Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCA 1987-12-08 Minutes THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CALLED MEETING OF THE BUILDING CODE OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TX. DECEMBER 8, 1987 - 7:00 P.M. Chairman Robert Skinner called the meeting to order December 8, 1987, at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ROBERT SKINNER JOHN LARRIVIERE JOE CRANE ERIC HILL ORVILLE BAKER MARY NORWOOD CHAIRMAN MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER STAFF: DANNY TAYLOR PAM BURNEY KEN MILLER TOM RINEY JUDY BRYANT DIVISION CHIEF DIRECTOR CODE ENFORCEMENT INSPECTOR SECRETARY MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1987 APPROVED Robert Skinner moved, Orville Baker seconds, to approve the minutes of the November 17, 1987 meeting with the corrections as noted. Motion carried 5-0. BBA 87-8 APPEAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE ORDER 1489 CONCERNING DUTCH MAID DONUTS Mr. Ken Taliaferro stated that his father owns this property. Up until recently this was Risky Bar-B-Q and before that it was a Mr. Chuckwagon Hamburger. Mr. Paul Romaker and I have been discussing the possibility of leasing this building, for the sale and serving of donuts. There is only one thing that has come up that we have been unable to resolve. Mr. Ramaker has had the Health Department out and the inspection department look at the building and everything has been basically correct, mainly a cleanup type operation. Except for restrooms, there is one restroom in the building, it is located so that it is accessible from the out side of the building. The ordinance, page 13, under section 8, letter C, states all new and extensively remodeled food service establishments within the City in which food is served to the customers to be consumed Page 2 on the premises shall be equipped with separate toilet facilities for men and women and shall comply with all requirements of the City plumbing code. Number 2 of section C says toilet facilities shall be located within the food service establishment and will provide the customer of the said establishment easy access to the toilet facilities from the dining area without having to go either outside the establishment or through the food preparation area. What has come down on this is evidently from the view of the Health Service Officer, the one restroom is okay because of item #1 under Section C, but we are being required to connect that restroom with the dining room, so that people in the dining room do not have to go outside to get to the restroom. First of all that is completely unfeasible as far as this building is concerned. I suppose if you have enough money you can do anything, but with this particular building what it would take to construct that kind of facility or construct a new restroom in conjunction with the dining room is not economical or practical. It is our feeling that while the restroom connect to the dining room is of course desirable it doesn't seem to me it poses a health problem in anyway and there are restaurants in other places as well as North Richland Hills that have restrooms that open to the outside. It looks to me like these other resturants should also have to comply with the ordinance. Robert Skinner stated he wished to set some ground rules. The Board of Appeals is here to interpret the rules and ordinances of the City of North Richland Hills. It just so happens that on October 1, 1987 after long hard studies the City established the Environmental Services, maintained by the City of which then guidelines were setdown by the City and the State and approved by the City Council for the City of North Richland Hills which you have before you now. We realize that there were food establishments prior to that have "gigs" against them. There is also stated in the ordinance any new or extensively remodeled, or new businesses that are applying for occupancy will fall under these ordinances as well as those existing. Do you understand that? Mr. Taliaferro stated he did understand. Mr. Romaker' from Dutch Maid Donuts spoke. Mr. Larriviere asked if the restroom where okay if Mr. Ramaker would need to do anything else before he could open for business. -,._-_.~---~...~._--_.,~,,~-~.~--"--~~------- Page 3 Mr. Ramaker stated he would have to install an exhaust system to meet the fire codes. This would be the only major change to the building. Mr. Larrivier asked if they would leave it basically like it is. Mr. Taliaferro stated it was and getting the building under mainly putting in operations again. equipment Mr. Skinner asked if cooking would be done on these premises. Mr. Romaker state yes they would be cooking. Mr. Skinner introduced Pam Burney. Ms. Burney stated that she had talked with Mr. Ramaker at the site and went through the building with him. He advised that he will be tearing out the front counter. What he intended to Toni and I was that he was going to gut the inside that kitchen all the way back to the storeroom. He is going to have to install new sinks, hand washing sinks, plumbing, fryers and a new servicing counter across the front. Mr. Romaker stated on a building like this one, if there were a post in the middle of this building or a petition that is not a supporting structure it would be like moving the potium like a divider between the public and the front and the divider is a stainless steel platform like a serving tray and that is what he plans to take down. He would replace it with a showcase. The plumbing is existing, the man that had the building stole all the equipment, just riped it out, but the plumbing is existing, but would have to replace the fixtures. That does not constitute remodeling. Mr. Skinner asked if the people working for Mr. to go out the front door and around the rear to restroom. Romaker have go to the Mr. Ramaker stated yes. Mr. Taliaferro stated that employees could use the back door. Ms. Burney stated she showed the State Rules and Regs saying that toilet facilites dealing with employees now must be readily and convenient to the employees at all times ,. ----'--_._"---._~--~.~~-~.,~~._-~~--~"~-~-------- Page 4 The City of Arlington has done studies and the State has proven where an employee has to leave the front of the cooking areas, go back through the storeroom, out the door and into employee restroom, they are not going to take adequate measures in that toilet facility to prevent fecal-oral transmission. Orville storeroom through. Baker asked if there were a common wall between the and the restrooms that could be cut to make a door Mr. Romaker stated yes. Ms. Burney stated that doing this would solve the problem. Seal off the outside door and make an inside door, you would have an employee accessible restroom that would be much easier and would be much more likely for employees to use them correctly. There again he does not have any sitdown dining. That would make it an employee restroom only. For sitdown dining you must have a public restroom. This would be an employee only restroom. In this case he could open and operate, but not have sitdown dining. Mr. Romaker stated that he had several places in Ft. Worth where he does have sitdown dining. As long as I have a way for them to get to the restroom through my kitchen I have beeD granted a permit. Mr. Skinner stated that we are only concerned with of North Richland Hills. the City Mr. Taylor restroom are stated the building code required that public required for a sitdown dining facilities. Mr. Skinner asked again if dining. this was going to be sitdown Mr. Romaker stated definitely it would be sitdown dining. Mr. Taylor the public. stated this code applies to any business open to Mr. Taliaferro stated this was not going to be sitdown dining for 250 people or more, only 12 people at a time. Page 5 Mr. Larrivier asked what was wrong with the idea to enclose the walkway, from the restroom to the dining room. Mr. Taliaferro stated the expense was the main objection. Mr. Skinner stated the slab was alreay in place. Mr. Larrivier asked what amount of expense would be involved. Mr. Taliaferro stated that he had not calculated the expense. The thing about it is, putting this addition to the building, you will have the expense of doing that, which will of course have to be done to code, which will probably mean masonry. As I understand in talking to your inspection people to do such a remodeling, this in my opinion would constitute remodeling the building. To do that then would put us in line for bringing the entire building up to the current codes. The masonry would be cost prohibitive for this building, it just wouldn't work. Mr. Larriviere asked if the building is currently to code. Mr. Taylor stated it would meet all the fire codes. Wiring problems or something like that, if it wasn't anything extensive it would not be required to bring it up to code. Mr. Larriviere asked if the last occupant in there was up to code. Mr. Taylor stated the last occupant did not even have a CO. That is why he left, that was Buddy's Bar-B Q. Mr. Crane asked if Mr. Romaker would not want to put in the donut shop unless he could have sitdown dining. Mr. Romaker state he would not want to open without sitdown dining with this type of property with this type of rent. It would not be feasible for a donut shop. Mr. Hill stated that construction would be remodel. if they enclosed the walkway the so extensive that it would be a major Mr. Taliaferro inspector. stated yes according to the building --"'---~'-'-"~--"~-'-~---~-------._-----_._- Page 6 Mr. Skinner asked if it would not be feasible just to make it a walkin/walkout with no dine in, and then all you would have to do is cut a door for the restroom for your employees. You would have ample parking for a pickup donut shope. Mr. Romaker stated that they were talking about property value which means his rent is a lot higher. In other words he would need to sell all he could. Mr. have Hill stated that with all that parking you to have sitdown dining. would almost Mr. Romaker stated addiUonal rent. yes otherwise he would be wasting his Ms. Burney stated that Environmental Services were trying to work with Mr. Romaker but she didn't see anyway feasible to have sitdown dining. Mr. Taliaferro stated if he had to comply then he thought all other resturants should have to comply. Mr. Taylor stated that this was a new business and a new occupancy which would be required to meet all requirement in the ordtnance. Mr. Crane appeal. made a motton to uphold the ordiance and deny the Mr. Larriviere seconded the motion. Motion carried: 5-0. BBA 87-9 APPEAL DEMOLITION ORDER - 4000 RUFE SNOW Mr. James Taylor, Attorney for Mrs. Mary Jo Gaston. Mrs. Gaston called me and asked me to appeal this for her. Mrs. Gaston lives in San Antonio and because of health is not able to appear, however her agent Mr. Davis is here to address the board. The reason we are appealing is because of the senamential value of the house to Mrs. Gaston. Mr. Taylor stated that they needed more time to make the house livable and requested an extension. Page 7 Mr. Taylor stated that Mrs. Gaston is only renting in San Antonio and thinks that in time she will return to North Richland Hills and would like to live in this house. Mr. Skinner gave a brief review before discussion began on this case. First there was a Code Enforcement Report issued on 11-9-87, at which time the letter was mailed to Mrs. Gaston, on November 11, 1987 with a notice for demolition. Mrs. Gaston replied to Mr. Miller on ~ovember 17, 1987. On 12-2-87 the house was reinspected by the inspection department with a clear report. Mr. Davis said he had overseen this property for the last 16 years. I have been active is selling FHA and VA property for the last 18 years and there are many houses on the market in worse condition than this house. I believe this house is a pretty stable property. In reference to your dangerous building statement. this causes me great concern because tenants have lived here for 14 years and raised 3 children at this address. I have contacted several remodelers. We realize there are an enormous amount of repairs to bring this to code. Mr. Crane asked if they were granted an extension if they they could have the work started within the next 30 days. Mr. Davis stated they could definitely have the work started within the next 30 days. Mr. Skinner asked if Mr. Davis if he was ready to let a bid for this repair work. Mr. Davis stated he would like to get another couple of before he makes a decision on who will do the work. bids Mr. Skinner process asked how long it would take to complete this Mr. Davis stated he hoped to get more bids week or so. within the next Mr. Hill asked why Mrs. Gaston had let this property get in such bad condition. Mr. Davis stated Mrs. Gaston has been in bad health for the last several years and had not been down here to review the house in several years. _....-...__._.~--,~--'-,..~,-_.~_.~<.."---_.. Page 8 Mr. Larriviere asked if $8000.00 would be enough money to bring this house up to code. Mr. Riney stated that the day he was on the property the building was secured at that time. He was only able to look in windows and doors. It would take an onsight inside inspection to get a workable list that would be required to bring the building up to code. He was in the garage and from some of the wire He saw it would take an extensive amount of electrical work. He did not know anything about the plumbing in the house or anything else. Mr. Larriviere stated assuming the Board extends time to delay the demolition order, where would we start, would you have to go inside and inspect and tell them what it needs. Mr. Riney stated yes and that a permit would need to be taken within a certain number of days as set by this board. Mr. Skinner stated that if Mr. Davis wants to remodel the house he first needed to decide who is going to remodel work. Number 2 they must apply for a permit from the City. They must have a set of plans showing the remodeling work. Do you, Mr. Davis understand this procedure? Do you understand Mr. Taylor. Mr. Davis stated they understand there amount of money spent on this property. proceed with the work. will be an extensive We have been told to Mr. Skinner asked Mr. Riney how the property is zoned Mr. Riney commercial. stated he thought the property was zoned Mr. Taylor asked whether the Board had come across a similar situation where someone wanted to save their house like this one, what is a feasible time. Mr. Skinner stated less than 30 days. for him to receive the bids, decide which bid he wants, find the plans from the bidder, submit the plans to the City and receive a permit. Mr. Baker made a motion to delay the demolition order 30 days to allow time to clear the property of the buildings that are in such bad shape and apply for a permit to remodel the house and get started on the project. Page 9 Mr. Hill stated that he felt sure that when Mr. Davis gets the bids for this work it will be out in left field and he did not believe Mr. Davis could even consider putting it back in good livable shape because he has nothing to start with. good livable shape because he has nothing to start with. Mr. Skinner stated that a motion was before the Board, I want to state one thing, the property is zoned commercial, please inform Mrs. Gaston of that fact. The motion before the Board is that we allow a 30 day extension, being January 12, 1988, at which time this board will meet again. That you have until that time to receive a bid, decide on that bid, obtain a permit and start the work. Mr. Skinner stated that all rubble and debris must be cleared away prior to January 12, 1988. Mr. Taylor stated if the Board had any suggestions concerning securing the property. Mr. Davis said he had thought of putting up some post and a chain across the driveway. Mr. Skinner stated that all doors and windows should be locked so that no vagrants or children have access to the building. Mr. Crane seconded the motion. Motion carried: 5-0. BBA 87-11 APPEAL DEMOLITION ORDER - 6708 LITTLE RANCH ROAD Mr. Don Hamilton from First Texas Savings. FT is the lien holder of the property, we are not the owner at this time. Mr. Skinner stated complaint report was filed on 8-19-87 at which time Mr. Miller found this house vacant, he advised disconnecting the gas and electricity, which a letter was sent on August 20, to the First Texas Savings concerning the property to the attention of Marie, who then replied. Again on November 19, 1987 the City sent another letter to John Needham at First Texas Savings explaining why the building should be demolished. The order is due December 19, 1987. Mr. Don Hamilton stated Mr. John Needham was the title holder of this property. Mr. Skinner asked where Mr. Needham was located. ,+. .----,··_<-.···_"'_~.··_,·______.~..M_^""~________.._..__"___.._ Page 10 Mr. Hamilton stated the last they knew Mr. Needham was at 7537 Jean Ann Drive. Mr. Hamilton stated that First Texas Savings currently has the property posted for foreclosure, we have posted several times before, each time we have come up against some obstacle as to why the foreclosure did not take place. We are hoping that the house will go to the Jaunary sale, on the first Tuesday in January. At that time if there are no successful bidders then First Texas Savings will come to the City and take out a builcling permit and bring the house back up to code. Mr. Skinner asked how many forclosure. times it had been posted for Mr. Hamilton stated several times. One time a restraining order stopped the foreclosure. One time a techinal error on the Deed of Trust had caused a problem. Mr. Skinner asked if they now were under a restaining order. Mr. Hamilton stated no they were not. Mr. Skinner asked when the house had become vacant. Mr. Hamilton stated he did not know. it has been vacant since summer. He knows for sure that Mr. Skinner asked why the house had not been secured. Mr. Hamilton stated they had secured different occassions at the request of after securing it vandels broken into the the house on the City. Both property. two time Mr. Skinner asked if Mr. Hamilton knew when been pulled. the power had Mr. Hamilton stated he did not know. Mr. Skinner asked if Mr. Hamilton knew of any reason the foreclosure would not go though on January 2, 1988. Mr. Hamilton stated he knew of no reason it would be stopped again, however he could not guarantee that something would not come up. He stated that under their Deed of Trust that they could go in and secure the property, and basically that is all they can do at this time. Mr. Larriviere asked what the outstanding balance was on this property. -_·__·~____._____·__<~Z~.é"'-"'-__.____._ Page 11 Mr. Hamilton stated around $93,000.00 plus and legal fees. accured interest Mr. Skinner stated it was because they were talking about 3.67 acres, not just a house. Mr. Hamilton stated not just the house, however the house does have value. have value. Mr. Skinner stated that he was just handed some lien on the property against whomever owns the property, for mowing the property. Mr. Hamilton stated that he was aware of the liens. Mr. Skinner stated that Mr. Needham or First Texas both nelgected to do anything about these liens. have Mr. Hamilton stated he was the lendor, he had to be careful about what they did because they can not infringe on someone elses rights. Mr. Crane asked what Mr. Hamilton suggests to the house between now and January. be done with Mr. Larriviere asked if the house were fixed up would First Texas still be able to get $93,000.00 back, or if the repairs are so extensive as to be at the point on no return. Mr. Hamilton stated that the building was structually sound. It is not a bad building. All the damage that has been done is purely cosmetic. Mr. Skinner house. asked if a fence could be put up around the Mr. Hamilton stated there was a short fence property now. That they could board the house requires, however that would not guarante no one in. around the up like FHA would get Mr. Skinner stated that it would make it a lot more difficult than the way it is currently. Mr. Skinner asked if Mr. Hamilton could have someone out next week to FHA board the house up and put a chain across the dr.iveway. Mr. Hamilton state he could. Page 12 Mr. Skinner asked Mr. Hamilton if he was being forth right and frank with the Board. Mr. Hamilton stated absolutely. Mr. Skinner made the motion; number I, that the property at 6708 Little Ranch Road to lift the demolition order due December 19, 1987. Number 2 that by December 15, 1987 First Texas Savings will board that house up, chain off the drive way and protect and secure in the form of securing a house to FHA rules and that on January 5, 1988 when this house is posted to be sold on the courthouse steps that First Texas must inform the buyer that there is an abate- ment procedure still pending on that property. That First Texas through Mr. Hamilton or some other person must appear back before the Board of Appeals on January 12, 1988 to let us know what is to be done with this property. Mr. Baker seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Skinner asked if there was any further discussion. Mr. Taylor January 12, stated the 1988 meeting. the Onyx Drive case would be on the Mr. Skinner stated that he would like to thank everyone for taking the time to go by and look at the property involved in the cases and would like to ask them to please continue this practice. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. r . 1 -J1L.JA_LL~çcu!JJ1!..u1_____ Secfetary ----ß~l1~-_---- Chairman