Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 15, 2002 , ' MINUTES BUILDING & STANDARDS COMMISSION April 15 2002 6:00 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Dan Sears, Vice Chairman George McLean, Commission Members: Frank Cox, Kevin Kuddes, Glenn Thomas, Larry Patton, Alternate Mark Clayton MEMBERS ABSENT: Member, Alternate Neal Nutall, STAFF PRESENT: Building Official Lance Simms, Assistant City Attorney Angela Deluca, Action Center Representative Regina Kelly, and Staff Assistant Marla E. Brewer AGENDA ITEM NO.1: Call meeting to order. Chairman, Dan Sears, called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM NO.2: Consider request for absence. No absence request AGENDA ITEM NO.3: Hear visitors for items not on agenda. Dan Sears asked if anyone would like to speak on an item not on the agenda. No visitors chose to speak. AGENDA ITEM NO.4: Approve minutes from the Building & Standards Commission meeting held on March 11, 2002. Larry Patton motioned to approve the minutes. Frank Cox seconded the motion; The motion passed unanimously, (7-0). lof7 Building & Standards Commission April 15 2002 - Minutes Public hearing and consideration of a structure located at 1107 Detroit Street (Lot 7, Block 7, McCulloch Subdivision, College Station, Texas). Dan Sears asked staff to brief the Commission. AGENDA ITEM NO.5: Lance Simms, Building Official, took the floor. Lance told the Commission that the structure at 1107 Detroit Street had been used as a single family home. He then said that the Building Division received a complaint from the Police Department concerning the condition of the structure. He said the title search indicated that the home belonged to Ms. Ardine Sweed who has passed away, so the property now belongs to her heirs. Lance said that an inspection of the single family residence was conducted with a representative from the Fire Marshal's office on March 14, 2002. He told the Commission that as part of the inspection, photos were taken and the code violations were documented. Lance continued by saying the inspectionxevealed that the structure is substandard and in violation of several provisions of the 2000 International Property Maintenance Code. He said he felt the in~pection revealed that there is probable cause to conclude that the structure is unsafe. He then said that the structure had been without City utilities since June 25, 1999. Lance reviewed the following code violations documented during the inspection of the structure: 1. The structure is vacant and not maintained in a safe, secure and sanitary condition as required by Section 301.3, 2000 International Property Maintenance Code. 2. The dwelling's exterior walls contain missing siding in places and was not protected in others as required by Section 303.6, 2000 International Property Maintenance Code. 3. Structural members are deteriorated and in some cases not capable of safely supporting loads as required by Section 303.4, 2000 International Property Maintenance Code. 4. Sanitary facilities (kitchen sink, lavatory, tub and water closets) are missing or damaged in violation of Section 502.1, 2000 International Property Maintenance Code. 5. The dwelling does not contain a water heater as required by Section 505.4, 2000 International Property Maintenance Code. 6. Electrical outlets, fixtures, and receptacles are not properly installed and not capable of being operated in a safe manner and are not properly connected to a source of electrical power as required by Sections 604 and 605, 2000 International Property Maintenance Code. 7. The dwelling does not contain heating.facilities capable of maintaining a room temperature of 650 F as required by Section 602, 2000 International Property Maintenance Code. 8. The dwelling does not contain a smoke detector(s) as required by Section 704, 2000 International Property Maintenance Code. 20f7 Building & Standards Commission April 15 2002 - Minutes Lance said he could have listed more code violations but he felt that these items were the main violations. Lance presented photographs of the structure that were taken during the inspection. · The first photo showed a front view of the home. The photo indicated that the front door and windows were open. Lance said that some of the heirs were present during the inspection and He requested that the they secure the property. He added that he drove by the property a week later and there had been an attempt to secure the property. · The photo of the south side of the structure showed gutters falling off and that some of the wood siding was damaged and missing. · The photo of the back of the structure showed an addition to the structure. Lance said the addition was in better shape than the original part of the house. · The photo of the north side of the structure showed the electrical meter was turned indicating that the power was off. · The photo of the front room door showed the living area. The room also contained the pluming fixtures that had been removed from the bathroom. · The phQtoof the bathroom flool'" showed a large hole in the exterior wall were the wood siding was missing. · The photo of the room that backed up to the bathroom showed unsecured romex wiring and no sheet rock and some rotting on the floor. · The photo of the kitchen indicated that the water heater was missing. The kitche walls had no sheet rock. The kitchen sink was missing and the electrical receptacles were not secure. · The photo of the hall showed no sheet rock on the walls or ceiling. · A photo of the location where the wall heater was located confirmed that the structure did not have adequate provisions for heat. · The photo of the addition to the house showed some holes in the sheet rock and a fixture hanging loose from the ceiling, held only by the romex attached to it. Lance said that the tax records show the value of the structure to be $1,900.00. He said that's typically a little low but that it would give the Commission a value to work with for the 50% rule outlined in the ordinance. Lance said the question is if the structure can it be repaired for less than 50% of the value. He said he felt the answer was no and his recommendation was for the structure to be declared unsafe and ordered demolished within 30 days. He then said that he recommends the 30 day time limit because that is what the ordinance provides for unless the owner(s) can demonstrate a reason for a longer time period. Dan Sears opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of the item. 30f7 Building & Standards Commission April 15 2002 - Minutes Mr. Sterling Whitley Sr. took the floor. He said he was one of the people in the pictures Mr. Simms took. He said in 1981 or 1982 the City of College Station appropriated $10,000.00 to refurbish the structure. Mr. Sterling raised a concern he had with the work funded by the City. He asked how a $10,000.00 remodel job could look the way