then the owner is appealing the window sill heights which are not code compliant as well as the bathroom vent duct is connected to the dryer vent, which is also not in compliance Chairman Warren explained that the board will first decide on whether the unit must be registered as a rental and depending on that outcome, will hear the appeal on the other two issues. Owner of Property, Mansour Vahid stated that approximately two years ago he called the City and asked about the rental property rules and said that his daughter was living in the residence. He was told that it did not need to be listed because the family member lived there. Then in January of 2012 he received a phone call and was told that it had to be listed as a rental property because the person living in the downstairs of the property was not family. He advised that he rents the house to his daughter and her mother and he does not believe this needs to be registered as a rental. He advised that due to financial constraints, he is allowing his daughters’ mother to stay at the residence nearly free. Warren asked if Vahid is the only owner of the property and he advised yes, the property is in his name only. Drury inquired if his ex-wife is making payments to him or to his daughter? Vahid advised that she occasionally pays rent, but that there is no contract and she pays when she can. He advised that his daughter is who rents the property from him. Brown inquired if it was registered as a one family or two family unit? Johnsen clarified that it is listed as a two-family conversion. It used to be a single family home, but was converted into two units. Attorney Parks clarified the definition of family and stated that the unit in question is the downstairs unit where the ex-wife is living and she is not part of the definition of family. She may be related to the person in the upstairs unit, but she is not considered family so , therefore, her unit needs to be registered as a rental. After discussion, motion by Brown that this unit should be registered as a rental unit as according to code. Schroeder second. Roll Call Vote: Fitch = Yes, Schroeder = Yes, Warren = Yes, Betts = Yes, Drury = Yes, Smith = Yes, Brown = Yes. Motion carried unanimously. Since the board determined that the property should be registered as a rental, Johnsen explained the deficiencies with the window sill heights that the owner is appealing. After much discussion, Schroeder motioned the appeal be denied for the exception to the window sill heights. Brown second. Roll Call Vote: Fitch = No, Schroeder = Yes, Warren = No, Betts = No, Drury = No, Smith = No, Brown = Yes. Motion Failed. Warren then suggested separating the two windows and made a motion to grant the 47 inch sill height, but to deny the 49 inch sill height. Drury Second. Roll Call Vote: Fitch = Yes, Schroeder = No, Warren = Yes, Betts = Yes, Drury = Yes, Smith = Yes, Brown = No. Motion Carried. Inspector Johnsen advised that the bathroom vent fan ties in with the dryer vent dischar ge which is not allowed by code. The bath vent should be vented directly to the exterior, not tied in with the dryer vent. Motion by Schroeder to deny the appeal. Brown Second. Roll Call Vote: Fitch = Yes, Schroeder = Yes, Warren = Yes, Betts = Yes, Drury = Yes, Smith = Yes, Brown = Yes. Motion Carried. Other Warren inquired if the Shared Furnace Form is now available? Inspector Herrington stated it was done and is available through the City’s website. Warren wondered how the City plans to announce this to the landlords? Herrington advised they can go online and get the form. Warren wanted it noted that the City is granting extensions to people who have already been inspected that did not fill out the application? Herrington advised yes, it can be filled out during the next inspection cycle. Warren still expressed concern about what would happen if they did not fill out the form. Attorney Parks advised that this may need to be reviewed and we may need to confirm in writing that they will have u ntil the next inspection cycle to fill out the form. Parks advised she would write a memo to the Board for the official record. Warren requested staff look into extending the deadline for retroactive variances that is in Chapter 13.402(f)(3). No decision was made. Motion to adjourn Schroeder. Second Brown. Adjourn 5:35 PM. .