Loading...
BM 2001-03-01 BSC MINUTES OF MARCH 1, 2001 BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION The Building and Standards Commission of the City of Coppell met on Thursday, March 1, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Town Hall, 255 Parkway Blvd. In attendance: Absent: David Stonecipher, Chairman Robert Turk, Alternate Commissioner Mark LeGros, Vice Chairman Jamshed Jamadar, Commissioner Also present: Steven Wright, Commissioner Greg Jones, Chief Building Official Robert Chomiak, Commissioner David Dodd, City Attorney's Office John Hoppie, Alternate Commissioner Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary Norman Kressmann, Alternate Commissioner David Terry, Alternate Commissioner Applicants present: Eric F. Dankesreiter, Wigington and Dankesreiter, L.L.P., 3010 Broadmoor Ln., Flower Mound Morris Salerno, 2300 Highland Village Rd., Highland Village Item 1: Call to Order. Chairman Stonecipher called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Stonecipher administered the oath for all members of the audience wishing to speak either for or against the request being presented at this meeting. Item 2: Public Hearing to consider an appeal from the Notice and Order, for demolition of a substandard and dangerous building, issued November 9, 2000, for the property located at 125 Kimbel Kourt, Coppell, Texas 75019, and described as Lot 15, Kimbel Addition, Coppell, Texas. Greg Jones distributed letters signed by three property owners in favor of the City's Notice and Order for demolition, as well photos of the site. He explained that the structure at 125 Kimbel Kourt burned on August 2, 2000. Following the fire, the Building Inspections Department inspected the property, determined that it was a substandard and dangerous building, and therefore, ordered demolition. The property owners were notified, and the City was then contacted by an agent of the owner, requesting an appeal of the decision for demolition. Greg Jones indicated that the City requested a formal appeal from the aggrieved party, but never received it; subsequently, this evening's hearing was scheduled to consider the demolition order. He further explained that the Board has the right, through a majority vote, to allow any of the remedies that would be prescribed in Section 15-11-12, as included in the packet. He noted that the City has heard from several neighboring property owners concerned about the condition of the property and that it is located adjacent to an elementary school. The applicant was invited to step forward and present his case. 1 Eric Dankesreiter, of Wigington and Dankesreiter, L.L.P., representing Morris Salerno, reported that he received notice on September 6th to secure the openings of the burned building, and those requirements were met. He explained that the November 9th Notice and Order for demolition was received, and his law firm responded on December 8th, on Mr. Salerno's behalf, requesting the names of the members of the Building and Standards Commission, as well as any applicable statutes and building codes; he indicated that no response to that request was received from the City. Specifically, he indicated that he asked to be notified of what needed to be done to bring this building into short-term compliance so that it is no longer a hazard. Mr. Dankesreiter explained that the building, today, is secure. He added that the seating area of the building burned, but the fire did not damage the kitchen, the most valuable portion of the building. He added that the overall structure of the building could be repaired. He explained that the notice from the City stated only that the building was a nuisance, but did not cite any specific violations, nor did it make reference to any building codes or City codes that had been violated. He added that taking someone's property, in this manner, violates due process, when the property owner has not been notified of exactly what needs to be done to bring a building into compliance. He referred to Article 15-11 of the Neighborhood Integrity Ordinance, which states that this Board can exercise several options, the most drastic of which is demolition. He explained that although he spoke with Mr. Jones, and others in his department, requesting that a meeting be scheduled to discuss repairs to the building, he was not granted such a meeting. He noted that there should be something that the Board can do, short of demolition, which would bring this building into compliance. Mr. Dankesreiter reported that there is a zoning statute that applies in this situation: "if a building is destroyed by fire, and less than half of its value is destroyed, the owner has a right to repair it without changing the zoning". He noted that because the most valuable section of this building --- the kitchen --- was not destroyed by fire, this statute would apply since over 50 percent of the value of the building still remains on the site. He explained that if the Board takes the action to demolish this building of value, it would violate due process and the federal constitution. Mr. Dankesreiter indicated that this property has a pending contract for sale; therefore, if the building were demolished, Mr. Salerno would be in violation of that contract. Mr. Dankesreiter distributed copies of the contract to Board members, adding that it was signed some time ago, but the last page of the contract changes the inspection period to February 12, 2001, after which the purchaser has the option to extend the inspection period for two 30-day periods. The closing on the property would then be an additional 30 days beyond the inspection period. He further explained that the purchaser is studying the feasibility of keeping the building intact, due to the fact that it is a sound structure, having previously served as a