it did now. He felt the whole $10,000 was not put into the house. Dan Sears said the Board would not have any knowledge of that. Mr. Sterling said he understood that but he was concerned that because of a complaint that now the City wants to demolish the house. He said he agreed the house was substandard but he felt that it could be refurbished. Lance said that he talked to Handy Brumley, Director of Community Development, and he confirmed that in the early eighties the City of College Station spent some grant money on the property. Lance also said that the issue of the grant money was beyond the scope of the Commission's charge. Frank Cox asked Mr. Whitley if he was saying that given some time he would try to put the house back in order. Mr. Whitley said he was saying two things. He continued, number one, if money is going to be spent trying to help the elderly in that neighborhood, then the City should turn out a better product. Frank Cox said the issue before them right now is that the house is in no way ready to be occupied and I am asking if you think the house is structurally sound enough that you can bring it up to standard. Mr. Whitley said he believed it could be done and if the Citywants the structure to remain there then just like they spent money on the property back in the eighties and there is still money today. Kevin Kuddes asked Mr. Whitley if he knew what happened to the sheet rock in the structure. Mr. Whitley said it was removed so thatwhen the police drove by they could see in the house. Glenn Thomas asked if he was one of the heirs that own the property. Mr. Whitley said yes, he was one of many heirs. Glenn Thomas said that it is obvious from the photos that this is not a safe structure, reggrdless what has happened to the house in the past, if something is not properly taken care of it will deteriorate. Glenn then said that if trere a.re no plans to remodel it at this time then he could see no reason why it should not be demolished. Larry Patton asked how long the property had been vacant? Mr. Whitley said probably since 1999. Dan Sears said what we need to decide is if it is safe or unsafe. Mr. Whitley asked what was the definition of "safe".He continued, does it mean safe but not livable? He said that there were so many heirs that needed to be contacted that he needed to be able to tell them what their options were. Dan Sears briefly explained what the ordinance requires. Frank Cox asked if Mr. Whitley and the other heirs had come up with a written plan for repairs to the home? Mr. Whitley said, as he would need to. contact the heirs to let them know their options. Mr. Cox stated that if we gave you some time to get a plan together then you would have to come back to present it to us at a later date. Mr. Whitley said yes that would be good. 40f7 Building & Standards Commission April 15 2002 - Minutes Dan Sears asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to the item. No one choose to speak. Dan Sears closed the public hearing. Lance took the floor and said he wanted to read part of the hearing notification letter that was sent to Melvina Moore who was also at the meeting. He pointed out that this letter went t() Ms. Moore herself, it was posted on the structure and at the County Courthouse. He said the letter is dated March 25, 2002. [At the public hearing the owner(s) will have the burden of proof to demonstrate the scope of any work that may be required to bring the structure into compliance with City Ordinances and the time it will take to reasonably perform such work.] Lance said he heard some comments about a plan and that he felt tonight was the time to submit a plan (timelines, dollar amounts etc.). Lance read from the ordinance: "Commission Order If the Commission determines the structure is unsafe, it shall proceed to determine whether the structure should be vacated, repaired, secured, demolished and\or the occupants relocated under the standards contained herein and in accordance with the following: 1) If the structure can be feasibly repaired or the dangerous condition remedied so that violation no longer exist, it shall be ordered repaired or remedied. Repairs shall be deemed feasible if the cost of repair reconstruction or improvement of-a structure; a structure equals less than fifty percent (50%) of the market value of the structure. 2) In any case where fifty percent (50%) or more of the value of a structure is damaged or deteriorated, it shall be ordered demolished or removed, and in all cases where a structure cannot be repaired so that it will no longer be considered dangerous under the provision of this ordinance, it shall be demolished or removed. Lance and the Commission discussed the item for a moment. They also discussed the condition of the structure's foundation. The Commission asked to review some of the photos again to see the floor condition. . Mark Clayton said he was uncomfortable with the value as indicated on the tax records. Glenn said he agreed it was low but even if you guessed the amount was $20,000 you still couldn't get to the 50% needed to repair the structure. Dan asked if the Commission could declare it unsafe and require it repaired. Angela Deluca said the ordinance requires it to be demolished if it is declared unsafe. Dan Sears asked if anyone would like to make a motion. 50f7 Building & Standards Commission April 15 2002 - Minutes Glenn Thomas made a motion to declare the structure unsafe and to be demolished within a period of 90 days. George McLean seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, (7-0) Mrs. Moore asked for clarification of what the order meant. Dan Sears and Lance Simms explained what the order meant. Mark Clayton said that perhaps the City could modify the procedure so that when the demolition proceedings begin it is made very clear in the letter that a written plan will need to be presented at the meeting. He added that at these meetings we have ran into the problem where the owners have not been ready with a plan. He also requested that there be a realistic market value rather than a tax record value and have a repair cost available. Lance asked if he was recommending that the letter he read from be modified. Mark said he would just add that a written plan would be needed. Lance asked if he was suggesting that the City pay to have property appraised. Glenn Thomas answered no and said that that should be part of the homeowner's plan, and at their expense. The Commission agreed. Lance said he would work on improving the language in the letter to further clarify the need for a written plan. AGENDA ITEM NO.6: Adjourn Larry Patton motioned to adjourn. Frank Cox seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, (7-0). The meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: \)~ Chairman: Dan Sears 60f7 Building & Standards Commission April 15 2002 - Minutes ATTEST: Building Official: Lance Simms 70f7