Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 12/18/2008Minutes to be approved by the Board at the January 29, 2009 Meeting FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting — December 18, 2008 1:00 a.m. Irhairperson: Michael Smilie J.'hone: 226-4260(H) I ouncil Liaison: Kelly Ohlson jotaff Liaison: Felix Lee (221-6760) A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, December 18, 2008 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: Alan Cram Mike Gust Jim Packard Michael Smilie Jeff Schneider George Smith BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Delynn Coldiron, Customer & Admin Services Manager Felix Lee, Building Official Derf Green, Housing Inspector AGENDA: ROLLCALL The meeting was called to order and rollcall was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Cram made a motion to approve the minutes from September 25, 2008. Packard seconded the motion. Vote: Yeas: Cram, Gust, Packard, Smilie, Smith Abstain: Schneider Nays: None 4. Rental Housing Appeal: 1701 W. Mulberry St., Case #16-08 Lee introduced the case stating that the property owner, Robert Kulikowski, filed the appeal. He noted that the tenants, Brandi and Hunter Higden, were also present. He explained that on October 22, 2008, Ms. Higden called to request a housing inspection indicating that there were BRB December 18, 2008 Pg. 2 many problems. Lee explained that the most concerning of the complaints were the ongoing roof leaks and black mold in the bathroom. Lee stated that an inspection was conducted two days later and that it was determined that many items were not in compliance with the rental housing code, including: roof leaks, severe mold in the bathroom, and no hot water in the bathroom sink. As well, the inspection identified electrical issues relating to faulty outlets and an electrical panel in a state of considerable disrepair and considered to be substandard. Lee explained that structural members on the roof over the -main bedroom were severely deflected and in order to divert rain water a gutter was installed on the interior wall in the bathroom. Lee stated that based on the number and severity of the violations, as well as the danger the violations posed to the occupants, the City posted the property and the premises as unsafe to occupy and uninhabitable. He explained that the owner was notified and the tenants ordered to vacate the property within fifteen days. Lee noted that following the inspection, owner Kulikowski filed a response and requested a hearing to allow occupancy of the building. He stated that the appellant filed the appeal based on his determination that the notice to repair a substandard building was not appropriate and that the building should be allowed to be occupied while repairs are commenced and completed. Lee noted that there was a significant list of items that Mr. Kulikowski refuted in his document. Appellant Kulikowski addressed the Board. He clarified that William Kulikowski (his father) is the actual owner of the property who is deceased. He stated that he attempted to contact City staff to try and resolve the matter but did not get a response. He was hoping to find a resolution to this issue prior to coming to the Board. Kulikowski noted that when the notice to vacate was posted, it wasn't posted on all of the exits as required by Code. He stated that he was informed by Green that he had thirty days to review or appeal the process but that the statutes say that he has only ten days. He explained that there was some misinformation in terms of the process which made it hard for him to put together his case for the Board. He explained that he felt like he was scrambling because his phone calls were not being returned. The appellant stated that his attempts to contact Green and Gebo were not to solely say that the house was habitable, but to ask for further clarification on what the real issues of concern were. He noted that it was hard to seek reimbursement from the insurance company for a loss of rents, when the property had been posted as uninhabitable. Kulikowski explained that he understood the severity of a lot of the issues and understood that if the City views the issues as dangerous, he was not going to be able to change their mind. He asked if there might be a way to rescind the order to vacate and change it to a notice of correction instead. He further explained that he was not trying to get out of being accountable or dealing with some of these issues, but was seeking help to do this in a way that would enable him to seek some kind of reimbursement from the insurance company as well. Kulikowski stated that there was a big list of items to be corrected. He explained that not having a light in the bathroom or having exterior windows and siding that needed to be caulked does not BRB December 18, 2008 Pg. 3 make the house uninhabitable. He also noted that on the notice he received it stated that there was not an outlet in the bathroom and clarified that this is not accurate. The appellant noted that there were issues stated in reference to the interior gutter as well as the mold. He explained that there was no staining present on any of the interior walls or ceiling to indicate water leakage. He further explained that if there was a significant four inch sag in the ceiling because of roof leaks then one would think that there would be some staining in those areas to indicate that there was an issue. Kulikowski stated that he was not suggesting that the items shouldn't be caulked and. dealt with, but that these items do not cause the house to be uninhabitable. The appellant stated that it is true that the lower half of the backdoor is broken in half and does need to be fixed. He felt that this is something that could have been addressed with a correction order. The appellant also stated that there was an issue with the air conditioner unit which had been spliced into the clothes dryer outlet box. He explained that this specific problem had been mitigated when his tenant disconnected it. Kulikowski explained that he hadn't installed the air conditioner unit and, therefore, he wasn't aware that the problem existed. In reference to the roof above the bathroom leaking so badly that a plastic exterior gutter had been installed along the wall to catch the water which then drained into the tub, the appellant stated that he did not install the gutter. He noted that there is no evidence of water actually entering through that roof and running down the sheetrock. The appellant explained that he was not saying that a leak was not present, only that there was no evidence of the drywall being stained. Appellant Kulikowski noted that there was obviously mold under the sink and felt that the drywall definitely needed to be cut out and replaced. He stated that he believed this was a matter of cleanliness and that this, along with the mildew that had accrued on the caulking, were there because of poor hygiene on the part of the tenants. Kulikowski stated that on the surface, aside from what was found under the sink, there was not any presence of mold that was visible on or in the walls. He explained that the walls are not soft, damp or have any staining. He stated that the mold found in the tub surround was also a matter of poor cleaning. Kulikowski noted that EPA guidelines outline that a wall section containing mold must be larger than 9x9 feet to be considered hazardous. He added that they also measure the spore content in the air. The appellant stated that he was trying to isolate the issues so that he could have his homeowner's insurance help cover the costs. He noted that they had already agreed to cover repairs needed on the roof. Next, the appellant stated that he had a document from a plumber stating that that the hot water valve was turned off under the sink in the bathroom. In addition, the document stated that the pressure release valve for the water heater drained to the outside. Kulikowski reiterated that he tried to contact City staff to see if some of the issues could be amended or adjusted, but never heard back. The appellant felt that there could have been a simple correction order issued for the dryer not being attached to the wall, as well as for the three outlets that existed on a two wire system. He BRB December 18, 2008 Pg. 4 added that the missing cover plates did not make the residence uninhabitable. It was his opinion that this was a common issue that also could have been addressed with a simple correction order. In regards to the outlets in the. middle bedroom that go on and off indicating a short in the electrical system, the appellant stated that the house is old and on two (2) circuits. He explained that he understands that this is a problem, but if the problem is just a loose wire, the circuit could be turned off and it wouldn't impact the tenants. The appellant stated that the tenants had already mitigated the issue by running long extension cords into these rooms to provide power. Kulikowski agreed that the electrical panel probably needed to be replaced. However, he noted that the panel was installed according to the codes that were in place at the time of installation and that it was installed legally. The appellant stated that he did not feel that this created an immediate danger to the tenants. The appellant also stated that the sliding window in the hallway that falls out of the upper track does not make the house uninhabitable or create a potential danger for the tenants. Appellant Kulikowski acknowledged that the vinyl windows on the exterior of the house should be sealed or caulked. He explained that all of the windows are sealed on the interior and that there is no water damage inside the house. He further explained that the water is flowing downhill and is staying outside, which is why there is a negative pitch on the sill. He stated that there is no evidence that water is getting into the house or creating a danger to the tenants. The appellant agreed that the flame guard on the water heater was missing and should be replaced. He also agreed that there was some bowing in the ceiling in the main bedroom, but stated that there was not any presence of water penetration into that roof evidenced by stains. Kulikowski noted that it states in his notice that he was told to replace interior drywall and to have a licensed contractor do that, but that this was not the understanding he had when he spoke to City staff. He added that when he has the roof repaired, if there are any ceiling joists that are broken, sagging or needing replaced, they will be at that time. He noted that the decking for the entire roof was also going to be