jail. Mr. Dankesreiter indicated that it is his understanding that the potential buyer has been talking with City officials about suggested uses of the property. Mr. Dankesreiter reported that it is not his intention to threaten the Board, but board members should be aware that the result of ordering demolition would place the property owner in the position of having to file a suit and getting a temporary restraining order to stop the demolition. He noted that it would be wise for the Board to choose less drastic action to secure the building so that it's not a hazard in the short term, and in the long term, someone could then purchase the building as it now stands. He noted that he would be willing to work with City building officials to establish some type of plan to secure the building, but obviously, the seller would not want to finance reconstruction without knowing the potential buyer's intentions. Commissioner Wright inquired about any professional inspections that had been done, to date, to determine the structural integrity of the building. Mr. Dankesreiter explained that an inspection had been performed to determine that all windows and doors had been secured, and if further inspection reveals that a ceiling beam, for example, needs repair, his client would be willing to make the necessary repair to bring the structure into short-term compliance. He noted, however, that the property owner is not willing to make a major investment in a property that is about to be sold. Commissioner Chomiak asked the applicant what steps had been taken, between August and November, to inspect the soundness of the building. Mr. Dankesreiter reported that the building was listed for sale when the fire occurred. He reiterated that the property owner took the necessary steps insure the soundness of the four walls, as well as to secure windows and doors. This would allow the potential buyer to do a renovation. He noted that, beyond that, nothing was done to the building, itself, during that period of time. Commissioner Chomiak asked the applicant what he felt should be done to remedy this situation. Mr. Dankesreiter responded that, on the short-term, repairs could be done, as the City feels are necessary to make the building sound, with the long-term solution being the ultimate sale of the property. He added that the fact that a demolition order has been issued, has some bearing on the contract. Commissioner Wright asked for clarification of the extensions listed in the inspection clause of the contract. Mr. Dankesreiter referred to page ten, reporting that the initial inspection period was extended to February 12th, as listed in paragraph 17.2. He noted that these extensions allow the buyer extra time to pull out of the agreement. Commissioner Jamadar asked what the final date would be for the buyer to exercise his option to cancel the contract. Mr. Dankesreiter responded that it would be 120 days beyond Feb. 12th, 2001. Greg Jones explained that he had hoped to receive more information, prior to the hearing, but an exact appeal was never received from the applicant. He called attention to the Notice and Order, dated November 9th, 2000, in which the conditions of a substandard and dangerous building are defined, as well as its location across from an elementary school. Referring to the SUP for the property, Greg Jones reported that the restaurant was in operation before November of 1989, which is the date on the SUP. He distributed a document from the Dallas County Appraisal District (DCAD), setting the value of the structure at $120,900. He also submitted a building repair after-fire estimate, totaling $171,489.78. Greg Jones also pointed out that Section 30 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, regarding Special Use Permits, indicates that, "any time the building's premises or land is 50 percent destroyed by fire or other cause, the use of the same shall thereafter conform to the regulations of the original zoning district". He added that, in this case, the Special Use Permit would have been extinguished the day the building burned. In addition, he referred to the Zoning Ordinance under "Restoration of Non-conforming Structures" (page 158.4), which indicates that "in the case of partial destruction of a non-conforming use structure not exceeding 50 percent of its total appraised value, as determined by DCAD, reconstruction will be permitted". Also, this section would have extinguished the current owner's "non-conforming status" on the day of the fire. He also referred to page 158.2, summarizing that it is Staff' s opinion that this building cannot be rebuilt or reused, as all of the non-conformities and special uses were extinguished with the fire. Greg Jones commented that this burned-out structure has already been standing for seven months, and he is concerned about allowing it to remain, with such extensive structural damage, through an additional four-month extension period, due to its close proximity to an elementary school. He reported that if someone wanted to rebuild the building, whether it be a new buyer or the present owner, Staff would have to say that it could not be done, unless the owner wishes to re-develop the property through the P&Z process. The hearing was opened to the public, for those wishing to speak in favor of the City's recommendation. Karen Seaman, of 1001 Cherrywood Trail, reported that her house is only 270 feet away from the affected property, so this burned-out building is constantly in view. She noted that her biggest concern is the safety issue, having observed children using some of the loose boards as skateboard ramps. She noted that it was 3-1/2 months, after the fire, before any of the outside debris, such as furniture, was cleared away. In addition, animals have been living inside the building. Don Davoust, of 1056 Village Parkway, explained that he lives about one-quarter mile from the building. He expressing his agreement with the City's action, adding that there really are no barriers to entry on the building, and property values of the neighboring subdivisions are affected by allowing this structure to remain. No one spoke in opposition to the City's action. Mr. Dankesreiter was invited to return to the podium. Chairman Stonecipher asked for clarification, indicating that the contract does not specifically state that the buyer wants the building, adding that this would seem to be an important issue considering the present condition of the building. Mr. Dankesreiter responded that he only has the one letter from the potential purchaser, as was shown earlier, and explained that the contract is for the lot and improvements. He noted that the purchaser is interested in the value of the building, as indicated in the contract purchase price of $249,400. He explained that because his client has a pending contract on the property, he disagrees with the appraisal presented by Mr. Jones. Mr. Dankesreiter further commented that a SUP is always issued for restaurants, so the fact that the SUP is now extinguished would not prevent the buyer from requesting another SUP. He emphasized that it is not the owner's intention to leave the property in its current condition, adding that it shouldn't be destroyed just because it's ugly. He reiterated that if the property is considered unsafe by the City, he and his client are willing to work with the City to make it safe. Chairman Stonecipher referred to clause B of the section labeled, "Casualty Loss and Condemnation", asking if the prospective buyer was present this evening. Mr. Dankesreiter indicated that the buyer was not in attendance, but added that the buyer intends to use the building and has not elected to get out of the contract. Commissioner Wright asked about the reasons for the delay in selling this property, and Mr. Dankesreiter responded that he was aware of only one reason for the delay: the purchaser does not necessarily want to pay the contract price if the structure is to be demolished. David Dodd, of the City Attorney's Office, clarified the issue of value, explaining that in determining whether something is 50 percent destroyed or not, the Dallas County Appraisal District bases "value" on whether the structure itself is 50 percent destroyed. In this case, he explained, the $120,000 "value" is for the improvements (structure) only; the total of $170,000 is land and improvements. Of the alternatives listed in the Ordinance, other than demolition, Commissioner Wright asked the applicant which alternative he is requesting, as well as a timeframe for completion. Mr. Dankesreiter responded that one of the alternatives would be repair, involving a meeting with City inspectors to identify their concerns. The time period would then be based on the City's requirements. Commissioner Wright asked if anything had been proposed to the City' s Inspections Department, and Mr. Dankesreiter indicated that he has been waiting for some type of response from the City outlining the required repairs. Greg Jones responded that there is already an estimate on repairs, and the requirement would be to return the building to the "occupancy" level. Commissioner LeGros asked the applicant if there's been any talk about bringing the structure back to the "occupancy" level. Mr. Dankesreiter indicated that the only discussion concerning "occupancy" has been from the purchaser, adding that he intends to use it as a moneymaker, and not simply for storage. Commissioner LeGros commented that he could see nothing of authority coming from the owner's side of the table to indicate that the building is salvageable, whereas there is an element of authority coming from the City's side of the table, saying the building is not fit for occupancy. Mr. Dankesreiter responded that he did not mean to imply that the building was ready for occupancy; he indicated that there is no dispute that it is in need of repair. He further commented that although the City considers the SUP revoked for this current use, it's not entirely correct. He noted that the building has been secured and cleared of all outside debris, and now his client simply wants to do whatever the City requires to keep it secure, on a short- term basis. Greg Jones reiterated that in addition to the SUP being extinguished, the non-conformity status is also gone, not only due to extensive structural damage, but also to the six-month timeframe. Mr. Dankesreiter disputed this point, saying that the building has only been extinguished for this one special purpose. Commissioner Jamadar asked for clarification on the non-conforming use. Greg Jones reported that the building does not meet the masonry, setback, and landscape requirements. When it was damaged more than 50 percent by fire, the non-conforming status was extinguished. He explained that a person could take that property, remove the building, and build a conforming commercial building that meets the requirements. Chairman Stonecipher requested that the Board recess to Executive Session to meet with the City attorney. Meeting was reconvened. The meeting was closed to the public, and opened to the Board for discussion. Motion was made by Commissioner LeGros to uphold the Chief Building Official's Notice and Order for demolition of the structure at 125 Kimbel Kourt. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Notice and Order is upheld. Item 3: Other Business. There was no other business. Adjournment. Motion was made by Commissioner LeGros that the meeting be adjourned. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Meeting adjourned. David Stonecipher, Chairman Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary