Loading...
BM 2003-02-06 BSC MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6, 2003 BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION The Board of Adjustment of the City of Coppell met on Thursday, February 6, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Town Hall, 255 Parkway Blvd. In attendance: Mark LeGros, Chairman Norman Kressmann, Vice Chairman David Stonecipher, Commissioner Steve Wright, Commissioner Robert Chomiak, Commissioner Donald Perschbacher, Alternate Commissioner Ronald Smith, Alternate Commissioner Absent: David Terry, Alternate Commissioner John Hoppie, Alternate Commissioner Also present: Greg Jones, Chief Building Official David Dodd, City Attorney's Office Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary Applicants present: Jason Marshall, attorney representing U-Haul International, Inc. Item 1: Call to Order. Chairman LeGros called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Item 2: Dismiss to Executive Session. Chairman LeGros dismissed the group into Executive Session for consultation with the City Attorney. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (Closed to the Public) Item 3: Convene Executive Session. Item 4: Adjourn Executive Session. Chairman LeGros adjourned the Executive Session, and called the meeting back to order. REGULAR SESSION: (Open to the Public) Item 5: Convene Regular Session. Chairman LeGros administered the oath for those members of the audience wishing to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the request being heard this evening. Item 6: Necessary action resulting from Executive Session. The Board was advised to use a standard motion and majority vote, as needed. Item 7: Public Hearing to consider a request by Mr. Tony Cooper, of Deutsch Associates, on behalf of U-Haul Self Storage Corp., to appeal the Chief Building Official's decision regarding the expiration date of the building permit for the proposed U-Haul Self Storage facility, located at 147 E. Vista Ridge Blvd. Greg Jones provided a chronological background of the U-Haul permit process, reporting that Deutsch Associates is the architectural firm working on behalf of U-Haul. He further explained that because the permit application was submitted on February 14, 2002, the construction plans were reviewed under the provisions of the 1994 Uniform codes. He reported that the project manager, Mr. Tony Cooper, indicated that U-Haul was eager to begin construction, and, therefore, stayed in contact with the City during the plan review process. He added that Mr. Cooper was advised, by the City, that he could begin underground and site improvement work, as approved by the Engineering Dept., prior to the release of the building permit, but Mr. Cooper stated that he preferred to wait for all permit approvals before beginning the work. Greg Jones reported that the applicant was notified of the permit approval on March 12, 2002, and was advised that the only items lacking, in the submittal, were a copy of the filed plat and the C.O. application. He added that the Building Inspections Department didn't have any further contact with U-Haul or Deutsch Associates until May 2, 2002, when the permit fees were paid. Greg Jones explained that although the City adopted the new 2000 International Codes in April of 2002, this conversion to the new code did not change the validity of the U-Haul permit, which had been approved approximately a month earlier. Greg Jones reported that his office was contacted by Mr. Cooper, in August of 2002, to discuss the status of the permit, and Mr. Cooper was reminded of the expiration period, and of the fact that a written request must be submitted to the City, prior to the expiration date, to request an extension. Greg Jones reported that his office did not receive any such written request, regarding the U-Haul project, prior to the permit expiration date. When Mr. Cooper again contacted the City on November 16, 2002, he was advised that the U-Haul permit had expired, as of November 2nd --- 180 days after the date of issuance --- and fees of approximately $15,400 would be required to renew the permit, as outlined in Section 106.4.4 of the 1994 Uniform Building Code. Greg Jones reported that Mr. Cooper contacted ICBO for an interpretation, and their response was that such interpretations are left mainly to the discretion of the City. Chairman LeGros asked for clarification on the degree to which work had been "started" at this site, and Greg Jones reported that no work had begun during the 180-day validity period of the permit. He added that even the site development work, including grading and utilities (as approved by the Engineering Department), is normally allowed to begin before the building permit is issued, but, in this case, was never started. Commissioner Stonecipher asked about the approximate $4,000 difference between the permit fee calculations of the original permit and the amount quoted in Mr. Cooper's letter of request for an extension. Greg Jones explained that it appeared to simply be an error in Mr. Cooper's letter, adding that the actual 2 amount due in building permit fees, to reactivate this permit, is $15,400; the $4,341 in impact fees, paid previously, are