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