Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCA 1987-04-14 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CALLED MEETING OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, APRIL 14, 1987. - 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman John Larriviere. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Secretary Members Fire Lieut. Fire Insp. Greg Wheeler Robert Skinner John Larriviere Orville Baker Joe Crane Michael Dean Eric Hill Don Andrews Steve Pence Kirk Marcum CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES The minutes of the March 10, 1987 meeting were approved 6-0. BBA 87-2 Request of Jim Smith, Superinten- dent of Burk Collins Investments to appeal the Fire Requirement of a 44 inch passageway clearance. The location of the lease space is 5205 Davis Blvd. Suite C. Chairman John Larriviere called forward the representative of the appeal. Jim Smith came forward and stated the plans for this particular space were drawn up by a medical group not by Burk Collins Invest- ments. He said that it was a mistake on their part and that they did not catch it until the space was near completion. The passageway in question is 7 feet long and 37" wide and does not have doors at either end. They did find an alternate route that would bypass the passageway that did meet the requirements. Exit doors were located at the front and back of the building. Robert Skinner asked if there were any windows in the building. Page 2. 4-14 Jim Smith replied that there were windows at the store front. Eric Hill asked if the windows were all the way across the front. Jim Smith replied yes. Joe Crane asked how many people would be in the building at one time. Jim Smith stated that according to Dr. Joe Tynes, the dentist and tenant, that there would be no more than four people in the work area. Joe Crane asked if the patients in the waiting room were included would there be any more than 15 people at one time. Jim Smith stated no, because the dentist only had two chairs. Eric Hill asked how many assistants that the dentist had. Jim Smith stated that there was one receptionist and two dental assistants. Robert Skinner asked when the building was completed for occu- pancy. Jim Smith stated that he thought that it was sometime in March. Robert Skinner stated that on December 22, 1986 there was an inspection that had the require- ment of a 44 inch passageway clearance. Jim Smith stated that it was in the original permit before the permit was issued. Robert Skinner stated that Mr. Smith was aware of the require- ment on December 22, 1986. Jim Smith replied yes. He stated that they did realize that it was Page 3. their error but it was not caught until the end and the plans were not drawn up by his company. Robert Skinner stated that on March 18, 1987 there was another inspection made for the building final which again, the 44 inch passageway clearance. Jim Smith replied yes that it was on the final inspection. Robert Skinner asked if from December to March the problem could not have been corrected. Jim Smith stated that it had not been caught. He normally did not have any problem in any of the spaces that he has done until this one. Robert Skinner stated that in December when all the require- ments were noted, everything was adhered to except for smoke alarms and the passageway. Jim Smith stated that all the other items on the list had been taken care of except for the passageway. Eric Hill asked what was the expense involved in moving the wall to comply with the corridor requirement. Jim Smith stated that they would have to move the wall, redo the ceiling, paint, carpet, and move cabinets. Eric Hill stated that it would probably be easier to move just one wall. Jim Smith agreed. Robert Skinner stated that if they moved the one wall which was seven feet towards the conference room that had two doors that locked. Page 4. Eric Hill asked Jim Smith if he had a cost figure. Mr.Smith stated that they had not estimated the cost until they had to start redoing it. Eric Hill stated that moving the one wall to meet the requirement would be the less expensive. Jim Smith stated that there was a passageway that goes through the conference room that does meet the requirements. Eric Hill stated that if there was a conference going on, no one could exit through it. Robert Skinner stated that for clarification, he asked the Fire Department for their connnent. Steve Pence stated that they still did not have the 44" clearance in the open floor plan. Jim Smith asked if a doorway had to be 44" wide. Steve Pence stated no unless it was being used as an exit. Eric Hill stated that there were two passageways in the space but neither had the 44" clearance. Jim Smith asked if a door could not be in any passageway. Steve Pence stated that the Fire Department was not saying that. Orville Baker asked with the passageway being as short as it was, did the Fire Department feel that the safety was being compromised. Steve Pence replied that life safety would be endangered. Mr. Pence said that on the initial inspection, the one opening into Page 5. the conference room had boxes blocking