not part of this issue. Commissioner Kressmann asked for clarification of the "effective date" of the permit, and Greg Jones responded that, in this case, the 180-day period, referred to on the permit, began May 2, 2002, which is the date the permit was picked up and paid for, creating an expiration date of November 2, 2002. Regarding expiration date, Commissioner Wright asked about the differences in fee calculation between the two situations of"not commencing the work" and "suspending/abandoning work". Greg Jones referred to the building code, explaining that the 180-day stipulation applies to both situations. Commissioner Stonecipher asked about Section 106.4.4, regarding an extension of the permit. Greg Jones responded that because U-Haul apparently underwent some type of change in business philosophy, they would, no doubt, have qualified for a one-time 180-day extension of their permit, had they not failed to submit the required written request and explanation of their circumstances, prior to the expiration date of the permit. The applicant was invited to step forward to present his case. Jason Marshall, legal representative for Tony Cooper of Deutsch Associates, commented that most of the "correspondence" involving this situation was conducted by phone, so very little documentation exists. He also indicated that there is ambiguity surrounding the actual "permit issuance" date. He explained that even after the permit was approved, there appeared to be unresolved issues with the City' s Planning Department, concerning the SUP, as evidenced in a fax message, dated May 2002, to Mr. Cooper from the Building Inspections Department, in which Mr. Cooper is simply requesting copies of past correspondence, but nothing specific. Mr. Marshall noted that it was after April 23, 2002, that Mr. Cooper sent the check for $19,741.21 to the City, in payment of the fees. Although U-Haul initially requested that the permit be issued "long distance" and that a copy of the approved permit be faxed to him when it was issued, Mr. Cooper was informed, by the City, that, instead, the authorized contractor would be expected to pick up the permit and the approved plans, in person. Mr. Marshall reported that, as a result, U-Haul never received a confirmation showing that the permit had been approved. Mr. Marshall reported that U-Haul went through financial re-structuring during this time period, putting a "hold" on every U-Haul project across the country. Then, in August, U-Haul determined that this project would go forward, and it was then that Mr. Cooper talked to Greg Jones about the status of this permit, to which he was informed that it had been approved. On November 16th, when Mr. Cooper called again, he was told that the permit had expired on November 2nd, 180 days following the issuance date. Mr. Cooper then submitted his letter of request for an extension, and sent it to Greg Jones. Mr. Marshall commented that he felt the City is only applying a literal interpretation of the code, in this situation, noting that the additional $15,000-plus would serve as a penalty to U-Haul and a windfall to the City. He noted that if the Board plans to place such stringent application of the Code on this permit, his client requests that he be granted some latitude, and that the effective date of the permit be set at May 23rd, 2002, or after, since it is assumed that there were still unresolved SUP issues, with the Planning Department, as late as May 23rd. He noted that his client is simply asking for a 6-month extension from the November 2, 2002, date. Mr. Marshall reported that this is not an issue of applying "new code" versus "old code", but rather it' s an issue of an ambiguous time period and a penalty of $15,000 against U-Haul. He noted that, in light of the communications that took place between Mr. Cooper and the Building Inspections Department over the months, the applicant should, at least, be allowed to do a renewal of the permit, thereby paying half the original fees, rather than the full $15,000-plus. He added that because the code does not really make any distinction regarding "commencement date", fair notice should be considered if the 180-day time period is strictly enforced. Chairman LeGros asked when the applicant formally applied for this hearing. Mr. Marshall responded that a letter requesting a hearing was sent by Mr. Cooper on December 24, 2002, but prior to that, and as early as November 20th, there were numerous e-mails between Mr. Cooper and Mr. Jones discussing U-Haul's grievance and ICBO's response. Mr. Marshall reported that, according to his client, the extension procedure was discussed during the August phone conversation, but no dates were mentioned until the November 16th phone call, when it was too late. Greg Jones presented a letter, dated May 1, 2002, signed by Tony Cooper, transmitting a check for $19,741.21, in payment of building permit fees. He noted that the City issued receipt #50532, in acceptance of this payment on May 2, 2002. Discussion continued on the actual date of the permit issuance, as well as on definitions of the words "commence" and "abandon". Commissioner Chomiak asked for clarification on the permitting procedure followed by the