Coralville Board of Adjustment

MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT January 28, 2009 Meeting called to order 6:00 pm Members Present: Snyder, Szcech, and Rice Absent: Wells and Shannon Others Present: Kevin Olson City Attorney Guests: Eric Tindel, City Attorney of Williamsburg, IA Ron Ham, 697 Edgewater Dr. Coralville, IA Randalph Garrett, 805 Edgewater Dr. Coralville, IA Jerme Molina, Molina Construction Inc. Item #3 Minutes from December 15, 2008 meeting approved: Rice: Motion to approve minutes. Szcech: 2nd Motion. Motion Carried 3 – 0 Item #4: Continuation of discussion on Appeals of Substantial Damage Determination by the Coralville Building Official pursuant to Chapter 160 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Coralville. Attorney Kevin Olson: Explains that the Public Hearing is closed, but discussion can continue and he clarified that the law states that a 3-0 vote would be needed to overturn these appeals. #4a) 697 Edgewater Drive Snyder: Asks for more information on 697 Edgewater Drive, Mr. Hamm’s property. Attorney Eric Tindal: Handouts were passed out at the Board requested for more information on Mr. Ham original bid proposal. Molina Construction’s new bid breaks it out into same or similar factors which should compare to the City’s analysis. Mr. Molina is also present for questioning by the Board. Jerme Molina of Molina Construction Inc. explains his detailed bid proposal. Attorney Eric Tindal: Disputes the City’s valuation of the property and the estimates of costs to repair. Szcech: States that the assessed property values for Johnson County were recently updated, and in his opinion $105,100.00 is the best valuation for use by the Board. He also includes the Home Builders Associations costs are the standards used by Iowa City, Coralville and Johnson County areas which were affected by the flood. Mr. Kessler the Building Official has to figure the value of total cost to repair the house to pre-flood state, and he feels there are discrepancies in the bids presented. He questions work or monies that have been already spent or previously done by Mr. Hamm to the property. Attorney Eric Tindal: Raises an objection for the record, he questions the source and argues the use of the Home Builders Associations guidelines used by the surrounding areas and the City of Coralville. He also adds that the FEMA guidelines are unclear. Snyder: Agrees with Szcech that the Home Builders guidelines are the standards the Boards has to base their decision on and they have two figures presented. Attorney Kevin Olson: Interjects as the advisory to the Board, you have the evidence presented; legal questions need to be presented to Attorney Kevin Olson. Attorney Eric Tindal: What items are included, what items are excluded in the calculations. Questions are asked about post storm debris removal and cleanup. Attorney Kevin Olson: Explains curb cleanup, which is a reimbursable item by FEMA. He explains that drywall removal has to be included under the FEMA guidelines. Snyder: As Chairmen of the Board interjects, and explains the Board has job of determining between the two estimates presented. Szcech: States as a Board these are the figures we have to base our decision on, basically the same as we were presented at the last meeting. Snyder: Does the Board have any more questions concerning the bids? Members continue to discuss bid figures and insurance figures. Attorney Eric Tindal: The Board is entitled to look at all different matters in reaching their determination. He stress that Mr. Molina is available for questioning and he feels the Home Builders estimates is just a general summary. Rice: Expresses the difficulty in making this decision. Snyder: Asks again why the Board was asked to make these decisions. Attorney Kevin Olson: Explains FEMA flood insurance program regulations requires this because when a home is damaged over 50% FEMA does not want to keep repeatedly paying claims on this same property. In the normal flood plain one would have to raise the property one foot above the flood plain. These property are in the flood way and there’re different rules for the flood way. The City is required to determine if these properties have 50% damage when located in a flood way. He explains that the City will raise Edgewater Drive 4’ to mediate flood damage. Snyder: Stresses each property will be judge on an individual case and a decision needs to be made. Attorney Kevin Olson: Reads from the Ordinance, this structure is a non- conforming use in a flood way, if any non-conforming structure is destroyed by any means including flood it shall not be reconstructed if the cost is more than 50% of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred unless it’s reconstructed in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. Szcech: Motion to uphold Mr. Kessler’s ruling. Snyder: 2nd Motion Vote: 2 – 1 (Snyder-yes, Szcech-yes, Rice-no). Motion Carried 2-1 #4b) 805 Edgewater Drive Snyder: Requests more information on 805 Edgewater Drive, Mr. Garrett’s property. Attorney Eric Tindal: Distributes handouts of additional bid information and a FEMA document issued to Mr. Garrett.. Szcech: States this dwelling is valued at $100,105.00. Attorney Eric Tindal: Explains a FEMA determination letter, which has separate estimates for home repairs. This is a different situation because Mr. Garrett was uninsured. Instead of an insurance payment he received a FEMA payment, in the amount of $ 27,117.00. Attorney Kevin Olson: Adds that this FEMA payment is a private assistance or grant program for the homeowner. This is a totally different program from determining substantial damage, and the City is not involved with this program. Attorney Eric Tindal: Asks that this information from the FEMA program be taken for the record. Rice: Questions bids from Garrett Construction and states these figures as closer to the 50% substantial damage. Szcech: Shares that the valuation as $100,500.00 minus the garage value of 6,100.00, that now takes it down to $94,000.00 for a valuation. Attorney Eric Tindal: Mentions questioning the use of tax assessment, assessed value or fair market values being used as a concern in the case. Members discuss these figures as being closer to the 50% substantial damage amount. Snyder: Asks the Board if any other further questioning is needed to make this hard decision before deciding whether or not to overturn the decision of the Building Official. Rice: Motions to overturn the Building Officials decision. Snyder: 2nd Motion Vote: 2 – 1 (Snyder- no, Szcech- no, Rice - yes) Motion Carried 2-1 Rice: Motion to adjourn Snyder: 2nd Motion Meeting adjourns @ 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dee Marshek