replaced. Kulikowski was unsure what benefit there would be to structural stability or anything else by requiring the replacement of interior drywall. The appellant stated that the section of siding opposite the tub that had been removed and the hole that was covered by plywood did not pose a health or safety issue for the tenants. With regard to the exterior of the property, appellant Kulikowski stated that the lower sections of the siding were not really rotted, but had paint that was peeling off. He explained that he was unable to get clarification from City staff on what was actually required to remedy this issue. The appellant believed that this process was just a way his tenants had found to get out of their lease. He explained that prior to the phone call he made to City staff, he had received a call from the tenants expressing an interest in breaking the lease early. It was Kulikowski's opinion that when managing this process the City should keep in mind both the safety of the tenant, which is very important, as well as the financial implications for the landlord. He explained that the City could have started with a fifteen day notice to correct the issues identified through the inspection, followed by an order to vacate the property if the items were not corrected within the allotted time. BRB December 18, 2008 Pg. 5 The appellant asked the Board to look at all of the issues identified and to distinguish whether or not they believed the house was uninhabitable. If they deemed the property uninhabitable, he was seeking clarification on only those items that made the property uninhabitable versus other issues that might need to be corrected, but don't present an immediate risk or danger to anyone. The appellant explained that the situation was creating a financial burden for him due to the loss of tenants and the cost of repairs. Smilie asked the appellant for clarification on the information that had been provided by plumber Dave Purdue. The appellant stated that the plumber looked at the lack of hot water in the bathroom and determined that this issue was due simply to the hot water valve being turned off. He further explained that the plumber looked at the pressure release valve on the water heater and was able to determine that it did drain to the outside. As well, the plumber found no presence of water or moisture around the toilet to substantiate the claim of a leak at the time of his inspection. The meeting was opened for public comment. Brandy and Hunter Higden addressed the Board. Brandy stated that they resided at 1701 W. Mulberry Street from August 1, 2007 through October 31, 2008. Brandy explained that when they moved in, there were lots of problems with the cleanliness and upkeep of the house which they noted on their damage report and sent to Mr. Kulikowski. In addition, they also noted the broken back door, no hot water in the bathroom, as well as several other things on the report. Brandy stated that it took her two hours to clean up the debris and garbage she found in the property when they moved in. She further stated that the backyard had dog feces, broken glass, kitty litter and other items. She explained that they wrote Mr. Kulikowski a letter asking for reimbursement for the time and cleaning supplies but had never received payment. She added that they left the house in a much cleaner condition than when they first moved in. Brandy explained that they liked the location of the house and liked living there. She stated that they don't make a lot of money and couldn't really afford to put down a deposit on another house. She was frustrated that they had to move because of these issues and stated that they deserved a healthy and safe environment for themselves and for their unborn child. Hunter Higden addressed the Board stating that the conversation regarding the renewal of their lease started by a phone call from the appellant asking if they wanted to renew for another year. He explained that they really didn't want to due to the current conditions in the house, but that they really couldn't afford to move. Brandy added that the appellant had asked them about this at least five months prior to the expiration of their current lease. She stated that when Kulikowski found out they were considering not renewing their lease, he informed them that he was going to start having potential renters come through and tour the property. Brandy stated that from the day they moved in, the appellant had been telling them that a roofer would be by to make repairs. She explained that they were optimistic that the appellant knew about the things that needed to be fixed and would be diligent about getting things done. She further explained that the first time they ever saw a roofer come by the house was October 31, 2008, when they were packing up their stuff to leave. BRB December 18, 2008 Pg. 6 Hunter stated that they did not call the City to get out of the lease early. He explained that City staff had actually asked them whether this was the case and they responded that they were not trying to get out of their lease, they just wanted to live in a safe place and wanted somebody to take care of the problems they had been living with for a year and a half. Hunter stated that the presence of mold in the bathroom was there when they moved in. He explained that on their initial checklist they noted that there was mold on the caulking. He added that when you walked into the bathroom, the smell from the mildew made them feel nauseous, and that this had been present from the time they moved in. Hunter stated that the appellant told them before they even talked about moving in that the bathroom had just been redone and that everything in the bathroom was new. He further stated that the evidence shown on their check list reveals that this was not the case. Brandy stated that when they moved in, the caulking around the tub had already.been completely molded through and it would deteriorate and fall apart when she scrubbed it with a sponge. She explained that she used a bleach water mix that she heard could kill mold throughout the shower but it really made no difference. Brandy stated that when she would lift up the rug to clean around the toilet she would see mold growing on it and felt this was evidence that there was a water leak there. Hunter stated that they let a lot of things slide just because they are not in any kind of position financially to take care of things themselves and that all they can do is ask the appellant, who is their property manager, to fix the problems. Hunter stated that he told the appellant about the electrical problems in the bedroom and was told that an electrician would be sent. He explained that one of the last straws was when he had told the appellant about the hot water in the bathroom three or four times over the phone and finally was told that someone would be sent to look at it. Hunter stated that two weeks later nobody had shown up and the problem was still there. Brandy explained that they had extension cords coming from the exterior walls because the lights would go off and on in all three of the bedrooms on the interior walls. She further explained that the extension cords ran from the exterior wall of their bedroom, down the hallway and into the computer room, so that their computer wouldn't shut off improperly and cause damage to their equipment. Brandy explained that during high winds the window would fall off of the tracks and come crashing into the house. She stated that if she or anyone else had been standing there when that happened they could have been hurt. Brandy,also stated that they constantly had 5-20 bees inside of their bathroom on a daily basis. She noted that she is moderately allergic to bees and believed that this posed an additional health threat. Hunter stated that he feels like the appellant has stated that all of this could have been avoided if City staff would have gotten back to him. It was Hunter's opinion that all of this could have been avoided if the appellant would have simply been responsible about getting things fixed. Hunter stated that the house being deemed uninhabitable was not easy and was a financial hardship on them. He explained that he lost days of work, had to rent a moving truck, and had to borrow money on a line of credit for a deposit on a new house. Hunter noted that when they first called the appellant to tell him about the notice on the door, he kept telling them that they brought this on themselves and that it was their fault that this was happening. a BRB December 18, 2008 Pg. 7 Brandy stated that her hope was that the appellant learned a lesson in this case. She explained that just because people are less .fortunate, don't know their rights and don't have money to hire somebody to come do things for them, doesn't mean they deserve any less treatment than anybody else. The appellant stated that the Higdens gave him a $250 deposit to hold the house, at which time he assured them that he was going to repaint the entire inside. He explained that he replaced all of the carpet, patched holes, retextured and put a lot of time and work into the house prior to them moving in. He agreed that there was some left over construction residue that the tenants spent time cleaning up. Kulikowski stated that he informed the Higdens that some of the bathroom drywall had been redone. He explained that the plastic shower surround definitely had not been redone nor had the vanity, but that everything in there had been repainted and new drywall installed by the prior tenant. The appellant stated that by law he has sixty days to provide the tenants with an itemized list and their security deposit. He explained that Hunter called him and stated that they were moving out and needed their security deposit back. He further explained that he informed Hunter that they were still going to be responsible to pay for the carpet to be steam cleaned and to pay for any damage as a result of their tenancy. He stated that the Higdens would get their security deposit back, less patching holes, scuffs or cleaning the carpets. The appellant stated that the lease does say that he can start showing the property up to 120 days prior to the expiration of the lease. He explained that he did contact the Higdens the week after spring break, to ask if they wanted to resign at which point he sent them a renewal form, which they signed. He added that he was not privy to the Higdens financial situation, their ability to move, the bees or a lot of the other issues that had been mentioned today. He stated that they made a decision to renew the lease after they had already lived in the property for eight or nine months. Kulikowski stated that Hunter did call him and say that they were thinking about getting out of their lease in May. He explained that Hunter didn't want to get out of his lease then and that they were certainly surprised to have the house deemed uninhabitable. He further explained that Hunter didn't want to move out at that point, but he had expressed interest in possibly leaving early. The appellant stated that Hunter did call to tell him that the hot water wasn't working. He explained that he told Hunter that he would call someone, which he did. He further explained that he was told someone would go over there to deal with it, but two weeks later Hunter called to say that it hadn't been done. The appellant took responsibility for that stating that he tried to contract it out, but it didn't happen. The appellant noted that the Higdens were pretty good tenants and that they paid rent on time. He stated that he thinks that some of the issues and their frustration were a result of a lack of communication or not informing him and that it is hard for him to remedy the issues if they are not brought to his attention. He reiterated that he had no idea that there were bees in the house. He further explained that he understood their frustration and that he would be too if he were in the same situation. BRB December 18, 2008 Pg. 8 The appellant noted that prior to the Higdens moving in, he put $5,000 or $6,000 into the house. He stated that aside from dust, everything was clean, newer and updated. Kulikowski acknowledged that there were some issues with the house. He was hoping that the issues could be labeled as something other than "uninhabitable". Hunter noted that he appreciated the appellant's understanding of their frustration. Hunter stated that they never told the appellant not to send someone else out to clean and that they did express concern about the cleanliness of the outside, the kitchen and the bathroom when they first moved in. In reference to the bees, Hunter stated that he could not get the appellant to come out and get them hot water in the bathroom, replace a broken door or to fix the electrical outlets. He explained that if someone would have come to the property, some of the other issues would have been discussed. Schneider asked for clarification on the requirement that the appellant hire licensed contractors to make the repairs. Lee explained that the owner of any property, whether residential or commercial, can do up to $5,000 worth of non-structural repair or other work. He further explained that the owner cannot perform any work related to mechanical, plumbing or electrical systems. Schneider asked if this was because the property is a rental. Lee confirmed this. Packard stated that City staff had indicated that the wall board in and around the vanity was wet. Inspector Green explained that it appeared to be wet with quite a bit of black mold that was very active and odorous. He stated that he didn't see any water leak coming from the plumbing in the vanity so his assumption was that the water was coming from a•roof leak above the wall where the gutter was installed on the inside of the bathroom to catch the rain water. Cram asked Green if the vanity was located under the rain gutter on the outside wall. Green stated that it was and that it was at the low point of the shed roof. He explained that the bathroom began as a shed roof addition and that it was the most exterior wall with the vanity right under it. Packard asked if it would be reasonable to expect that the entire wall cavity has mold. Green stated that he believed so. Packard stated that he would think so as well. Packard asked if the gutter appeared to have enough pitch all the way across to be draining properly. Green stated that there was no pitch. Packard stated that there very well could be small bodies of water in there harboring bacteria and viruses. Green agreed. Schneider asked Green if he tried to turn on the hot water underneath the vanity to see if that was the issue. Green stated that he did not. He explained that typically when he does an inspection, he does not do anything to remedy what he sees. He does not test or turn valves, etc. Schneider asked Green if he also saw the drain for the hot water heater going outside. Green o stated that he did not. He explained that he saw the down pipe from the relief valve just going into the floor. He stated that his assumption was that it just drained into the crawl space and that he didn't know that it turned and drained outside. Gust asked if it was legal to drain the hot water heater outside and whether this could cause a freezing problem. Green explained that it is actually a code requirement that pressure relief g BRB December 18, 2008 Pg. 9 valves either drain to the outside or to an approved sump pump that would either pump the water outside or into the sewer system. Packard asked if all of the sagging ceilings are under the shed roof. Green stated that the ceiling in question is in the master bedroom, which is under the shed roof addition. He explained that he didn't notice the ceiling sagging in the bathroom and that he thinks the other rooms were under the gable portion of the roof. He further explained that the deflection in the roof system above the bedroom was quite severe and one of his largest concerns in regard to the safety of the building and whether or not it was inhabitable. He stated that there were three to four inches of deflection from the walls to the low point of the ceiling. He further stated that he went outside to look at the roof structure and was able to see the roof structure also following the same curve. He noted that whatever had been used there for framing had severely bowed. He stated that his concern was that they are at their limit state, so any additional load due to something like snow may cause them to break and collapse. Packard asked if the ceiling appeared to have detached itself from the 2x4s. Green stated that it did not. He believed that this was the reason the roof was following the exact same curvature. Smilie stated that he would assume that the roof and the ceiling are both attached to the same members and not a separate ceiling system. Green stated that this was his perception as well. Smilie stated that it appeared that the mold along the bathtub was behind the surround and not just in front of it. Green stated that it was in both locations. He explained that it was certainly in front of the surround and that it also seemed to be behind the surround. He further explained that the surround was loose and as he pushed up against it, water and mold would squish out of the bottom of it, so he knew water was getting up into the plastic surround area. Schneider asked if on the exterior of the property where the paint was peeling Green did any kind of testing or touching to see if the wood siding was deteriorating and rotting away. Green stated that he did. He explained that the wood siding, especially the lower courses of siding, maybe up six to twelve inches, had a lot of areas that were completely rotted out. He stated that if you would push it with your finger or thumb it was rotted and it was clear that water was getting into the structure. Schneider asked if the water was due to grading issues around the structure of the house. Green confirmed this. He stated that he thought this was the case especially around the front. He explained that the tenants told him that the front parking lot, which is a dirt parking area, fills up with heavy rain or a large snow melt, and that the water actually comes all the way up to the house. He further explained that this is part of what is causing the rotting in the front of the house. Schneider asked why that wasn't added into the report as far as other items that needed to be addressed for habitability and substandard conditions. Green stated that he supposed it was an oversight. He explained that in his rental inspections he hadn't been identifying issues with grading but felt that he probably should have in this case. Schneider stated that his concern was that if the siding was patched, repaired or redone, occupants would have the same conditions to contend with over time because of the grading issue around the house. Green agreed. Packard asked if Green was requiring that the tub surround be replaced. Green stated that he was. He explained that it wasn't spelled out, but it would either have to be removed and the mold cleaned up and then resealed and caulked or replaced. BRB December 18, 2008 Pg. 10 Packard stated that he assumes that the gutter would have to be removed. Green stated that he would hope that once the roof was repaired that the gutter wouldn't be necessary. Smilie asked if Green could tell if the tub surround was attached directly to studs or if there was anything behind it to begin with. Green explained that it felt like there was sheet rock or plaster behind it. He further explained that the tub surround is really just 1/16 or 1/8 inch of plastic sheeting that is simply glued to the wall. Smilie stated that he was concerned that if there wasn't anything behind it there would not be any way of really keeping it stable enough to ever seal appropriately. Green stated that he had the impression that there was some sort of wall panel behind it. Smith stated that there seemed to be some discrepancy in Green's letter. He explained that it says the appellant had thirty days to appeal and asked for clarification. Lee stated that according to the provisions as to how the appeal is to be -administered, the appeal period is fourteen days. He stated that the discrepancy is attributable to the fact that we changed from the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings to the International Property Maintenance Code and that there were some discrepancies in the ordinance. Gust asked for clarification on whether or not the electrical panel was located in the bedroom. Green stated that it was. Gust stated that he thought that was not allowed. Mike Gebo explained that electric panels cannot be located in closets. He further explained that this has to do with combustible clothes and items being packed up against the face of the panel board. He stated that you can put a panel anywhere except in wet locations or closets. Cram asked if the large wires that were left hanging should have been capped. Gebo explained that anytime there are bare wires, they either need to be removed if they are not going to be used, or need to be put into closed junction boxes with caps, covers and protected. Smilie stated that the toilet obviously showed some sign that it was leaking underneath at some point through the seal. He asked if the plumber who went out pulled the toilet to check the seal. He explained that you cannot tell if there is water underneath linoleum simply from looking at the toilet. The appellant stated that he was not sure what the plumber did. He explained that his understanding was that the plumber flushed the toilet, tested, and made sure the water was on and that there was no presence of water. Schneider asked if the appellant was on site when the plumber was there. The appellant stated that he was not. Schneider asked if Allen Plumbing & Heating truly went to the property, because the form submitted was not one of their forms. The appellant stated that the man who came out works for Allen Plumbing & Heating. Schneider asked if the plumber came out on his own or if he was on Allen Plumbing & Heating's time. The appellant stated that he was not sure. He explained that the plumber does work for him and when he calls him he shows up. Schneider asked if David Purdue is a licensed plumber in the City of Fort Collins. The appellant stated that he is. Schneider stated that he was questioning and was concerned with the legitimacy of Exhibit A. Green stated that Schneider's question and point were well taken. He explained that he had not BRB December 18, 2008 Pg. 1 I received any of that documentation nor had he seen it. He further explained that it was clear in the notice and order that the work had to be done by a City licensed plumbing contractor. The appellant stated that he was not saying that Allen Plumbing & Heating went out there. He explained that he was saying that a man who works for Allen Plumbing & Heating went out there and is a licensed contractor. He further explained that the plumber ran the crew that did the Penny Flats building. Schneider asked if David Purdue is the license holder for Allen Plumbing & Heating in the City of Fort Collins, or if he is just a plumber that is working under Allen's license. The appellant stated that he is licensed. Smilie asked for clarification on the age of the house. The appellant stated that he was not sure. Smilie explained that he was questioning the code legality of the electrical panel no matter what year it had been installed. He noted the number of wires being stuck into the same breaker. He further explained that realistically he didn't believe this was ever a legal installation. Schneider asked if the appellant was going to become the legal owner of the property. The appellant stated that he was not sure, clarifying that it was property included in his dad's estate. He explained that he was simply trying to manage it. Smilie asked if the appellant was the administrator of the estate. The appellant stated that he was not the executor. Smilie asked why the executor was not taking care of these problems. The appellant explained that he had a twin brother and when his father passed away he left everything to them. He further explained that the title hadn't yet transferred. Smilie stated that it seemed to him that the executor of the estate had primary responsibility for the property until such time as it's been passed through probate and a probate deed has been issued. The appellant stated that his understanding when he read the code was that anyone who had an interest in the property could do this. Smilie asked the appellant how many bedrooms he lists when he advertises the property. The appellant stated that he lists it as a one bedroom and states that it has two additional bedrooms that cannot be lived or slept in. Schneider asked how many other properties the appellant owns in Fort Collins. The appellant stated that there are about twelve. Schneider asked if the appellant had quite a bit of experience with rental properties and related habitability standards. The appellant stated that he does. He explained that he is not very familiar with this particular property and that the tenants who lived there previously didn't want anyone in there. He further explained that this is why he had a hard time showing it. He stated that he is familiar with how things should be. Schneider asked if the appellant or his company does a walk through with potential renters before renting out the property to create a list that both parties sign off on so that everyone understands what is on the list and what needs to be done. The appellant stated that he does not do a joint walk through. He explained that in his lease it states that the renters are required to provide him with a list within seven days, at which point he will go through their list and double check it so that he is on the same page. BRB December 18, 2008 Pg. 12 Schneider stated that there was a list provided to him with the most recent tenants and asked how many items on that list were corrected or fixed. The appellant stated that he was not sure and that he did not have the list with him. Smilie stated that he had a few questions about the items the appellant is possibly holding the tenants responsible for after they moved out. He stated that on one hand the appellant is saying that he wants to get rent from the insurance company and on the other hand he is not really relieving the previous tenants of their obligations under the lease. He stated that the appellant has had almost two months in which the roof and panel could have been replaced, as well as almost everything else pertinent to this complaint. The appellant stated that he was not holding the tenants responsible for the rest of the lease in terms of rents. The appellant stated that with a lot of the three prong outlets, the ground wasn't tied in. He explained that he pulled all of the outlets out of the junction boxes to address .a lot of the issues. He further explained that he had the plumber inspect, test and make necessary repairs and has received four or five bids to get the roof done. The appellant noted that the roofers are in touch with the insurance agency to figure out the appropriate amount of money to be allocated. Schneider asked for clarification on whether the appeal was submitted as a way to get rid of the dangerous conditions to make it habitable. He stated that he was trying to figure out why the problems were just not being fixed. The appellant stated that he was in the process of fixing things. He explained that he was unclear about what work needed a licensed contractor. He further explained that part of the delay was due to the fact that he was waiting for added clarification from City staff on the items identified for repair. The appellant clarified that he needed the Board to try and separate the issues between dangerous and just in need of repair. He hoped that the non -dangerous items could be remedied through a correction order. Smilie stated that when he looks at the complaints cumulatively, he would be hard pressed to say that the house is habitable without fixing the majority of the issues that have been identified. Smilie explained that among other things, the appellant talked about not having to do the sheet rock in the master bedroom. He further explained that if there is a four inch deflection in those roof members, then the sheet rock is going to have to be replaced, which renders the property uninhabitable until such time as the roof is redone and the rafters are replaced and/or repaired in the master bedroom. He stated that the electrical panel looks like an absolute danger to him and he believes that anybody who got anywhere close to it could be in trouble, not to mention the fact that the cause of the flickering in the outlets throughout the rest of the house is unknown. He further stated that cumulatively this property needs to be brought up to code before the Board could really say that it is okay to move into. The appellant stated that they may have to redo the whole roof structure which can all be done from the exterior. Smilie explained that this could not be done because when they tear out the rafters there would not be anything holding it up. The appellant asked if the rafters would have to be torn out or if 2x6s could be added, the roof re -decked and then shingle. Smilie stated that it would probably depend on what the pitch was. He explained that his guess was that in most cases you probably could not do that. He further explained that this work would have to be done by a licensed contractor. BRB December 18, 2008 Pg. 13 Smilie stated that the roofer could do the roof repairs, but could not do structural repairs if they were not licensed for it. Schneider stated that an engineer would need to be involved in the structural work. Cram stated that codes require that there be working outlets in rooms or you have to seal them up. He further explained that codes also require that there be a light in the bathroom. Cram stated that there is one issue after another in this case and it compounds itself into a situation where, in his opinion, the house is uninhabitable without any question. He felt that this designation was for protection, not only for the tenants, but also for the owner The appellant reiterated that he hoped the Board could separate the dangerous issues from the other code compliance issues. The appellant stated that he thought the issues could be handled with a correction notice. Smilie stated that he could not see where the Board could separate the issues based on the condition of the house at this point. He explained that he thought if there was a reasonable effort to fix the most dangerous conditions in the house, the City would probably work with him in terms of what he could do versus what has to be done by a licensed contractor. He stated that until a major effort has been made to get things fixed, he would be reluctant to grant any status other than what the City has given it, which is unsafe and uninhabitable. Schneider asked if a permit had been pulled for the repair work. The appellant stated that there has not been. He explained that based on the findings he was planning to pull a permit for the electrical items, within the confines of what he is allowed to do. Smilie reiterated that he did not think that the Board was in a position to offer a whole lot of relief until a major amount of the work had been accomplished. He further stated that he could not really find any benefit for separating out some of the minor issues, until the major issues are dealt with. He explained that the major issues are the ones that are basically the most pertinent, and until those are fixed the property is still going to be uninhabitable. Schneider asked if part of the reason why the appellant is here, was to have the insurance company pay for all of the work. The appellant stated that the insurance issues came to light after the appeal was put into motion. He noted that the insurance company had already agreed to pay for the roof. He explained that the insurance company had also taken some responsibility for the mold damage. The appellant stated that aside from the electrical issues, those are the things that he finds to be the major issues that are threatening. He explained that the insurance company is saying that they are not sure of that due to the other issues that have been listed as part of this case. Smilie stated that he had not seen any progress or any reason to change the notice that the City gave. He explained that he thinks if the appellant were to work with the City and get the major issues fixed, they would probably work with him in terms of how they have the house classified. Gust stated that one frustration he wants to clear up is the communication. He asked for a comment from City staff. Green stated that the property was posted on October 28, 2008 and on October 31, 2008 the appellant called. He noted that the appellant asked many of the same questions he is asking today. Green stated that he did not know the answers to all of the BRB December 18, 2008 Pg. 14 questions, so he told the appellant he would get back to him. He stated that on November 3, 2008, he called the appellant and left a message stating that he had some information for him. Green explained that on November 4, 2008 the appellant called back and he answered all of his questions at that time. Green noted that all of the things the appellant is talking about today, they had discussed in that conversation. He added that on November 17, 2008 the appellant left a message saying that he had a plumber out there and that the toilet didn't leak. The message asked if we could just take those items off of the list. Green noted that he was on vacation at the time which was indicated in his voicemail message. According to Green, on November 19, 2008, while he was still out of town, the appellant called and left another message basically the same as before. On November 24, 2008, Green's first day back from vacation, he had a lot of fires to put out and did not get a chance to call him. Green stated that he also knew that a phone call would be relatively pointless since staff was not going to take items off of the list piece by piece. Green explained that he was very clear with Kulikowski in their first conversation that the items all needed to be repaired before the City would reissue the certificate of occupancy. Green stated that on November 25, 2008, Kulikowski filed the appeal. It was Green's opinion that there had been clear communication throughout the process, except during the time he was on vacation. Cram asked if it is typical that while an employee is on vacation that nobody else takes messages and that the issue gets dropped for that time. Gebo stated that Green's calls revert to him. He further stated that he did receive a call from the appellant which he did not return. He explained that it was his understanding that communication had happened between the appellant and Green and that everyone was well aware of what needed to be done at that point. Smilie stated that he believed the Board had made their position fairly clear. He explained that City staff could explain to the appellant what work items he would be able to complete and what Work items would require a licensed contractor. He further explained that these requirements differ for rental properties versus owner -occupied dwellings. Gebo stated that he would make himself available to help . the appellant do this. Smilie stated that in the future he would suggest that the appellant do this type of business in person rather than leaving phone messages and playing phone tag. Gust noted that it appeared to him that none of the items would have ever been done unless the appellant was forced to do it. He stated that he looks to the City to make sure that these things get done properly. He was concerned about the condition of the electrical system in the house and recommended that a complete electrical remodel be done on the building. He explained that it seemed to him like these items should have been taken care of a long time ago. Packard made a motion to deny the appellant's appeal to set aside the order to vacate. Schneider seconded the motion. The appellant asked who had the right to modify the vacate order to a change order. The Board stated that Mike Gebo did. Smilie stated that realistically if the appellant came back with another appeal in January or February with 95% of the work done and only a couple of minor issues that would hold him up, the Board might have a different attitude. Schneider added that at that point, permits would have been issued and progress would have been made. BRB December 18, 2008 Pg. 15 Vote: Yeas: Cram, Gust, Packard, Smilie, Schneider, Smith Nays: None 5. Rental Housing Appeal: 525 E Drake Rd #301B., Case #15-08 Prior to the start of this case, appellant Sandee Diamond submitted a large packet of information for the Board's review. The meeting was adjourned for approximately 20 minutes for Board Member to briefly review the information that had been provided. Gebo introduced the case. He stated that on September 18, 2008 the City was contacted by the tenant requesting a rental housing inspection. The tenant concerns included an ongoing roof leak above the master bedroom as well as mold appearing on the ceiling and on the floor. The tenant stated that she notified property manager Sandee Diamond of the problems, but nothing had been corrected. Gebo stated that an inspection was scheduled for September 19, 2008 and that it was performed by him and Green. He explained that they found mold growing on the ceiling of the master bedroom along the exterior wall, mold growing along the baseboard where the water had run down the wall, and a loose electric outlet in the living room. Gebo stated that on October 15, 2008 a violation notice and order to correct was sent to the owner and the property manager requiring that the items be corrected, repaired, and to have a re - inspection scheduled within thirty days. Gebo stated that the appellant called on November 14, 2008 and stated that repairs had been made to the unit. He assumed that this appeal was for the purpose of having the violation vacated on the grounds that the repairs had been made. Smilie asked for clarification on the purpose of the appeal. He asked if the unit was ready for re - inspection and, if so, why this hadn't been done. Appellant Sandee Diamond addressed the Board and stated that there were several issues she wanted to discuss with the Board. Smilie stated that the Board had briefly reviewed the information that had been provided by her and that they didn't find it pertinent to the appeal. He instructed the appellant to not get heavily involved in describing the issues that had transpired before the City found that the unit needed to be rehabbed. He stated that he realized it was important to the appellant as a property manager to have had that history with the tenant, but that this information would not be helpful for the Board in deciding on this case. The appellant asked if she was being circumvented from pursuing an appeal. Smilie stated that she was not. He explained that if the appeal was based on a bad relationship with the tenant rather than actual code issues, there was not a lot that the Board could do for her. He further explained that none of the information in the packet seemed to be germane to the case as to whether or not there was a leaky roof, mold issue or possibly an electrical problem in the unit. BRB December 18, 2008 Pg. 16 The appellant stated that there wasn't a bad relationship between herself and the tenant. She explained that the tenant gave a thirty day notice a month before this happened and that they had been experiencing some problems with a lady who very briefly lived at Whispering Pines. The appellant stated that it was this previous_ tenant who contacted the City on September 18, 2008 and not the tenant actually residing there at the time. She noted that she was confused as to the claim that the tenant called because the unit was empty. She explained that Green or Gebo tracked down the tenant who had given the thirty day notice on August 1, 2008 who was moving out. Diamond mentioned that there is a letter that gets sent out once a month to every one of her tenants. She stated that there is no return address or signature and that two City staff members, Mike Gebo and Derf Green, are identified in the letter. She explained that it sets out a process for tenants to deal with building problems that circumvents Whispering Pines from receiving and pursuing maintenance orders. She stated that the tenants are going directly to the City inspectors and that this has become a big problem for them. ' Schneider stated that although Whispering Pines may be having a difficult experience with a bad tenant, it doesn't change the fact that when City staff was called out, regardless of who placed the complaint, they did find things that needed to be fixed and repaired. Smilie stated that the Board would like to get to the real issue. He explained that the Board cannot deal with an issue of a tenant who is out there fabricating stories. The appellant stated that they don't know where the letters are coming from. Smilie asked if they are mailed or hand delivered. The appellant stated that they are mailed. Schneider reiterated that the Board could only address code issues, not any kind of past tenant issues. Smilie reiterated that once a complaint comes to the City, staff is obligated to deal with it. The appellant referred to her tenant's notice to move out which she received on August 10, 2008. She noted that an inspection was done on September 18, 2008 and did not understand why she did not receive a letter about the inspection until thirty days after the inspection occurred. Diamond stated that she received the letter on October 16, 2008 and thought it odd that it included a sentence that stated that the tenants requested the inspector to withhold any information. She further explained that she had no clue why the tenants chose to move out. Diamond stated that the inspection check list and the photographs provided in her packet of information were done by the Fort Collins Housing Authority. She explained that their inspector was there for over an hour on October 8, 2008 and did a comprehensive inspection, which was two weeks before she received the letter from the City. The appellant stated that in the inspection checklist provided by the Housing Authority there wasn't any mention of a leak or black mold. She noted that she is not allowed to touch a vacated apartment until the inspection by the Housing Authority has been completed. 1 Schneider asked if the appellant was disputing what City staff had found. The appellant stated that the reason for the appeal was based on why the letter was withheld for thirty days, as well as the discrepancies between those results and the Housing Authority's inspection. BRB December 18, 2008 Pg. 17 Schneider asked if the alleged issues had been repaired. The appellant stated that the maintenance and painting are done. She explained that the carpet had not yet been installed, which was one of the last things to be done. The appellant stated that she was.frustrated with not having everything from the City in writing. She noted that she does not have the capacity for email in her office. She explained that when she goes to the property owner stating that repairs need to be made she has nothing to provide to him to verify the items that need to be repaired and why. She requested that all future correspondence from the City be in writing instead of through phone calls or visits to the office. Smilie suggested that if the appellant was ready to carpet, she should have the inspector back out to look at the unit. He explained that if there was any water damage on the floor, the inspector would be able to tell whether or not there was ever a leak. The appellant stated that she was not sure he would be able to tell. Smilie stated that he had been a landlord for about thirty years and believed that if there was a leak serious enough to cause a mold problem then it would probably still be visible on the floor. Smilie stated that he was still confused as to what was being appealed. He stated that he thought the whole issue could be solved by having the inspector back out to do a re -inspection. He explained that the Board could not solve the problem of who is sending out letters or who is causing issues with the unit, because they have no more clue than the appellant does as to who is doing it. The appellant asked if it was appropriate for the City to wait thirty days after the inspection to send a notice. She explained that her attorney received a phone call stating that Whispering Pines was going to get a ticket and she had not even received the letter yet. Smilie explained that he could not answer that question because he was not privy to how the internal procedures are set up with the City, but that it was an issue that needed to be taken up with Neighborhood and Building Services. He noted that he did not think it would be appropriate to wait thirty days to send the notice, especially if that notice was connected to how much time was given to remedy the situation. Gebo explained that the letter was sent on October 15, 2008 and did allow for thirty days from that date to make the roof repair corrections. Smilie stated that the appellant would need to take it up with the Post Office as to why she did not receive the letter sooner. The appellant stated that she presented the letter that is coming into the apartment community because it contains the names of the two City inspectors. She explained that because their names and telephone numbers are listed that they must know about the letter and that they must have surely received phone calls from the tenants. She further explained that the letter circumvents Whispering Pines from being able to perform their own maintenance. She noted that the letter directs the tenants to call the City for maintenance instead of notifying the office. Smilie stated that he did not know how to resolve the issue if the tenants are going to continue taking their maintenance requests directly to the City rather than notifying the management company. Smilie suggested that the appellant could send out some countering information to the tenants. The appellant stated that she already had, but the letters come on a regular basis. BRB December 18, 2008 Pg. 18 Smilie explained that if Green were to get a call from one of the tenants he could refer them back to the appellant. He added that this could get complicated because the City would not be able to tell if they had a legitimate complaint or whether or not it had been dealt with by the management company. The appellant stated that the reason she brought up her past tenant was because she had no authority as a spokesperson for Whispering Pines. Smilie asked for clarification on whether this person was still a tenant. The appellant confirmed that she absolutely was not. Packard explained that the appellant may want to try going through her post master to try to figure out where the letter came from. Smilie explained that using the US Mail to perpetrate fraud is a federal crime. He further explained that he thinks there is some degree of culpability that the Post Office would be willing to look into. The appellant stated that they have retained counsel who would like to speak to the Board as well. Schneider asked Green if the property was deemed uninhabitable or if a repair order was issued. Green stated that the property was not deemed uninhabitable and that a repair order was issued. Schneider stated that the repair notice was not preventing Whispering Pines from renting out the apartment or premise. The appellant stated that this was not the issue. Diamond asked City staff how they were able to perform an inspection that was called in by previous tenants. Schneider stated that regardless of where the call came from, a question of concern had been raised. He explained that the City has to fulfill_ the request regardless of who asks for it, especially in a rental housing situation. Gebo stated that it is the tenant who actually invites City staff in. He explained that the complaint may come from a concerned citizen or neighbor, at which point the City tries to make contact with the tenants for the address. He further explained that they would verify the concerns that were brought to the attention of the City and if they are valid an inspection would get scheduled. Gebo noted that on the date that the City did jt a inspection that is the subject of this case, the apartment was very much occupied by an entire family. He explained that the tenants invited them in to perform the inspection where they identified some minor items and sent out an order to repair. He stated that the City was simply waiting to be called back for a re -inspection. The appellant explained that Whispering Pines did not receive a maintenance order for anything regarding that apartment. She stated that she felt like they were being circumvented from doing their own maintenance. Schneider stated that nobody was denying Whispering Pines the ability to do the maintenance on their own property. He explained that the City inspector went out and found some items that needed to be fixed in order to comply with the Rental Housing Code. The appellant stated that they weren't given the opportunity to order a maintenance repair to begin with. Schneider stated that when the letter was sent out on October 15, 2008 the City wasn't aware of how Whispering Pines handles their maintenance. He explained that a letter was sent that stated BRB December 18, 2008 Pg. 19 some items had been found on an inspection that needed to be addressed. He further explained that the City did not tell them they had to hire a contractor or could not do their own repair. Smilie stated that he did not think that the real issue was the City's order, but the document that somebody seems to be circulating regarding the property. He sympathized with the fact that the tenants are no longer calling Whispering Pines directly for maintenance issues, but he did not have a solution for that and he did not think that the appeal process was going to solve the issue. He stated that the appellant was going to have to work out what she could with the City to get notification in a more timely fashion including maybe getting somebody that they could send emails to. Smilie explained that the Board's purpose in this kind of a case was to find out whether or not the appellant was justly or unjustly accused of having a faulty property. He stated that in this case, as far as the Board knows, the appellant was justly accused and that they have probably fixed the issue. He further explained that the, end result is that they need to have an inspector comeback out to look at it again. Smilie stated that the appellant will probably need to take up the issue of the letter with Lee, Gebo and Green to try and resolve some of the issues. He explained that since this is the first one the Board has seen, they did not know how prevalent it really is that people are following the dictate rather than calling Whispering Pines direct. i Smilie stated that there was no decision the Board could make that would change what is going on. He explained that the only decision that could be made is for the appellant to call the City to schedule a re -inspection. He further explained that if the inspector says that there is no evidence of a current leak, or a past leak, then the situation would be resolved and the case would be closed. Earl Edwards, legal council for Whispering Pines addressed the Board. He noted that from what he was hearing that it seemed to him that a lot of the issues seemed to be related to communication. He explained that it was his understanding from the appellant that she had been trying to get in touch with the City to come out. He stated that it seemed to him that everybody simply needed to get on the same page and start talking. Smilie stated that if Green is on vacation or does not respond, and Gebo or Lee have been contacted, somebody will respond. The appellant stated that she has never received a response. Smith stated that if someone calls the Building Department needing to schedule an inspection they will be directed to the right people. The appellant stated that the lady who answers the phone sends her to a voicemail where she leaves message after message: Smilie explained that part of the problem is that if the appellant is calling the inspection line, the voicemail will be looking for a permit number which is not pertinent. He stated that she really needs to get to the right party which would be Green's voicemail or by going directly to Lee or Gebo. Diamond explained that when she calls, she tells the secretary who is calling, what she needs, and is then transferred to Gebo's or Green's voicemail where she, leaves a message. BRB December 18, 2008 Pg. 20 Smilie explained again that this is a communication issue that the Board is not able to address. He explained that he believes this is an internal issue that needs to be talked over with the Building Department and not the Building Review Board. Earl Edwards stated that his understanding of why the Board was addressing the issue was because the appellant was having a hard time getting the work done within thirty days and because of the way everything was working. He stated that he would be willing to make the contact to have someone come. out if that would solve some problems. Smilie stated that he didn't think it was as important who makes the contact as long as it is made and the re -inspection gets done. Schneider asked how someone would go about getting an extension if they needed longer than the allowed time. Green stated that at times people will call and ask for an extension. He noted that he did not receive any calls from the appellant asking for an extension. Gebo explained that if there were extenuating circumstances that someone needed an extension, the City would absolutely work with them. He further explained that the purpose is to work together to get the items corrected and not to be punitive in any way. Gebo committed to open dialogue and communication with the appellant. He stated that the appellant will get his voicemail, but she can leave a long, detailed message about what the issue is and she will get a response. He noted that he had not heard that the repairs were completed until the appeal was filed. He explained that at this point if the repairs are made he is still not certain as to what is being appealed. Gebo stated that the only thing left to do is a re -inspection to confirm that the repairs had been made. Schneider asked if there was any way the inspection could be done tomorrow. Gebo explained that inspections can be scheduled the same day or the next day. Smilie stated that he strongly advised that the City inspector get a chance to inspect before the carpet goes down. He explained that once the carpet goes down, if the unit had been repainted and any damage that was on the drywall was painted over, then the only evidence left of a water leak would be on the floor. Gebo stated that the City could accept a roofing repair report. He explained that the issue was that the roof was leaking, so if there was a work order to repair the roof, the City would certainly look at that as evidence that the repair had been made. Smitie added that with the amount of snow and melting that had occurred the City should be able to tell if the roof is still leaking. The appellant stated that the reason she appealed was because on October 8, 2008 when the Housing Authority did their inspection and took their photographs, there was nothing in their report about a roof leak. She explained that it doesn't make any sense to her that the tenants would place a complaint after giving a thirty day notice or that the City would withhold the inspection for thirty days. Smilie stated that the Board can't say a whole lot to that other than the fact that a re -inspection could reveal whether or not there was any evidence of ongoing leaks. He explained that this is the only thing that can be addressed at this point. Schneider asked if the picture presented by staff showing the evidence of the water and the discoloration of the drywall was the picture that was taken while on site. Green stated that it was. u " BRB December 18, 2008 Pg. 21 Smilie asked if the picture was from ceiling to wall. Green explained that it is a picture of the ceiling against the exterior wall and the mold growing there. He further explained that there was also mold right underneath that area along the baseboard molding where the water had come down. Schneider asked the appellant if a maintenance person or roofer had gone out to do repair work above the unit. The appellant explained that he went up there and looked. She noted that Whispering Pines has onsite maintenance. Smilie asked if the appellant knew what the maintenance man actually did. The appellant stated that he did whatever needed to be done. She explained that she told the maintenance man to fix anything that needed repair. Smilie stated that the appellant should get a report from the maintenance man about what he actually did and then contact the City to get a re -inspection done. He explained that realistically they are spinning their wheels to no great effect because the Board cannot provide resolution on the other items that have been discussed. He reiterated that resolution would require communication between Diamond and the Neighborhood and Building Services Department. With regard to the un-authorized letter that had been discussed, Green explained that when someone calls for an inspection he asks them if they have contacted the landlord or manager. He further explained that if they say they have not then he directs them to do so in order to give them a chance to correct the issue. He stated that if they say that they have called the manager and nothing is getting done, then he will proceed with the case. Laurel Hardin, resident of 525 E Drake Rd #216B addressed the Board. She stated that anytime she has put in a work order, Whispering Pines has always responded. She noted that even before she moved in she had always been told that for maintenance work, there has to be written notice given to the office. Laurel explained that with every notice she has given, the maintenance man had been out to fix the problem within two to three days. Gebo asked the appellant if what she was appealing was that she believed there shouldn't have been a violation because the Housing Authority's inspection did not uncover what the City inspectors uncovered. He explained if that was issue then that might clarify for the Board what they are discussing. He further stated that if she is appealing that the violation had been corrected and therefore should not be a violation anymore, the violation could be closed through an inspection. The appellant explained that the unit was being vacated and that the Housing Authority inspection did not turn up any violations like what the City found. So when she received the letter thirty days after the inspection, there were a bunch of red flags. Schneider asked if Green could give out his direct phone extension and set up a re -inspection for the property. Green agreed to do this. Smilie explained to the appellant that if she could collect information stating that the maintenance man actually did something to the roof or have him walk through the unit with Green, he believed the issue could be resolved without any finding. He stated that perhaps the best thing would be to have the appellant withdraw the appeal based on getting a re -inspection. He further explained that if the re -inspection goes sour then she could file a new appeal, but he believed that there shouldn't be any problem getting the issue closed. BRB December 18, 2008 Pg. 22 Smilie explained that if the unit failed inspection and Diamond didn't feel this was just, then that would be a valid thing to appeal. He stated that as to whether or not there was a case for an appeal, he can't speak to that because the Board had not seen the unit, nor had Green since the maintenance man performed his repairs. Smilie asked if the appellant was willing to withdraw her appeal. The appellant stated that at this time she was not willing to withdraw her appeal. Smilie explained that he thought the appeal would need to be carried through to January, because he did not feel like the Board could make a Finding of Fact, or a motion to turn the appeal down based on what had been submitted and discussed. Earl Edwards stated that it would seem to him that the appropriate thing to do would be to withdraw for now. He asked if the appellant would be issued a ticket prior to the City doing a re - inspection. Green explained that typically if they don't re -inspect a property, the City does write a summons. He further explained that the City would have done that already in this case except that the appellant filed the appeal, so they did not follow through with this yet. Smilie stated that if the appeal was withdrawn and an inspection was scheduled for either tomorrow or Monday, he did not think a ticket or a summons would be issued in the meantime. Gebo stated that at this point the City needs to do an inspection. He explained that once the inspection has taken place, if something still has not been corrected, the City would give a time frame to make that correction prior to issuing a ticket. Schneider explained that what the Board is saying is that as long as the inspection is called in within fifteen business days from today's date, there will not be a summons issued. He further explained that if after fifteen business days the inspection has not been called in, then a citation may or may not be issued. Gebo thought that this seemed legitimate. Smilie explained to the appellant that he sees no danger in her pulling her appeal at this point based on scheduling an inspection. He stated that really there was no valid reason to have the appeal go forward unless she were to get turned down on the inspection and felt that she had been turned down in error, in which case the Board could make a ruling based on evidence presented at that time. He stated that he thought logically, if the appellant were to continue with the appeal today, the Board would turn down the appeal and ask that she re -file it if the inspection failed. He noted that it was probably to the appellant's advantage at this point to withdraw the appeal and schedule an inspection. Cheryl Kline, resident of 525 E Drake Rd #216B addressed the Board. She stated that what she believed the appellant was getting at was that they weren't given the chance to repair the apartment. She explained that the tenants did not call Whispering Pines or put in a request for repairs. Smilie stated that the bottom line is that as the Building Review Board cannot prevent tenants from circumventing the process. He explained that it was an issue'the Board struggled with when they heard the presentation from the City on the Rental Housing Code. Schneider noted that Whispering Pines had until November 15, 2008 to correct. BRB December 18, 2008 Pg: 23 The appellant stated that the issue of the thirty day difference between the inspection and the letter had never been addressed. Smilie stated that this was an issue that would have to be taken up' with the City Building Department directly rather than the Board. He explained that they could not set those kinds of policies for the City. He further explained that the Board's only power was to find out whether or not there was a fair finding of fact and whether or not the appellant was justly accused of violations. The appellant asked if she could request that the communication with the City be in writing for accountability. Smilie explained that she could make that request to the City who would then have to set that as a procedure. Schneider asked why the City felt they needed to wait thirty days after the inspection to send out the letter. Gebo explained that the tenant requested that the City not notify the manager until such time that they had another place to move to. Smilie stated that it is unclear to him that the tenants made the original maintenance request. Gebo stated that it was a third party who contacted the City. He explained that the City then contacted the tenant who invited them in to perform the inspection. He further explained that the tenant requested that the City hold for thirty days before contact was made with the management company. Gebo stated that the City sent the letter after the thirty days, and then gave the manager an additional thirty days to make corrections. Smilie stated that he believed doing this sets up some delicate process whereby a third party calls and sets up an issue with a tenant. Schneider explained that the tenants did not deny that there was a problem nor did they deny the inspectors access inside of the unit. Smilie stated that he thought it might be appropriate for Green, when he is on the inspection site, to request the tenant to notify the management company that they have a problem if they had not done so already. He explained that he believed that could have headed off this whole issue. Green stated that when he spoke with the tenant, he specifically asked if the tenant had notified management. He explained that the tenant stated they had notified the manager several times and nothing had been done. He noted that he asks that question as a matter of course with each phone call he receives. Schneider asked if when the City gets called out to do an inspection on a rental property they need to send a letter to the property owner informing them of the inspection. He asked if that was something that could be added to the policy. Gebo stated that the City could look at changing the procedure. Smilie stated that he thought that this could help resolve these issues as well. Earl Edwards explained to the appellant that he believed she needed to withdraw her appeal with an understanding that she was not going to be issued a ticket. Schneider asked Gebo and Lee how to move forward and let the appellant understand that she has a certain number of business days to request an inspection so that the she felt comfortable withdrawing the appeal or whether the Board should do that as part of a motion. The appellant stated that if her council felt that she needed to withdraw her appeal at this time, then she would do so. BRB December 18, 2008 Pg. 24 Smilie reiterated that there was nothing to prevent her from re -filing the appeal if the need arose. Gebo stated in response to Schneider's question, that if two weeks from today seemed an appropriate amount of time to request the inspection, he would be fine with that. Schneider stated that he did not know what has to happen at this point to allow the appellant an extension. Lee stated that it is really an administrative matter in which the City is committed to doing. Smilie stated that he thought the process needed to be improved inside the Building Department in terms of how staff responds to these types of phone calls when they are received. Lee stated that he would assure the appellant and her council that the City would commit to refrain from issuing any kind of a violation or summons pending an inspection within a two Week time period. The appellant and her council agreed that this was sufficient. The appellant agreed to have the inspection scheduled for Friday December 19, 2008. The appeal was withdrawn. Vote: Yeas: None Nays: None Other Business A. Fees for Unrecorded Dwelling Units: Lee stated that the Board and the City had a discussion regarding the fees for unrecorded dwelling units. He stated that he just met with the City Attorney in terms of their recommendations on this issue. He explained that the City had met with the Board of Realtors and The Colorado Apartment Association and they were very supportive about a proposal that would allow some sort of amnesty. Lee stated that Council was very interested in pursuing this because they truly are interested in associated health and safety issues. The fees really are secondary and the challenge now is to craft the ordinance in a way that encourages voluntary compliance. Smith asked for a definition of "amnesty". Lee explained that would be a period of forgiveness for a reported violation. Lee stated that the idea was to come to some' point where we were able to provide verification that identified unrecorded units meet minimum health and safety standards. He further stated that in order to do that, they would have to go through a process. If there were two or more family units, a certificate of occupancy and City inspection would be required. Lee stated that the Board of Realtors expressed interest in participating with the dissemination of information to communicate with their clients, and expressed their commitment to the health and safety verification as well as charging related permit fees. Based on this, there are discussions occurring on appropriate timeframes for the amnesty period, etc. BRB December 18, 2008 Pg. 25 Smilie asked how a landlord was going to find out if they were in compliance or not. Lee stated that the main concern is in those cases where there have been a succession of owners. He explained that the idea is not to penalize those people. Smilie asked if that would mean that the amnesty period would begin from the time that they were officially notified that they were not in compliance or if it would be from point zero. Lee stated that the amnesty period that the focus group has been discussing and may propose is looking at a two year period from a designated date to voluntarily come forward and comply with the health and safety standards and complete any corrections or modifications required for some sort of base development review fee. Schneider asked if that amnesty was going to come into play if someone bought a house with a finished basement where a permit was never pulled. He asked how far it was going to go and how many issues the Board was going to have to deal with. He stated that if the City is going to give this amnesty to the rental housing sector for their unrecorded dwellings, then there ought to be a similar process for owners of single family dwellings that bought a house with a finished basement, but found out that there was never a permit pulled authorizing this work. Gebo stated that the fees that are really causing concern are the impact fees that are connected with dwelling units. The purpose of the voluntary compliance period is to waive those fees in particular. Schneider stated that the City is starting to open a can of worms and he just wanted to be cautious, because people operate under the philosophy that they are purchasing legal properties, whether they have additional dwelling units, finished basements, etc. Lee stated that the City has been addressing this issue for years in the case of an owner occupant. Schneider asked if there are fees or fines associated with it. Gebo explained that the only fees the City assesses in a basement finish situation that was done without a permit are those associated with an after the fact basement finish permit. He further explained that the owner pays permit fees based on current rates, but is not charged any penalty fees due to the violation. Schneider stated that his concern was that permit fees would have been much less on a property bought 10 years ago than they are now. He thought the fees charged should be at the rate in effect at the time the house was purchased. Lee stated that City staff deals with this frequently as houses are sold. He explained that if the City finds that there wasn't a finished basement permit, there is a process in place that is very accommodating. Smith stated that the problem with the two year amnesty period is that it doesn't address the person that believes their property is legal who finds out that this is not the case after the amnesty period has expired. In this case, it appears they would be required to pay full fees. Cram stated that there are people who own property in this town, but don't live here and don't know about the amnesty period. He stated that he would not support this kind of a concept unless the City had some way to identify those people and notify them. Smith stated that he was not sticking up for people that are trying to circumvent the system, but felt that there are a lot of people out there who have based their retirement on property BRB December 18, 2008 Pg. 26 investments. He was concerned that the City was going to cut their income in half in cases where properties were in locations where zoning does not allow for multi -family dwellings and was concerned that there was no recourse for the property owner in this case. Lee agreed that a zoning violation is a big problem. Smilie was also concerned with the two year amnesty period in those cases where people found out they were in violation some time after the amnesty period had expired. Lee stated that there was a lot of discussion around this. He stated that the folks in the industry stated that to encourage people to comply, the City ought to have some kind of a time limit. Otherwise, anyone who was found to be in violation could simply say that they didn't know about these requirements. Schneider asked if there would be a way to notify owners utilizing tax or other records. Lee stated that they have talked about working with the County on some way to get the information needed to notify as many owners as possible. Lee added that a property owner who had a compelling case would always have the opportunity to talk to the Board. Lee stated that this item is still in flux with nothing definitive at this time. He stated that it seemed like the industry was really on board with the items being proposed, which he thought was a pretty significant milestone. B. Residential Sprinkler Requirement Schneider asked when the IRC Committee would be starting back up. Gebo stated this would occur after the first of the year. He explained residential fire sprinkler requirements will be addressed when a review is done on the 2009 codes. Meeting adjourned at 4:03 p.m. Felix Le6Bwffing & Zoning Director kie, Chairperson f Qcacci-,zl.