Building Inspections Department. Greg Jones emphasized that the customer gets a copy of the permit, showing it's been approved and signed by the person completing the plan review. He explained that the customer's copy of the permit also includes the statement about the "180-day window" to commence work, before the permit becomes null and void. Jason Marshall stated that because there was not a physical permit, there was nothing tangible that would put his client "on notice" that $15,000 was at stake, considering there were still outstanding issues. He added that U-Haul is being penalized $15,000 for no additional services received from the City, and simply because the code is being strictly applied. He noted that the permitting process was really not completed smoothly by either party, especially since there isn't proof that a permit was issued. The procedure for picking up permits was clarified by Greg Jones, who explained that a contractor is expected to come by the office, in person to pay the fees and pick up the approved plans, as well as receive information concerning inspection scheduling. Chairman LeGros observed that there appears to be an ongoing pattern of a three-month lag time in each "communication" that took place between Mr. Cooper and the City, adding that he feels U-Haul should have been more attentive in tracking the timeline of their project. Commissioner Wright commented that although the establishment of the "issue date" is a point of contention, he feels that the City has sufficiently clarified and established May 2nd as the "permit date". He added that although the applicant is disputing this date, neither is he offering any alternatives. Commissioner Wright also commented that Mr. Cooper sent the check to the City, on the first of May, with the intent of paying the permit fees, adding that, thereafter, Mr. Cooper had the responsibility of taking ownership of the "issue" date, as established by the City. 4 Commissioner Chomiak agreed that May 2nd appears to be a valid date, considering the fact that the applicant sent a check, by overnight delivery, to the City, and probably got confirmation of its receipt, through financial records, shortly thereafter. Commissioner Stonecipher also agreed, commenting that May 2nd may even be a "generous" date, if you consider the actual approval date, as shown on the permit. Motion was made by Commissioner Kressmann to uphold the decision of the Chief Building Official, concerning his determination, from Section 106.4.4 of the Building Code, that the expiration date of November 2, 2002, for the building permit for U-Haul, located at 147 E. Vista Ridge Blvd. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. The decision of the Building Official is upheld. Adjournment. Motion for adjournment was made by Commissioner Stonecipher. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Kressmann, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Meeting adjourned. Mark LeGros, Chairman Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary CERTIFIED AGENDA BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION EXECUTIVE SESSION - February 6, 2003 Commission Members present: Mark LeGros, Chairman Norman Kressmann, Vice Chairman David Stonecipher, Commissioner Steven Wright, Commissioner Robert Chomiak, Commissioner Donald Perschenbacher, Commissioner Ronald Smith, Commissioner City Staff present: Greg Jones, Chief Building Official David Dodd, City Attorney Mary Beth Spletzer, Secretary Others present: None I, Mark LeGros, Chairman of the Building and Standards Commission of the City of Coppell, Texas, do hereby certify that on February 6, 2003, at 7:05 p.m., the Building and Standards Commission convened into Executive Session as permitted by Section 551.071 of the Texas Government Code, for Consultation with City Attorney, as follows: Discussion: Powers of the Commission in determining the status of the building permit for the U-Haul Self Storage project, 147 Vista Ridge Blvd.: · Commission was advised that its decision is limited to determining whether or not the Chief Building Official made the right interpretation, under Section 106.4.4 of the 1994 Uniform Building Code, concerning the expiration date of the building permit; · Commission was advised that consideration of permit fee calculations are not part of this request; and · Commission was reminded that the applicable code, in this case, is the 1994 Uniform Building Code, due to the fact that the original permit was submitted and reviewed while the 1994 Uniform Building Code was still in effect, and prior to the City's adoption of the 2000 International Codes. Action taken by Commission: Advised by City Attorney to use a standard motion, with decision to be determined by simple majority. The Building and Standards Commission completed its Executive Session on February 6, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this Agenda of the Executive Session of the Building and Standards Commission of the City of Coppell, Texas, is a true and correct record of the proceedings pursuant to Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code. Witness my hand this day of ,2003. Mark LeGros, Chairman, Building & Standards Commission 6 7