the doorway because they were using the room as a storage place. People would not have been able to exit through the door if they had needed to. Eric Hill asked Mr. Smith if he felt the reason for not wanting to meet the requirement. Mr. Hill asked if it was the expense or the trouble the would be in- volved. Mr. Smith stated that the construction would be disruptive to the doctor's business and the large amount of work involv- ed. Eric Hill asked if the calculated expense of doing this was a major factor. Jim Smith stated that the expense was not the problem. Robert Skinner asked if the office was inside a larger build- ing. Jim Smith stated yes. Robert Skinner asked if there were any other of the offices that did not have a 44" bypass corridor. Jim Smith stated no. Joe Crane motioned to approved the request of BBA 87-2. Orville Baker seconded and the motion carried 2-4 with Eric Hill, Robert Skinner, John Larriviere, and Michael Dean opposing. The request was denied. BBA 87-3 The request of Jerry P. Birdwell of 3920 Rufe Snow Drive to appeal the Building and Fire Code orders that the building at this address be demolished under Ordinance No, 1035, Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. Page 6. Chairman John Larriviere called forward the representative of the request. John Richards came forward and stated that he was Mr. Birdwell's attorney. He asked that the Board direct most of the questions to Don Coleman who had the technical expertise. Robert Skinner asked what Mr. Coleman's position was. Don Coleman stated that he had a consulting business, was a Code èxpert, and was familiar with the building. Chairman John Larriviere stated that the floor was open for discussion. John Richards stated that it was Mr. Birdwell's possession of sixteen pages of code require- ments were overbroad and over extensive for the type of build- ing and use involved. Some of the requirements were vague. Mr. Richards stated that Mr. Birdwell wanted the opportunity to lessen the amount of require- ments to the ones that were need- ed for the type of use the build- ing was used for. Some of the requirements apply to a different type of use. Orville Baker stated that the Board realizes that the building has been there for a long time and that some of the codes were not even written at that time. The Board was interested in having a building in the city that was safe. The Board could not allow a dangerous condition exist in this building that would not be allowed in another build- ing in the city. Don Coleman stated that the Birdwell building is not being treated fairly. The building under that Code that it was built was a Class E and F occupancy. "--~--_._~~_.._--~----------_.__.~_.. Page 7. Some of the tickets that were written to Mr. Birdwell were for a Class A and B occupancy. There were several things that he dis- agreed with but he wanted to mention just three. 1. Electrical outlet in the front of the building having no cover. No one mentioned that it had no wires in it and that it was not connected. It was just a conduit for poss- ible future use. There was no hazard or Code violation with it, but there was a ticket written on it. 2. Loads in the mezzanine. A City offical stated that the floor was over- loaded. Mr. Coleman stat- ed that he designed the floor himself. He checked the load and he wanted to meet the man that said it was overloaded because it was directed at him and his expertise. In addi- tion, a professional engineer certified the floor. Mr. Coleman stated that he doubt- ed that the man who wrote the ticket was capable of figuring how strong the beam is. He wanted to see the load calculations. 3. There was a similiar ticket written on the load of the roof tresses. The building was designed to hold extra loads. Robert Skinner asked Mr. Coleman if he was aware of the other requirements. Mr. Coleman stated that he was aware of the others. Robert Skinner asked if he had anything to say about the other requirements. Mr. Coleman stated that one of the others was the fire wall rated cover around stairways leading down to the mezzanine. Page 8. There was nothing in the Code saying that the stairway needed to be enclosed coming down from a mezzanine. Another requirement was the 44" landing at the end of the stairway. He stated that in a Class "F" Occupancy building, a 30" landing is all that is needed. Robert Skinner asked Mr. Coleman to define a Class "F" Occupancy Building. Mr. Coleman stated that he would be glad to read it out of the Code Book. Steve Pence stated that the Fire Department does not go under that Code. Greg Wheeler stated that he that he had never heard of the Class "F" Occupancy either. Don Coleman stated that it was an occupancy of less that five people. It was a non retail type of business. Greg Wheeler stated that he a Code Book that went back to 1979 and it did not have a Class "F" Occu. in it. He stated that the cabinet shop that is occupying more that ten percent of the building is an H-3 Occupancy. At the present time it occupies fifty percent of the building. The rest of the upstairs with a office and storage would be a B-2. He stated that the building was a mixed occupancy building. Don Coleman stated that the occupancies were Class "E" and "F" . Greg Wheeler stated that a Class "E" was Educational. He said that anything prior to 1979, he had no knowledge of. ~···~···'···"_"'__""_~""k__"h~"___________'_~~_._<__.~,_."_.~_~_~._ Page 9. Don Coleman stated that the building was built in 1972 and finalled under the 1973 Uniform Building Code. Greg Wheeler stated that at that time, the City was under the Southern Building Code. When Mr. Birdwell applied for permits in 1983, the City was under the 1982 Uniform Building Code and that is what his building was classified under. Mr. Wheeler stated that he would like to see some documentation of the Class "F" Occupancy. The occupancy load was figured by square foot- age in Chapter 33 of the UBC by the type of occupancy and apply the load factors regard- less of how many workers a man says that he will be hiring. Table 33A of the UBC will deter- mine the number of exits and fire resistiveness. Mr. Coleman stated that is what just not entirely based on square footage. These are single offices. Greg Wheeler stated that Table 33A gives the maximum occupant load because it gives a factor to divide into the square footage and that is how the occupant load is determined. Eric Hill asked the Fire Depart- ment wanted to respond to the violations Mr. Coleman mentioned. Don Andrews stated that the Fire Department worked out of the 1984 National Fire Code. He said as far the fire separation was con- cerned, there were several different occupancies. There was the cabinet shop downstairs, the business office upstairs, at one time there was a T.V. Shop which is not there anymore. He said that by UBC and Fire Code, it needed at least a one hour fire separation between tenants. There is two tenants now, and no one hour fire separation in ..-. "-'^"-"'-'--"~-"'--~"-~-"~--~~-'."~~-~'-~ Page 10. the building at all. As far as the corridors, stairways, and going upstairs to downstairs, a means of egress is needed and that calls for one hour protec- tion on the stairways. There is none there. 2The conduit and the wiring on the front of the building, it appeared as an open conduit box with wiring in it and that is what it was written a citation for. He stated the the Fire Inspectors review the buildings daily by the NFC and that was what was applied to this building. Eric Hill asked who the owner of the building was. John Richards stated that the owner was Jerry Birdwell. Eric Hill asked if Mr. Birdwell had insurance on the building. Mr. Birdwell stated yes. Eric Hill asked if Mr. Birdwell ever tried to work out some arrangement with the City. Mr. Birdwell stated that this situation with the Fire Dept. and the Building Department has being going on for 2-5 months. Around Christmas, Mr. Birdwell wrote a letter that he would be available at the end of January at the he would be able to meet and talk with them. When they did meet, there was at least six people with notebooks and cameras and the City came up with an excess of ten pages of requirements and had him sign for the sheets. When he finished reading the letter, he wrote the City a letter saying that some of the requirements were impossible to meet, and some were logical. He stated that at one time he asked if they could come up with something that would be livable for both him and the City. The response from the City Page 11. was a letter stating that the City was going to condemn the building if the requirements were not complied with in a certain amount of days. If he did not comply, then the City would hire someone to tear down the building and send Mr. Birdwell the bill. Greg Wheeler stated that the Fire Department had to try several times to gain access into the building. After the Fire Depart- ment had been refused into a sec- tion of the building, Administra- tive Search Warrants were issued. He said that he traveled on several occasions with the sions with the Fire Department to try and find Mr. Birdwell on premises to serve the warrants. Then Mr. Birdwell sent them the letter that he would be available on a certain day and the City went out and did a list of things to be done and presented them to Mr. Birdwell, who signed for them, and given time to work on the requirements The City also went into the cabinet shop and made a list of requirements for it and had them signed and nothing was ever done. The only alternative left was to go to Ordinance No. 1035 which requests for a Notice and Order to be posted on the building for demolition since it was obvious that there was going to be no attempt from Mr. Birdwell to comply. Jerry Birdwell stated that he did not know the exact dates, but it was over sixty days since the date that the Notice and Order was posted. Greg Wheeler stated that on the Notice and Order, Mr. Birdwell was given the dates and sixty days to take out the necessary demolition permits. He was also informed that the had thirty days to file an appeal which he did do. That suspends the time from the date that Mr. Birdwell filed the appeal. _.~.-.._-~_._. Page 12. Eric Hill asked Mr. Birdwell if he was going to do the require- ments and was it just a matter of time and would it not be advanta- gious to Mr. Birdwell to bring the building up to Code or to demolish it and build a new building. Mr. Birdwell stated that when the City figured the occupant load on the building, they would find that it did not need to be thrown away. He stated that the Fire Inspector had the letter that Mr. Birdwell sent asking if they could work something out. There was no way that they could comply with some of the requirements without completely tearing the building down. If the building is unsafe, then blow it out of there, if it is not then leave it. Robert Skinner stated that he was looking at a copy of a building permit back in 1983 and asked what was it for. Mr. Birdwell stated that he did not apply for a building permit, but a permit for the gas service. This was when the City began to lead up to tearing down the building. Robert Skinner asked Greg Wheeler to clarify what the copy of the RE-OK permit on 11-10-83. Greg Wheeler stated that was a Certificate of Occupancy permit. It was termed as a RE-OK permit back then. Robert Skinner asked Mr. Birdwell if he received a copy of the Fire Inspection reports. Mr. Birdwell stated yes. There was ten sheets of requirements for him and five sheets for Jerry's Cabinet Shop. Mr. Birdwell said that his response to the requirements was to get with the City and work something out, and n_···___··_·__··m_·__"__~.w,·~._ ,_ ~_ _..,,__~~.~.__~__~__. Page 13. City's response was to tell him to tear down the building. John Larriviere asked Mr. Birdwell if he had several dif- ferent tenants going in and out of the building. Mr. Birdwell stated no. There was a tenant 11 years ago, Chuck's TV which left a year and a half ago, and Jerry's Cabinet Shop. John Larriviere asked Mr. Birdwell if he received annual inspections from the Fire Depart- ment. Mr. Birdwell stated that the Fire Department had been making the inspections. A few years ago he was written some tickets by the Fire Department but he did not remember what they were written for. It was right before Christmas when City Officials came to his building to look for violations. He said that the officials were thumbing through the Code book while in his building. If they had to look that hard, then something was wrong. Robert Skinner asked Mr. Birdwell if maybe the officials were looking to find and clarify something in Mr. Birdwell's favor. Mr. Birdwell stated that he doubted that they were. Robert Skinner stated that the Board was looking at some letters dated Dec. 10, 1984 when several items were listed that were wrong with the building at that parti- cular time. Mr. Skinner asked Mr. Birdwell if he had taken either of the lists and make an attempt to do anything that was required. Mr. Birdwell stated that he wrote the letter asking the City if they could get together and resolve the matter because some Page 14. of the items were impossible to do, some were practical, and some were impractical. Robert Skinner stated that the City would work with him. If he would make an attempt it would help. Mr. Birdwell replied that if the City did not want to accept what he could do then why even attempt to do half of the requirements. Robert Skinner stated that it was Mr. Birdwell's option to do it. Mr. Birdwell stated that it was not his option to do it. He said that what the Board was saying to him was to do every- thing that he could possibly comply to and then come back and gamble on the City's decision of whether the building stays or is demolished. Eric Hill stated that the upper most thing in the City's mind is to work with Mr. Birdwell. Mr. Hill said that the reason Mr. Birdwell is in the position he is in now is because the matter has been ignored. Eric Hill asked Mr. Birdwell what he was willing to do. Mr. Birdwell stated that he was willing to look at the list. Michael Dean asked if the Fire Department had any comments as to discussing the problems with Mr. Birdwell. Don Andrews stated that the Fire Department has been willing to discuss it with him all along. Mr. Andrews said that he had made several attempts in the last few years. At this particular time the Fire Department went to do the annual inspection at the be- ginning of November daily. They left cards and trying to contact Page 15. someone. Several letters were written. Mr. Andrews stated that he personally issued eleven citations after no one made a response. Mr. Birdwell then sent a letter to meet with the City. The officials showed up at the appointed time which he believed was a Monday and no one was there. The City contacted him again and the next day they were able to serve an Administrative Search Warrant to get into the remainder of his building that was locked up to do a fire in- spection. At that time they went through the building and looked at it and then gave Mr. Birdwell a list of items that he was in violation of that would have to be corrected to bring the building up to a condition were it could receive a Certificate of Occupancy. Since the require- ments had been given to Mr. Birdwell, the City has had no further contact from him. At that time, the Building Official and the Fire Prevention Department felt that the building was in such shape that they needed to start abatement proceedings. Mr. Birdwell asked Don Andrews if he even recalled meeting him before this year. Don Andrews stated no. Jerry Birdwell asked then how could Mr. Andrews say that he had been trying to contact him. Don Andrews stated that he had talked to Mr. Birdwell's wife in a previous year. Other inspector's had been out there because Mr. Andrews did not have the time to make every inspection of the businesses in town person- ally. Jerry Birdwell stated that on this day that he was more or less giving North Richland Hills an ultimatum to meet him there at a certain time was incorrect. Page 16. What he wrote in his letter was he would meet them there anytime after 4:00 P.M. if they would give him two hours notice to get away from work and meet with them. What had happened was that the City came up there on a day at that time without calling their office so that his wife could contact him to meet them. Michael Dean asked if there were any of the violations that were written that need to be reviewed or do they stand fast as they are stated. Don Andrews stated that it was the City's contention to stand fast. Robert Skinner asked if Mr. Birdwell could enlighten the Board as to his trip to the Municipal Court on the tickets written to him. Mr. Birdwell stated that the City said he was maintaining a fire hazard. He wrote a letter to the City asking them to specify what the fire hazard was and no response was given except for more tickets for maintaining a fire hazard. Eric Hill asked Mr. Birdwell if he worked in the building and what did he do. Mr. Birdwell stated that what would be found in the building is doors, windows, sheetmetal equipment, conduit, and switches. Eric Hill asked if he worked in the building. Mr. Birdwell stated yes and it was where he stored the equip- ment to run the service work. Eric Hill asked if he was in construction work. Page 17. Mr. Birdwell stated yes. Eric Hill stated that everyone would feel better if they could resolve the matter in some way. One side would have to give a little bit. He told Mr. Birdwell that if would comply with the requirements and the City would allow a time extension then the matter could be resolved. Mr.Birdwell stated that he was willing to comply because he did not want a hazardous building. But that some of the requirements were impossible to do. One of the requirements was the Fire Department's for a twenty foot drive for a fire lane and his drive was only 12-14 feet. He could not purchase the property next to his just to meet this requirement. Eric Hill asked if Mr. Birdwell was willing to start negoti- ations. Mr. Birdwell stated that he had asked to do just that prior to the City sending him the demoli- tion notice. Mr. Hill stated that the City had been dealing with this matter for some time without any response from Mr. Birdwell. Mr. Birdwell stated that Don Andrews had just stated that he had never seen Mr. Birdwell before this year. He said that Mr. Andrews was not trying very hard if he was sincere in his job. Robert Skinner stated that Lieutenant Andrews was in charge of the Fire Inspections for the City and had people who worked for him. The City had records dated back to 1983 by various inspectors that had been in his building, and who kept writing the same violations which Mr. Birdwell had copies of. Page 18. Mr. Birdwell stated that he would have to look before he could con- firm that. John Larriviere stated that on the inspection dated on November 15, 1983 made by Ronald Fields showed that the stairs needed to be separated from all parts of the building by a one hour fire construction wall. Mr. Larri- viere asked Mr. Birdwell if that had ever been taken care of. Mr. Birdwell stated that he could not remember. John Larriviere stated that Mr. Birdwell had been receiving in- spections and up until now had not ever done anything about the violations. Mr. Birdwell stated that was not correct. John Larriviere asked if Mr. Mr. Birdwell if had been comply- ing with all of the inspections up until the present. Mr. Birdwell stated no, because whenever he built the building the City said it was fine and now the City is saying that is not. The occupancy is less now than when the building was built. Mr. Birdwell said that the City officials told him that the City was writing the violation under the 1985 Building Code. He said that there was not a building that was built in the 1960's that would meet the present code. Mr. Birdwell said that when his building was under construction, he did the things that the engineer recommended that were in excess to the Code that was being used then for safety purposes. Robert Skinner asked Mr. Birdwell how long he had been in North Richland Hills. Mr. Birdwell stated that he had been in NRH since the early Page 20. 1960's. Orville Baker stated that the Board realized that there was no way for the building to be brought up to the 1985 Code. The Board did want some attempt to improve the condition of the building. The City has no record of Mr. Birdwell ever even attempting to do it. Mr. Birdwell stated that the only reason he was standing before the Board now was because after he sent a letter asking to meet with the City and work something out, he was told that the City would stand firm in its requirements. Orville Baker asked when the letter was written and if Greg Wheeler had it in hand. Mr. Birdwell stated he thought the letter was sent about the 10th of March. Greg Wheeler stated that he had one letter dated January 13, 1987 Mr. Birdwell had writ- ten referring to the tickets and the fire violations. Danny Taylor wrote Mr. Birdwell back stating that he could call any business day and arrangements would be made for an inspector to go out to the business and talk to Mr. Birdwell about the violations. That was the only letter he knew about except for the one written on January 26, 1987 letting the City he would be available anyday after 4:00 P.M. until the Fire Inspection was made. Jerry Birdwell asked if the letter saying anything about calling before anyone came out there. Greg Wheeler stated no. Joe Crane stated that he had a copy of a fire inspection report dated on November 15, 1983 Page 20. with six items listed that did not say anything about condemn- ing the building. Mr Crane asked Mr. Birdwell if he had made any attempt to correct any of the items. Mr. Birdwell stated that it was looking back four years. John Larriviere asked if there were any inspections done between 1983 and the present time. Robert Skinner stated that there were only six items listed from the inspection in Nov. 1983 and now there were fourteen items on the list from Jan. 1987. That appeared to him that there were only things 1. Either there the building had deteriorated so that there are 14 items that are going to cost Mr. Birdwell more or 2 That there is some nit picking from the fire inspectors who go by the Code that is assigned by the City. Mr. Skinner did not believe that there was any nit picking there if it increases over that period of time. John Coleman stated that one of the supposed fire hazard were some empty Freon bottles and that he would like to see someone go out there with a blow torch and start a fire on some empty Freon bottles. John Larriviere asked the number of the item. Mr. Birdwell stated that this item was for one of the tickets he had been issued a few months previous. John Larriviere stated that what he surmised from this was that the City was wanting the building brought up to Code and Mr. Bird- well was willing to work some- thing out. He asked if that was a fair idea. Page 21. Mr. Birdwell stated that he was willing to work out anything that was not impossible. Robert Skinner asked what kind of time frame that he wanted. Mr. Birdwell stated that he found this anything but funny because of the fire lanes around the building that there was no way to meet. John Larriviere asked Don Andrews what the alternative to the fire lane was. Don Andrews stated that he had not actually measured the exact width was around the building. The Code called for a clear fire lane width around the build- ing. Eric Hill asked what the fire lane width was. Don Andrews stated that the mini- mum width was 20 feet. The Fire Department could work with a smaller area as long as the fire truck could get through. Orville Baker asked if the requirement that was developed after the building was built. Don Andrews stated that the 20 foot fire lane have been re- quired since 1976. Orville Baker asked how Mr. Bird- well got the permit to build the building. Don Andrews stated that he did not have any permits. Orville Baker asked if this was the first time that the fire lane had been written up. Don Andrews stated that he did not know how far back the fire lane goes. Page 22. Robert Skinner asked how long would it take Mr. Birdwell to fix the other items required by the Building Department and the Fire Department. John Richards stated that Mr. Birdwell and himself would like to meet with the Building and the Fire Departments and discuss the feasibility of each of the items and reach an agreement. He did not want Mr. Birdwell to say that he would do all of the items without an out. Mr. Skinner stated that he under- stood that, he was asking for a time limit. The matter has been going on since 1983 and nothing has been done. If the City is going to negotiate, what kind of time limit did they want to bring it up to Code. Mr. Birdwell stated that there were some tickets written on some things that might be question- able. When the building was built by the engineer that knew the Code, everything was done by the Code. The year of 1983 was the key to when everything was changed. Robert Skinner stated that nothing was changed. Mr. Bird- well had a copy of the Building and Fire Inspection reports which Mr. Birdwell signed for. Mr. Birdwell asked what the Fire Department had said about a Code in the early 1980's. Don Andrews stated that the first Fire Code adopted by the City of North Richland Hills was in 1976. The Code is updated approximately every four years. They are presently under the 1984 Edition of the National Fire Code. Pre- vious to that they were under the 1982 Edition. Page 23. Orville Baker asked if the viola- tions were taken out of one of the later Codes. Eric Hill stated that Mr. Birdwell was talking about the Code that the building was built under. Don Andrews stated that there was no Fire Code at that time. John Larriviere remarked that at the time the building was built there was no Code, so it was built on Mr. Birdwell's own specifications. Eric Hill stated that Mr. Birdwell could not be faulted for that. He said that if the City and Mr. Birdwell were willing to get together, the Mr. Hill was in favor of giving a 30 day extension to decide and then call the Board back into session to act on it. John Richards requested that they be given a 60 day extension be- cause he had some trials scheduled and would be out of town. Eric Hill stated that he would like to know the City's reaction to his suggestion. Greg Wheeler stated that if that was what the Board desired, they could give Mr. Birdwell the sixty day extension. Michael Dean asked if there were any time limits required by the City. Greg Wheeler stated that if the Board was going to overturn the order for demolition, then it was the Board's option to set the time limit. Michael Dean stated to Mr. Bird- well that if the Board made the decision to allow him to talk with the City and was not able to come to an agreement, then _··~_._'e'_____~_'_'___~___ Page 24. the Order for Demolition would still stand. Mr. Birdwell stated that he did not think that the building was unsafe and that it would be proven in a court. He would be more than willing to see what could be worked out if the City was willing. But if nothing could be worked out, he could not agree to his building being torn down. Eric Hill stated that the Board was bending over backwards to accommodate Mr. Birdwell and they were willing to give him an extension. If the matter was unresolved, then the Board would be called back into session to make a decision. John Larriviere asked Mr. Bird- well some of the items that he did not thing that he would be able to comply with besides the fire lane. Mr. Birdwell stated that there was a problem with the width of the aisle in him building not being wide enough. John Larriviere asked if Mr. Birdwell had a copy of the write ups that were given to him. Mr. Birdwell stated yes. John Larriviere asked Mr. Birdwell to go through the list and tell the Board which items he did not thing that he could comply with and give the reason why. Mr. Birdwell stated the ones that were a problem were: 1. Stairs being separated from all parts of the building by one hour fire construc- tion. When Mr. Birdwell built the building, that was not required. Everything in the back portion of the building was steel except Page 25. for some wooden shelves that are by the stairs. He would be willing to put in steel shelves in place of the wooden ones. Eric Hill stated that all the items needed to be discussed with the City. Mr. Hill motioned to give Mr. Birdwell the time exten- sion of sixty days to meet with the City and resolve the issue. Mr. Birdwell stated that it sounded fair. John Larriviere asked what the time frame would be. Eric Hill stated the limit would be sixty days. Michael Dean asked Greg Wheeler would the process of demolition have to be started over at the end of the sixty days if nothing had been resolved. Greg Wheeler stated that he would issue another Notice of Demoli- tion if nothing was resolved by the end of the time limit to bring the building up to life safety. Michael Dean asked the time limit of the Demolition Notice. Greg Wheeler stated that it gave sixty days to take out the demo- lition permit and begin work. Eric Hill asked if after the permit was taken out, then there was 120 day completion date. Greg Wheeler stated yes. Michael Dean asked what Mr. Birdwell next step would be if there was no agreement reached. Greg Wheeler stated that if no agreement was reached by the Building and Fire Departments with Mr. Birdwell and nothing was done, the a Notice and Order of Demolition would be issued. Mr. Page 26. Birdwell would then again have sixty days in which to file an appeal. Eric Hill asked if Mr. Birdwell was in agreement. Mr. Birdwell stated he would take responsibility for whatever agreement was made. John Larriviere stated that there was a motion made by Eric Hill to allow a sixty day extension. Orville Baker seconded the motion. Michael Dean stated the demoli- tion was still in affect, but the Board was allowing Mr. Birdwell sixty days to come to an agree- ment with the City. John Larriviere stated that he understood that the City was allowing Mr. Birdwell the sixty day extension. If everything was worked out then the matter would never come before the Board again. But if the matter went unresolved it would be brought before the board. The motion to approve the sixty day extent ion was approved 4-2 with Robert Skinner and Joe Crane opposing. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:23 P.M. CHAIRMAN OF BOARD OF APPEALS SECRETARY BUILDING CODE AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE