[00:00:02]
[CALL TO ORDER]
STANDARDS COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER FOR APRIL 23RD, 2025.LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT THE TIME IS, UH, 6 41.
I AM VICE CHAIR OF THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION, BUT STANDING IN FOR OUR NORMAL CHAIR, TIMOTHY STOAT.
AT THIS TIME, I WILL CALL ROLE AND ASK FOR THE COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT TONIGHT TO PLEASE SIGNIFY THAT YOU ARE HERE.
A QUICK REMINDER TO OUR COMMISSIONERS REMOTING IN PLEASE TURN ON YOUR CAMERA AND KEEP IT ON SO AS TO MAINTAIN QUORUM.
UM, COMMISSIONER LOCKHART HERE.
AND ALSO IN ATTENDANCE IS, UH, BRETT CARR, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE FIRE MARSHAL.
UM, RIGHT HERE BEFORE THE CA BEFORE THE CASES ARE CALLED, THE COMMISSION WILL ENTERTAIN PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON ITEMS NOT TONIGHT AND NOT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.
EACH SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOTTED THREE MINUTES OR SIX MINUTES FOR ANYONE REQUIRING INTERPRETATION SERVICES.
UM, I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
UH, YES, I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT.
UH, TONIGHT THE COMMISSION WILL CONDUCT A HEARING FOR SEVEN ITEMS ON THE POSTED AGENDA.
THE COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER SEVEN CASES FROM SEVEN PROPERTIES.
THE CASES WILL BE CONSIDERED IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY APPEAR ON THE AGENDA.
HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION MAY TAKE A CASE OUT OF ORDER IF IT IS APPROPRIATE.
ALL ATTENDEES AT THIS HEARING ARE REQUIRED TO OBSERVE APPROPRIATE DECORUM AND CIVILITY SO AS NOT TO IMPAIR THE COMMISSION'S ABILITY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS.
CODE OF REVIEW, ANALYST, MELANIE, MELANIE ALL WILL, WILL CALL EACH CASE ON THE AGENDA, FOLLOWED BY TESTIMONY.
DEPARTMENT SERVICES, UH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT STAFF WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED.
THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROPERTY MUST COME FORWARD AND TAKE A SEAT NEAR THE PODIUM.
IF YOU ARE PARTICIPATING REMOTELY, UNMUTE YOUR PHONE.
THE CITY WILL PRESENT ITS EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES FIRST AND WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO DO SO.
THE OWNER OR REPRESENTATIVE WILL BE ALLOTTED FIVE MINUTES TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE CITY'S WITNESSES ABOUT THEIR TESTIMONY.
AFTER THE CITY HAS PRESENTED ITS EVIDENCE OR AND WITNESSES, THE ONO REPRESENTATIVE WILL BE GIVEN EQUAL TIME TO PRESENT THEIR OWN WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE.
THE CITY WILL BE ALLOTTED FIVE MINUTES TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE ONO OR REPRESENTATIVES, WITNESSES ABOUT THEIR TESTIMONY WHEN THE TIMELINE INDICATES THAT YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.
YOU MUST FINISH YOUR SENTENCE AND CONCLUDE YOUR PRESENTATION.
UH, WILL OUR DESIGNATED TIMEKEEPER THIS EVENING, PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF.
IT'S GOING TO BE JAMES DEL BUT MINUTE.
AFTER THE OWNER OR REPRESENTATIVE AND THE CITY HAVE PRESENTED EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES, THE COMMISSION MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF EITHER SIDE.
AFTER THE COMMISSION MEMBERS ASK THEIR QUESTIONS, I WILL ALLOW OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS WHO ARE PRESENT TO OFFER RELEVANT TESTIMONY ABOUT THE CASE.
BOTH SIDES AND THE COMMISSION MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES.
I WILL GIVE THE PROPERTY OWNER AND REPRESENTATIVE OR APPELLANT THREE MINUTES.
TO SUMMARIZE AT MY DISCRETION, THE CITY MAY BE PERMITTED TO PRESENT REBUTTAL AFTER THE SUMMATION.
AFTER ALL THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY IS CONCLUDED, THE COMMISSION WILL DISCUSS THE CASE AND VOTE ON A DECISION.
THE COMMISSION'S DECISION WILL BE ANNOUNCED TONIGHT AND A COPY OF THE DECISION WILL BE MAILED TO YOU.
A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION IS FINAL AND BINDING UNLESS APPEALED TO DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS AS PROVIDED IN THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PROCEDURE, PLEASE ASK YOUR QUESTIONS WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED WITNESSES TESTIFY UNDER OATH IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, ANY PERSON THAT WANTS TO PRESENT TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMISSION, IN ANY CASE, INCLUDING THOSE REMOTING IN, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND SO THAT YOU MAY BE SWORN IN.
DO EACH OF YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU PROVIDE THIS EVENING IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? IF SO, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING, I DO.
IF THERE'S NOTHING FURTHER, WE WILL PROCEED TO CONSIDER THE AGENDA ITEMS THAT ARE BEFORE THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
FIRST THING I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH IS THE, UH, FIRST AGENDA ITEM, THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY 26TH, 2025 MEETING.[00:05:01]
IF OTHER COMMISSIONERS CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE IN YOUR READER AND CONFIRM THAT THEY ARE ACCURATE.CHAIR MELANIE, THERE'S A CORRECTION ON PAGE TWO.
YEAH, AT THE TOP UNDER ITEM TWO IT SAYS VICE FRANCIS
SO CAN YOU APPROVE IT? I'LL MAKE THE CHANGE.
UH, WOULD MY, MELANIE, DO WE NEED TO MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES? IS THAT CORRECT? YOU DO HAVE TO TAKE A VOTE TO APPROVE THE MINUTE OR NO, YOU CAN DO IT ON A VOICE E YES, BUT PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT WHEN YOU MAKE YOUR MOTION THAT YOU NOTE THAT IT'S WITH THE CORRECTION.
UM, BROUGHT UP BY COMMISSIONER FRANCIS.
WOULD ANYBODY CARE TO MAKE THAT MOTION? I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE CORRECTION FROM COMMISSIONER FRANCIS.
UH, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.
SECONDED FROM COMMISSIONER FRANCIS.
UM, AND WE WILL DO A DON'T NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE, JUST VERBAL.
HEARING SIX A'S AND NO NAYS, THE MEETING MINUTES ARE APPROVED WITH THAT EXCEPTION.
[9. Election of Officers for the Building and Standards Commission]
I HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED THAT WE MOVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER NINE, THE ELECTION OF OFFICES FOR THE VOTING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION UP TO THE TOP OF THE AGENDA.SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO THAT AGENDA ITEM.
ITEM NUMBER NINE ON THE AGENDA IS THE ANNUAL ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION.
YOU'RE, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO ELECT BOTH A CHAIR AND A VICE CHAIR WHO SERVE A ONE YEAR TERM, WHICH BEGINS MAY 1ST, 2025, AND RUNS THROUGH APRIL 30TH, 2026.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO REVIEW THE ARTICLES FOUR AND FIVE OF THE BSC BYLAWS REGARDING OFFICERS AND THEIR DUTIES, THE BYLAWS CAN BE FOUND IN YOUR READERS OR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.
Y'ALL WANNA LOOK AT THAT QUICKLY AND, UM, THEN WE'LL TAKE NOMINEES FOR CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR AND WE'LL NEED TO VOTE ON EACH ONE.
BELIEVE COMMISSIONERS CAN NOMINATE ANYBODY THEY WOULD LIKE FROM WITHIN THE COMMISSION TO BE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
CHAIR, UH, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS, I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE TIM SOAD FOR CHAIR.
UM, DO WE VOTE ON THAT BEFORE MOVING ON TO THE VICE CHAIR? UM, FIRST DOES OR CHAIR OR COMMISSIONER SOAD ACCEPT THE NOMINATION? OH, YES.
I I DO, I'M WILLING TO DO IT AGAIN.
AND, AND NOW YOU, YOU TAKE A VOTE.
AND WE CAN DO THIS AS A ROLL CALL VOTE.
SO WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, JUST SAY A NAY.
UH, COMMISSIONER LOCKHART AYE.
UH, AND VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL VOTES AYE AS WELL, HEARING SIX AYES AND NO NAYS, IT APPEARS THAT, UH, TIMOTHY SOSA HAS BEEN REELECTED AS CHAIR.
UM, I WILL NOW ACCEPT NOMINATIONS.
THANK YOU FOR THE VICE CHAIR POSITION.
I'M CHAIR, UH, COMMISSIONER SOAT AND NOMINATE, UH, VICE CHAIR WAYNE CAMPBELL.
HEARING THAT NOMINATION, UM, DO I NEED TO HEAR OTHER NOMINATIONS IF THERE ARE ANY BEFORE MOVING ON TO THE VOTE? YEAH.
FIRST YOU WOULD INDICATE IF YOU ACCEPT THE NOMINATION.
OH YES, I DO ACCEPT THE NOMINATION.
UM, AND THEN YOU CAN, AND WE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT FOR, FOR THE CHAIR AS WELL.
BUT, UM, YES, YOU CAN CERTAINLY CALL FOR IF THERE ARE OTHER NOMINATIONS.
IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS, PLEASE MAKE THAT KNOWN.
HEARING NONE, WE WILL MOVE ON TO A ROLL CALL VOTE.
AND THE VICE CHAIR ALSO VOTES, AYE.
HEARING SIX AYES AND NO NAYS? I BELIEVE I AM REAPPOINTED TO REELECTED TO BE VICE CHAIR.
UM, WITH THAT, I BELIEVE WE CAN MOVE ON FROM THE ELECTION
[00:10:01]
ITEM AND I DO WANT TO CONSIDER THE CASES OUT OF ORDER SLIGHTLY TO MY UNDERSTANDING CASE NUMBER TWO IS UNREPRESENTED.SO IN THE INTEREST OF SAVING EVERYONE'S TIME, WE WILL MOVE ON TO CASE NUMBER THREE.
FIRST AND, UH, VICE CHAIR, WE ACTUALLY HAVE SOMEONE TRYING TO GET ON THE LINE FOR ITEM NUMBER TWO, BUT WHY DON'T WE STILL MOVE IT BECAUSE SHE'S NOT ON THE LINE YET.
[3. Case Number: CL 2025-002177]
WANNA MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE? YES.ITEM NUMBER THREE ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER C 20 25 0 0 2 1 7 7.
AND IT IS REGARDING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 4 2 3 TOWN LAKE CIRCLE, APARTMENT 2 1 3, ALSO KNOWN AS THE MESH APARTMENTS.
STAFF EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE DARK GREEN BOOKS IN YOUR READERS AND GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.
HERE ARE SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE.
THIS CASE IS REGARDING A SINGLE UNIT IN A COMMERCIAL MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURE.
THIS CASE WAS OPENED IN JULY, 2024 AS THE RESULT OF A COMPLAINT.
THERE ARE NO ACTIVE TRADE PERMITS FOR THE UNIT RELATED TO THE CITED VIOLATIONS.
THE UNIT AT ISSUE IS A PUBLIC AND AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND IS CONSIDERED UNSAFE WITH SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE REPAIR.
IN YOUR READERS OR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER, YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH CONTAINS THE COMPLAINT AND CASE HISTORY.
A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP MAPS OF THE PROPERTY, THE REQUIRED NOTICES, PROOFS OF MAILING AND POSTINGS.
AND EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO J.
AND THE RECOMMENDED ORDER CODE INSPECTOR JASON HENLEY IS HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE EXHIBIT PHOTOS FOR THIS CASE AND WE'LL DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AS THEY'RE DEPICTED.
INSPECTOR HENLEY, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.
I AM A CITY OF CODE INSPECTOR.
THIS CASE I'M PRESENTING FOR YOU WILL BE FOR 24 23 TALL LAKE CIRCLE, UNIT 2 1 3, AUSTIN, TEXAS.
THIS IS OF AN INTERIOR INSPECTION AND THE FACTS OF THE CASES ARE AS FOLLOWED.
ON JULY 23RD, 2024, I INVESTIGATED A 3 1 1 COMPLAINT AT 24 23 TOWN LAKE CIRCLE, UNIT 2 1 3.
UPON MY INITIAL INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY, I OBSERVED THE FOLLOWING VIOLATIONS.
I OBSERVED THAT THE INTERIOR CEILING AND THE WALL COMPONENTS IN SEVERAL LOCATIONS WERE IN DETERIORATION AND SHOWING SIGNS OF FAILURE.
THERE WAS ALSO A HOLE IN THE SUBFLOORING IN THE MASTER BEDROOM.
A NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS MAILED OUT ON JULY 24TH, 2024.
ON OCTOBER 18TH, 2024, THE PROPERTY WAS POSTED WITH A NOTICE OF THE VIOLATION.
IN DECEMBER, THE TENANT MOVED OUT OF THE PROPERTY AND THE UNIT HAD IT ASBESTOS.
INSPECTION FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS THEN WAS GUTTED TO THE STUDS UNDER THE GUIDELINES OF THE ASBESTOS GUIDELINES.
THIS UNIT HAS STAYED THE WAY UNTIL LATE MARCH WHEN I WAS THERE, WORK BEING DONE ON THE UNIT AT THE TIME, I ASKED THE WORK TO BE STOPPED UNTIL THE PROPER PERMITS WERE APPLIED AND ISSUED.
SINCE OCTOBER, 2024 THROUGH APRIL, 2025, MULTIPLE INSPECTIONS OF THIS PROPERTY HAVE BEEN MADE.
THE FOLLOWING PHOTOGRAPHS ARE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE REPRESENTING OF THE DEFICIENCIES FOUND ON THE PROPERTY AS OF APRIL.
UNIT TWO A IS EX IS A CONTEXTUAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE EXTERIOR OF THE PROPERTY AT 24 23.
ACTUALLY ANOTHER CONTEXTUAL PHOTO, BUT YOU CAN SEE THE UNIT IN QUESTION IS THE TOP LEFT CORNER ONE WITH THE REFRIGERATOR SETTING ON IT.
NEXT PHOTO ITEM TWO C IS ACTUALLY OF THE, UH, DOORWAY.
SO THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE ENTRYWAY WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE WORK HAS STARTED AFTER IT WAS GUTTED OUT.
NEXT PHOTO TWO E OF THE LIVING ROOM INTERIOR CORNER.
THIS IS WHERE THE CEILING WAS ACTUALLY COLLAPSING WHEN I FIRST DID MY INSPECTION.
YOU CAN SEE HOW IT WAS GUTTED OUT AND YOU CAN STILL SEE DAYLIGHT SHOWING THROUGH THE ACTUAL PROPERTY OF THE BUILDING AND ALSO AROUND THE DOORFRAME.
IS THIS ALSO IN THE LIVING ROOM? YOU CAN SEE THE WATER STAINS ON THE LEFT EXTERIOR WHERE WATER HAS BEEN SEEPING THROUGH THE EXTERIOR WALLS INTO THE PROPERTY.
NEXT PHOTO TWO G IS OF THE BACKSIDE OF THE WALL WAY, HOW YOU CAN SEE DAMAGE TO THE SHEET ROCK AND ALL THE ASBESTOS IN INSULATION HAS BEEN REMOVED.
NEXT PHOTO TWO H IS IN THE MASTER BEDROOM WHERE THE ACTUAL NEW INSTALLATION OF THE HAS BEEN INSTALLED WITHOUT PROPER INSPECTIONS.
NEXT TWO I IS ACTUALLY OF THE MASTER AGAIN, THIS CORNER WALL, YOU CAN SEE THE BOARD WITH THE WATER STAINS
[00:15:01]
COMING THROUGH 'CAUSE OF THE EXTERIOR OF THIS PROPERTY.THE CONCERNS ABOUT PUTTING THE INSULATION ON BEFORE THE INSPECTIONS ARE DONE IS 'CAUSE THE EXTERIOR HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY SEALED, AND WE CANNOT TELL THAT ONCE THE SHEET ROCK HAS BEEN APPLIED.
NEXT PHOTO TWO J IS ACTUALLY OF THE HOLE IN THE MASTER SUBFLOORING.
THERE'S ALSO OTHER SOFT SPOTS THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY.
NEXT, AND THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION OF 24 23 TALL LAKE CIRCLE, UNIT 2 1 3.
UM, I STRONGLY URGE THE COMMITTEE TO MEMBERS TO ADOPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THOSE DESCRIBED IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT, THE CODE OFFICIAL FOUND THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS A PUBLIC AND ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND IS CONSIDERED UNSAFE WITH SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS.
STAFF ASKED THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO J.
STAFF ALSO REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER THE OWNER COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING, ONE WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED.
A, OBTAIN AND FINALIZE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS.
B, CORRECT ALL SITE VIOLATIONS CITED TO THE UNIT OF THE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE AND IDENTIFIED IN THE ORDER OF THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS C REQUEST INSPECTIONS FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH ONE A AND ONE B AND TWO ON THE 46 DAY COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED.
ASSESS A CIVIL PENALTY OF $1,000 PER WEEK THAT WILL CONTINUE TO ACCRUE UNTIL THE CODE OFFICIAL DETERMINES THAT THE REPAIRS REQUIRED BY THIS ORDER ARE COMPLETE INTEREST SHALL ACCRUE AT A RATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL.
AND WITH THAT, THE CITY CONCLUDES ITS PRESENTATION.
WE WILL ADMIT EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO A THROUGH TWO J.
UM, IF AT THIS TIME THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVES CAN INTRODUCE THEMSELVES, I BELIEVE WE ONLY HAVE ONE PERSON REPRESENTING THE OWNERS TONIGHT.
I'M LEAH BOJO WITH RENER GROUP HERE ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER.
UM, WE SUBMITTED A PRESENTATION, UH, JUST A COUPLE DAYS AGO AND, AND I, AND I HOPE YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT, BUT I'LL JUST EVEN GIVE YOU MORE RECENT INFORMATION JUST IN THE LAST FEW DAYS.
UM, JUST BEFORE WE MOVE ON INTO YOUR, UH, E AFFIRMATIVE PRESENTATION, UM, WE ALWAYS GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR OWNERS, REPRESENTATIVES TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO OF CITY STAFF.
UM, IF YOU HAVE NO QUESTIONS, YOU'RE MORE THAN FREE TO MOVE INTO YOUR AFFIRMATIVE PRESENTATION, BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK QUESTIONS, YOU MAY DO SO NOW.
I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
UM, WHAT, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO JUST OUTLINE FOR YOU IS JUST THE THINGS THAT ARE NODDING YOUR BACKUP, BUT I'D JUST LIKE TO TALK THROUGH IF THAT'S OKAY.
I CAN ADMIT THAT IF YOU'RE, IF I'M ABLE TO ADMIT PICTURES FROM EVEN TODAY, I'D BE LOVE TO DO THAT.
BUT OTHERWISE I CAN JUST LET YOU KNOW WHAT WE FOUND.
UM, SO WE HAVE BEEN WORK, WE WERE ON YOUR AGENDA AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW FOR LAST MONTH, UM, WHEN THE MEETING DIDN'T HAPPEN AND WE WERE THINKING HONESTLY THAT BY THE TIME WE GOT TO THIS MEETING, IT WOULD BE REPAIRED, THE WORK WOULD BE DONE.
UM, UNFORTUNATELY WE HAVE STILL BEEN WORKING THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS WITH THE CITY, UM, WHICH I KNOW IS WHAT YOU HEAR ALL THE TIME.
UM, WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK.
WE HAVE DONE THE, THE FLOORING IS COMPLETE AND I DO HAVE PICTURES HERE IF I'M ALLOWED TO PASS THEM AROUND OR, OR ADMIT THEM.
UM, IF I COULD GET SOME ADVICE FROM IS THAT ABLE TO HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY.
UM, THE ONLY ISSUE WE HAVE IS WE WOULD NEED TO PRESENT IT TO OUR COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE REMOTING IN.
UM, I'M NOT SURE IF WE HAVE THAT ABILITY TO, WE, WE CAN.
I'LL, I'LL LEAVE THAT UP TO YOU.
I'LL, I'LL DO MY BEST TO DESCRIBE THE WORK AND THEN IF Y'ALL WOULD LIKE TO SEE PICTURES, WE HAVE THEM.
IF YOU CAN JUST DESCRIBE IT ABSOLUTELY.
UM, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE BEST.
SO, SO WE HAVE THE, WE HAVE SOME BEFORE AND AFTER PICTURES OF THE FLOOR, WHICH IS, WHICH IS A MAJOR ISSUE, UM, THAT IS COMPLETE.
UM, THE WORK THAT WE ARE STILL WORKING THROUGH AND THE PERMIT THAT IS IN REVIEW, EVEN AS RECENTLY, WE'VE BEEN CORRESPONDING ABOUT IT EVEN YESTERDAY AND TODAY ABOUT THE, THE, UM, DOCUMENTATION THAT'S NEEDED.
PART OF THE COMPLICATION IS THAT, AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS ONE UNIT, UM, BUILT IN THE FIFTIES IN A LARGE COMPLEX.
SO SOME OF THE MATERIALS THAT WERE BEING ASKED FOR WERE RELATED TO, YOU KNOW, PLANS FOR THE ENTIRE COMPLEX, WHICH, YOU KNOW, MAY HAVE EXISTED AT SOME POINT, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THEM RIGHT NOW.
SO WE'RE DOING SPEC SPECIFIC MEASUREMENTS TO DO THE FLOOR WORK AND TO DO THE, UM, TO FIX THE, THE HOLES IN THE WALL AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, I HOPE THAT WE ARE DONE WITH THIS IN, YOU KNOW, A, A WEEK OR TWO.
I, YOU KNOW, WE ARE WORKING AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN,
[00:20:01]
UM, TO GET THIS, THIS WORK FINISHED AND THEN GET ANOTHER PERSON IN THIS UNIT.UM, AS YOU ALSO PROBABLY KNOW, THESE ARE, UM, GENERALLY AFFORDABLE MARKET RATE, AFFORDABLE UNITS.
THEY ARE WORKFORCE LEVEL, UM, MARKET RATE AFFORDABLE.
SO WE WANT TO HAVE THEM ALL FILLED AND SO WE ARE INVESTED AS, AS MUCH AS ANYONE IN, IN GETTING THAT WORK DONE AND GETTING THAT REPAIR DONE.
UM, SO MY REQUEST WOULD BE IF WE COULD, UM, HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME BEFORE THE FINES COME IN, UM, TO FINISH THAT WORK, UM, I'D BE HAPPY TO COME BACK AND REPORT TO YOU NEXT MONTH.
AND I, AND I AM CONFIDENT THAT WE WILL, WE WILL BE DONE BY THEN.
UM, BUT THAT IS THE REQUEST THAT'S HERE TODAY.
THE, THE FINES, PARTICULARLY ON, UM, A PROJECT LIKE THIS, A BUILDING LIKE THIS THAT IS SORT OF, UM, THE MARGINS ARE, ARE THIN.
THESE FINES REALLY DO HURT, UM, THE ABILITY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT TO KEEP UP WITH OTHER REPAIRS, WHICH ARE, YOU KNOW, AS YOU KNOW, CONSTANT IN SOME OF THESE OLDER BUILDINGS.
UM, SO THAT'S THE REQUEST THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TONIGHT.
UM, I DO JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ALSO WITH CITY STAFF.
WE HAVE AN EXHIBIT FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER IN OUR FOLDERS.
IS THIS THE SAME? DID DID YOU SEND THOSE PICTURES TO WE DID SEND, I'M SORRY.
IN THAT CASE, UM, THEY SHOULD ACTUALLY BE IN OUR FOLDERS UNDER THE OTHER DARK GREEN.
UM, WE, WE SENT SOME EARLIER IN THE WEEK BY THE DEADLINE, WHICH I THINK WAS MONDAY AFTERNOON.
AND THEN I THINK SOME OF THE ONES WE HAVE NOW ARE NEWER THAN THAT.
SO THOSE PROBABLY AREN'T IN YOUR FOLDER, BUT YOU, BUT YOU SHOULD HAVE SOME.
SO WE DO HAVE, UM, SOME OF THOSE PICTURES, BUT NOT NECESSARILY THE NEWEST ONES.
UH, IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO, UH, SPECIFICALLY SHOW US FROM THIS PRESENTATION, YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO, UH, WITH YOUR REMAINING TIME.
BUT COMMISSIONERS ALSO HAVE ACCESS TO THIS ON THEIR GOOGLE DRIVES.
I THINK MOST OF WHAT'S IN HERE REALLY OVERLAPS WITH WHAT, UM, SHOWED.
SO I, I THINK MORE WHAT I WAS, WHAT I AM HOPING TO, AND MAYBE I CAN SEND IT OUT AFTER THE FACT FOR Y'ALL TO LOOK AT, BUT IS SOME OF THE WORK THAT'S HAPPENED, JUST LIKE I SAID, EVEN IN THESE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS, WE'VE REALLY,
BUT, UM, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO SHOW AND TO TELL YOU ABOUT IS THAT WE HAVE LIKE FINISHED THE FLOOR WORK.
WE ALSO HAVE, UM, NOW WE HAVE AN AFTER SHOT THAT SHOWS THAT THOSE FLOORS ARE COMPLETE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
UM, IF CITY STAFF HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AT THIS TIME, YOU MAY ASK THEM NOW.
SORRY, I CAN'T, I THINK THAT, UM, YOUR MIC IS STILL OFF.
NO, YOU'LL, YOU'LL NEED TO ADMIT THE EXHIBITS FOR OH YES.
UM, AT THIS TIME WE'LL ADMIT THE PROPERTY OWNER'S EXHIBITS AND I THINK YOU NEED TO ADMIT OUR EXHIBITS ALSO.
UM, I'LL JUST FOR CLARITY, UM, WE'LL ALSO ADMIT EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO A THROUGH TWO J AND WITH THAT I WILL OPEN IT UP TO THE REST OF THE COMMISSION FOR QUESTIONS.
AB CHAIR, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS, QUESTION FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE.
YOU SAID THAT YOU'LL THINK YOU'LL HAVE THIS COMPLETED WITHIN 30 DAYS? YES SIR.
YOU REALIZE THAT FINES DON'T KICK IN FOR 45 DAYS.
I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WE WERE ALREADY AT THAT DEADLINE.
IS THAT NOT RIGHT? YEAH, THANK YOU.
UH, IF I CAN JUST ADD CLARITY TO THAT, THE ORDER THAT WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO ADOPT MM-HMM
WOULD BE SENT OUT TONIGHT AND THAT WOULD BE THE START OF THE DATE.
SO IT WOULD BE 45 DAYS FROM THEN.
SORRY, WHAT, WHAT WAS THAT MELANIE? IT WOULD BE MAILED OUT ABOUT A WEEK FROM NOW, SO YES.
AND IT WOULD BE THE 45 DAY CLOCK WOULD START FROM THE DAY THAT IT GETS MAILED OUT, CORRECT? MM-HMM.
THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? UH, COMMISSIONER TOM LOVICH? YEAH.
UM, AND I'M SORRY I CAN'T LOOK DIRECTLY AT YOU, BUT I WAS, I WAS KIND OF CURIOUS.
UM, I KNOW PART OF THE PROBLEM SAYS THE, OR THERE'S KIND OF DELAY AND THAT'S ALWAYS AN ISSUE.
DEALING WITH PERMITTING COULD BE DIFFICULT.
UM, I JUST WANTED, I GUESS MY TWO QUESTIONS ARE, WOULD YOU DISAGREE WITH THE CODE OFFICER'S STATEMENT THAT THEY HAD TO ISSUE A WORK STOPPAGE BECAUSE YOU WERE LACKING THE PROPER PERMITS WHEN YOU WERE FINISH? WERE REWORKING THIS APARTMENT.
UM, AND I GUESS JUST KIND OF, COULD YOU GIVE US JUST A, JUST GIMME A FEW MORE DETAILS ABOUT THAT? 'CAUSE I KNOW PRETTY PERMITING CAN BE A, A PAIN IN THE BUTT, BUT THIS SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY COMPREHENSIVE REDO OF THIS UNIT AND SO IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE SOMETHING THAT,
[00:25:01]
UM, MOST OWNERS WOULD KIND OF BRUSH OVER AND THINK, OH, WELL WE DON'T NEED TO DO PAPERWORK ON THIS ONE.COULD YOU JUST ENLIGHTEN ME A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THOSE DETAILS? I DO AGREE THAT IT IS, WELL THIS IS A FULL INTERIOR REMODEL OF THIS UNIT.
I DON'T, I WAS NOT WORKING ON THE PROJECT AT THAT TIME, SO UNFORTUNATELY I'M NOT ABLE TO GIVE YOU ANY MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT.
BUT I, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SINCE THAT TIME, UM, THEY HAVE A CONTRACTOR ON AND THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING TO, UM, COMPLETE PERMITS AND IN FACT, PART OF THE ISSUE WE'VE HAD MOST RECENTLY HAS BEEN MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING THE CORRECT PERMIT FOR THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING.
UM, I'M HAPPY TO TRY TO FIND MORE INFORMATION FOR YOU, ALTHOUGH I HOPE THAT BY 45 DAYS FROM NOW I WON'T BE HERE IN FRONT OF YOU AGAIN,
UM, AND JUST A QUICK FOLLOW UP, YOU KNOW, I THINK, UH, THERE WAS, THE CODE OFFICER TESTIFIED ABOUT AN ASBESTOS CHECK.
DO YOU KNOW THE RESULTS OF THAT AND UM, WHAT YOUR, UH, WHAT THE OWNERS HAVE DONE IN KIND OF RESPONSE? MAYBE HAVE YOU CONTACTED THE TENANT TO LET THEM KNOW ABOUT THE ASBESTOS RISK OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? IF THERE WAS A, I DON'T KNOW.
I KNOW THAT ANY ASBESTOS HAS BEEN REMOVED AND WHAT I DO KNOW ABOUT THE TENANT SITUATION IS THAT THE TENANT WAS OFFERED THE OPPORTUNITY TO LEAVE THE UNIT INITIALLY WHEN THEY MADE THE COMPLAINT TO THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY.
UM, AND THEY DECLINED THAT OFFER.
UM, AND SO, AND PART OF WHAT WAS SORT OF DIFFICULT AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS WORK WAS TRYING TO WORK WITH THE TENANT TO BE ACCOMMODATING AND SORT OF HAVING SOME DIFFICULTIES WITH THAT.
UM, SO I KNOW THE TENANT HAS BEEN LONG OUT OF THE UNIT, UM, BUT I CAN'T SPEAK TO EXACTLY WHAT THE TIMING OF THAT WAS AS FAR AS THE ASSISTS.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? MADAM CHAIR, MOVE TO CLOSE THE HEARING.
SECOND, THERE'S A MOTION TO CLOSE THE HEARING FROM COMMISSIONER FRANCIS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOCKHART.
HEARING SIX AYES AND NO NAYS, THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING IS CLOSED.
UM, IF YOU'LL STAY UP, IF THE PROPERTY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE WILL STAY UP, UM, WE MAY ASK OTHER QUESTIONS.
UM, BUT AT THIS TIME THE AFFIRMATIVE PORTION OF YOUR PRESENTATION IS OVER AND WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION.
I WOULD INVITE ANY COMMISSIONER TO MOVE TO MAKE A MOTION BEFORE MOVING INTO DISCUSSION.
COMMISSIONER FRANCIS MOVE TO ADOPT SALE STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER IN ITS ENTIRETY.
THERE IS A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER FRANCIS.
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOCKHART.
UM, I WILL NOW OPEN IT UP TO DISCUSSION BY THE IS HEARING NONE? I WILL MOVE INTO A VOTE AND THIS WILL JUST BE A ROLL CALL VOTE.
AYE VICE CHAIR ALSO VOTES AYE.
HEARING SIX AYES AND NO NAYS, THE MOTION OF COMMISSIONER FRANCIS PASSES.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION TONIGHT.
AND, UM, QUESTION FOR, UH, MELANIE ALLEY.
[2. Case Number: CL 2025-036193]
REPRESENTATIVE FOR CASE NUMBER TWO ON AT THIS TIME? I BELIEVE SHE IS FANTASTIC.IN THAT CASE, WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO.
ITEM NUMBER TWO ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER CL 20 25 0 3 6 1 9 3 AND IS REGARDING A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 2 1 1 EAST 52ND STREET.
THE EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE RED ORANGE BOOKS IN YOUR READERS IN GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.
HERE ARE SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE.
THIS CASE IS ABOUT A COMMERCIAL FOURPLEX STRUCTURE AND A SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE WHICH ARE UNOCCUPIED.
THE CASE WAS OPENED IN FEBRUARY, 2025 AS A RESULT OF A COMPLAINT FOR AN ABANDONED AND OPEN STRUCTURE.
THERE ARE NO ACTIVE PERMITS FOR THE PROPERTY RELATED TO THE SIGHTED VIOLATIONS.
HOWEVER, THERE IS A SITE PLAN, APPLICATION AND PROCESS FOR TOTAL DEMOLITION.
THE STRUCTURES ARE CONSIDERED SUBSTANDARD WITH DANGEROUS CONDITIONS AND REQUIRE REPAIR IN YOUR READERS AND OR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER, YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH CONTAINS THE COMPLAINING CASE HISTORY.
A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP MAPS OF THE PROPERTY, ALL REQUIRED NOTICES, PROOFS OF MAILING AND POSTINGS AND POLICE OFFENSE REPORTS.
EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO G AND THE RECOMMENDED ORDER CODE.
INVESTIGATOR COURTNEY BRITT IS ASSIGNED TO THE CASE.
[00:30:01]
HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AS DEPICTED.INVESTIGATOR BRITT, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.
MY NAME IS COURTNEY BRITT AND I'M A CODE INVESTIGATOR FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
CODE COMPLIANCE PROPERTY BEING BROUGHT BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A MULTI-FAMILY COMMERCIAL FIVEPLEX APARTMENT COMPLEX, LOCATED AT 1211 EAST 52ND STREET.
THE OWNERS OF RECORD HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS YELLOW 52 INVESTMENTS LLC PER THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT ON FEBRUARY 4TH, 2025.
WE RECEIVED A COMPLAINT ON FOR THIS PROPERTY VIA 3 1 1 FOR AN ABANDONED OPEN STRUCTURE OCCUPIED BY PERSONS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS.
THE NEXT DAY, INSPECTOR DAVID CRUZ AND I CONDUCTED AN INSPECTION, CONFIRMED THE COMPLAINT OF THE VACANT STRUCTURE AND NOTED SEVERAL STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES.
ON FEBRUARY 6TH, 2025, I MAILED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO THE OWNER IDENTIFIED IN THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND REGISTERED AGENT IDENTIFIED IN THE TEXAS SECRETARY SECRETARY OF STATE REGISTRY ON FEBRUARY 7TH, I CONDUCTED A FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION, POSTED THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION, A YELLOW DANGEROUS CONDITIONS PLACARD, AND INSTALLED CAUTION TAPE AROUND THE STRUCTURE.
AT THAT TIME, AN INDIVIDUAL P UH, PERSON EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS EMERGED FROM THE STRUCTURE, THREATENED ME AND TORE DOWN THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
PLACARD AND TAPE A PD ARRIVED AND ARRESTED THE INDIVIDUAL FROM FEBRUARY, 2025 TO PRESENT CODE COMPLIANCE AND THE OWNER'S AGENT HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT TO ADDRESS ONGOING ISSUES ON THE PROPERTY.
THE OWNERS HAVE REPEATEDLY BOARDED THE PROPERTY AND EMPLOYED REMOTE SECURITY ROBOTS TO MO MONITOR THE AREA.
THE OWNERS REMOVED THE STAIRCASE TO DETER ACCESS TO THE SECOND STORY.
ON MARCH 27TH, THEIR REZONING WAS APPROVED.
THE OWNERS COMPLETED ASBESTOS ABATEMENT AS A PRECURSOR TO DEMOLITION.
ON APPROXIMATELY APRIL 3RD, THE OWNER SUBMITTED A SITE PLAN EXEMPTION FOR TOTAL, UH, DEMOLITION ON APRIL 10TH, 2025.
THE OWNER HAS, UH, ADJACENT PROPERTIES WITH SIX ADDITIONAL BLIGHTED STRUCTURES THAT ARE NOT SUBJECTED TODAY'S HEARING.
ON APRIL 8TH, 2025, I CONDUCTED A FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION AND CONFIRMED THAT 14 OF THE VIOLATIONS ON THE PROPERTY REMAIN VALID.
I'LL NOW PRESENT MY PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS DEPICTED.
PHOTO TWO A IS A CONTEXTUAL PHOTO OF THE FRONT OF THE STRUCTURES OF THE PREMISES, WHICH ALSO SHOWS BOARDED WINDOWS AND DOORS AND LACK OF PAINT OR SEALANT TYPICAL THROUGHOUT THE PREMISES.
THIS IS A VIOLATION FOR VACANT STRUCTURES AND LAND SECTION 3 0 1 0.3, WINDOW, SKYLIGHT AND DOOR FRAME SECTION 3 0 4 0.1, 3.2 AND PROTECTIVE TREATMENT SECTION 3 0 4 0.2.
NEXT PHOTO, PHOTO TWO B SHOWS THE MISSING REMOVED STAIR STAIRCASE, HANDRAILS AND GUARDS VIOLATION OF IPMC SECTION 3 0 4 0.2 FOR THE GUARDS REQUIRED.
UH, 3 0 4 0.1 FOR THE STAIRWAYS DECK, PORCHES AND BALCONIES AND, UH, 3 0 7 0.2 HANDRAILS REQUIRED.
NEXT PHOTO, PHOTO TWO C SHOWS MISSING EXTERIOR SIDING, UH, SECTION 3 0 4 0.6 OR EXTERIOR WALL VIOLATIONS.
NEXT PHOTO PHOTO 2D IS A BROKEN DOOR FRAME AND HARDWARE UNABLE TO SECURE THE DOOR FROM AN OPEN DOOR WITH THE BOARDS REMOVED.
THIS IS A VIOLATION FOR WINDOW, SKYLIGHT AND DOOR FRAMES 3 0 4 0.13 AND EXTERIOR DOORS ZERO 4.15.
NEXT PHOTO, PHOTO TWO E SHOWS THE BROKEN FOUNDATION WALLS AND UNSECURED BASEMENT HATCHWAY VIOLATION.
UH, SECTION 3 0 4 0.5 FOR FOUNDATION WALLS AND 3 0 4 0.16 FOR THE BASEMENT HATCHWAY.
NEXT PHOTO, PHOTO TWO F SHOWS THE BURN DECKING FROM THE UNDERSIDE OF THE SECOND STORY LANDING.
THIS IS THE VIOLATION OF 3 0 1 0.1 0.6 FOR FIRE DAMAGED WOOD.
NEXT PHOTO TWO G SHOWS THE DAMAGED ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION PANEL METER SOCKETS AND BREAKER BOXES.
VIOLATION FOUR SECTION 6 0 4 0.2 ELECTRIC SERVICE, AND 6 0 5 0.3 ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT EXPOSED TO WATER.
I'M ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THOSE DESCRIBED IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT, THE CODE OFFICIAL FOUND THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS A PUBLIC AND AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND IS CONSIDERED SUBSTANDARD WITH DANGEROUS CONDITIONS.
STAFF ASKS THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT IN CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO G.
STAFF ALSO REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER THAT THE OWNER COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING, ONE WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED.
A, OBTAIN AND FINALIZE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS.
B, CORRECT ALL VIOLATIONS CITED TO THE COMMERCIAL FOURPLEX AND RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND IDENTIFIED IN THE ORDER OF THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS.
C REQUEST INSPECTIONS FROM CITY OF AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH ONE A AND ONE B AND TWO ON THE 46TH DAY.
IF COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED, ASSESS A CIVIL PENALTY OF $1,000 PER WEEK THAT WILL CONTINUE TO ACCRUE UNTIL THE CODE OFFICIAL DETERMINES THAT THE
[00:35:01]
REPAIRS REQUIRED BY THIS ORDER ARE COMPLETE INTEREST SHALL ACCRUE AT A RATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL.AND WITH THAT, THE CITY CONCLUDES ITS PRESENTATION.
AT THIS TIME I AM GOING TO ADMIT EXHIBITS ONE AND EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO G.
UM, I BELIEVE THE PROPERTY HAS A REPRESENTATIVE.
I'VE BEEN TOLD IT'S A CHRISTIE FENTON, BUT I DO SEE A DIFFERENT NAME UP ON THE SCREEN.
IF YOU CAN UNMUTE YOURSELF AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF.
HI, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU.
CAN YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF? UH, YES.
THIS IS HEATHER KY AND COULD YOU DESCRIBE YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROPERTY? YES, I'M THE, BASICALLY THE AUTHORIZED AGENT.
I WORK DIRECTLY FOR THE OWNERS OF THIS PROPERTY FOR YELLOW 52 INVESTMENTS.
AND JUST FOR, UM, WERE YOU HERE EARLIER WHEN I SWORE IN PEOPLE FOR TESTIMONY? I WAS NOT, I'M SO SORRY.
IN THAT CASE, AT THIS TIME I WILL ADMINISTER THAT OATH.
UH, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'LL PROVIDE THIS EVENING IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? IF SO, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING I DO.
UM, WITH THAT I WILL, UH, GIVE YOU A MOMENT.
I WILL GIVE YOU A FEW MINUTES TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS YOU WOULD LIKE TO OF THE CITY AT THIS TIME.
UM, WE, WE GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF OPPORTUNITY TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE MOVING ON TO YOUR AFFIRMATIVE PRESENTATION.
UM, I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
IN THAT CASE, YOU CAN JUST, UM, MOVE INTO YOUR AFFIRMATIVE PRESENTATION.
JUST TELL US WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE US TO KNOW.
UH, OUR PLAN OF ACTION WITH THIS PROPERTY IS TO DEMOLISH IT.
UM, WE, AS IT WAS ALREADY STATED, WE DO ALREADY HAVE A SITE PLAN CASE NUMBER, UM, WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
IT'S 2 0 2 5 DASH 0 4 3 4 7 2 DA.
UM, WE HOPE TO HAVE APPROVAL ON THAT IN THE NEXT, UM, COUPLE OF WEEKS, BUT WE DON'T KNOW HOW QUICKLY, YOU KNOW, THINGS MOVE ALONG.
AND THEN AFTER THAT WE DO HAVE A CONTRACTOR THAT WILL BEGIN THE DEMOLITION PROCESS.
SO THE ONLY THING I COULD ASK OF THE COMMISSION WOULD IS IF WE COULD, UH, PLEASE BE ALLOWED A LITTLE MORE TIME TO GET THIS DONE.
UM, IF AT THIS TIME THE CITY HAS ANY QUESTIONS TO ASK OF MS. FINKY, HEARING NONE, UM, I WILL OPEN THE DISCUSSION UP TO OTHER COMMISSIONERS.
AND IF I CAN, JUST BEFORE I DO THAT, ASK, UH, CITY STAFF, COULD I POTENTIALLY, I KNOW I'VE ASKED THIS BEFORE, GET A COPY OF LIKE A DEMOLITION ORDER, UM, BECAUSE I, I I I MAY IN FACT, UH, TRY TO MOVE THIS TO A DEMOLITION ORDER, BUT WE SHALL ALL SEE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE TO ASK QUESTIONS OR SPEAK AT THIS TIME, YOU MAY BE RECOGNIZED.
MADAM CHAIR, UH, COMMISSIONER LOCKETTE.
THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER IS 45 DAYS.
DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH TIME TO COMPLETE THE DEMOLITION OR WHAT LENGTH OF TIME ARE YOU REQUESTING? WE'D LIKE TO GET AS MUCH TIME AS POSSIBLE JUST BECAUSE WE DO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE DEMO PERMIT PROCESS, WHICH IS A LITTLE OUT OF OUR HANDS.
UM, BUT THEN AS SOON AS THAT'S, YOU KNOW, AS SOON AS WE RECEIVE THAT, THEN THEY CAN BEGIN THE DEMO, HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, WHETHER PERMITTING AND ALL THAT STUFF.
SO IT'S NOT FOR A LACK OF WANT TO, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WORKING OUR WAY THROUGH THIS PROCESS, WHICH WE'VE STARTED.
THANKS FOR THAT, UH, KIND OF RESPONSE.
AND OH, JUST TO CLARIFY, WOULD AN ORDER, IF IT WAS AMENDED TO 60 DAYS, WOULD THAT BE SUFFICIENT OR DO YOU HAVE A
[00:40:01]
SPECIFIC DATE YOU'D LIKE TO REQUEST? I BELIEVE 60 DAYS SHOULD BE, UH, SUFFICIENT.BUT AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I, I FEEL LIKE THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO GET IT DONE.
UH, AT THIS TIME YOU WOULD ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS DURING THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING? HEARING NONE, I WOULD WELCOME A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION.
MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THAT IS A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER FRANCIS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOCKHART.
UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
HEARING SIX AYES AND NO NAYS, THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THIS HEARING IS NOW CONCLUDED.
MS. FINKY, IF YOU CAN JUST STAY ON THE LINE.
WE MAY HAVE MORE QUESTIONS OF YOU, BUT AT THIS TIME THE AFFIRMATIVE PORTION OF YOUR PRESENTATION IS OVER.
AND BEFORE I PASS IT BACK TO, OH, NOW I SHOULD ACTUALLY PUT A MOTION ON THE TABLE FIRST.
UM, I WILL JUST GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO ADOPT STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, BUT CHANGE THE ORDER SUCH THAT IT WILL ORDER THE OWNER COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED, OBTAIN AND FINALIZE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS, DEMOLISH ALL PORTIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND REMOVE AS DEBRIS LEAVING THE LOT CLEAN AND RAKED AND C REQUEST INSPECTION FROM CITY OF AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH THREE A AND THREE B ON THE 46TH DAY.
IF COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED, A AUTHORIZED CODE OFFICIAL TO PROCEED WITH DEMOLITION AND TO CONSIDER ALL PORTIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, INCLUDING ANY ITEMS IN AND AROUND THE STRUCTURE AS DEBRIS AND DISPOSE OF AS SUCH, AND B, THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE ON.
NOTICE THAT THE CODE OFFICIAL IS AUTHORIZED TO ASSESS ALL EXPENSES INCURRED AGAINST THE PROPERTY UNLESS EXEMPTED BY THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION.
A LIEN FOR THOSE EXPENSES MAY BE FILED WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND RECORDED WITH THE TRAVIS COUNTY DEED RECORDS, RA SHALL ACCRUE AT A WEIGHT OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL.
UM, SO THAT'S MY MOTION AT THIS TIME.
I WILL, UM, SORRY, HEARING FROM, UH, CITY STAFF, UH, JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THIS IS A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE.
I, I MIGHT HAVE HEARD YOU REFER TO IT AS A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.
I DID REFER TO IT AS A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.
UH, THAT IT IS A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE IN THE MOTION.
UM, I WOULD WELCOME ANY SECONDS IF THERE ARE ANY.
I'LL SECOND, UH, THAT IS A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER MUSGROVE.
UM, I JUST WANNA EXPLAIN THIS, UM, TO MS. FINKY.
UM, WHAT I'VE DONE IS MOTIONED FOR A DEMOLITION ORDER AS OPPOSED TO A REPAIR ORDER.
I JUST DO THIS SOMETIMES IN THESE CASES WHERE THERE'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS AS TO, UM, MOVING TOWARDS A DEMOLITION.
UM, THE ORDER AS AMENDED WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY WITHIN 45 DAYS AND AFTER THAT WOULD GIVE THE CITY THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEMOLISH IT.
BUT TYPICALLY IT DOES TAKE A LOT LONGER THAN THAT.
SO IT DOES EFFECTIVELY GIVE YOU THE TIME TO GO THROUGH THE DEMOLITION PERMITTING PROCESS AND COMPLETE THE DEMOLITION ON Y'ALL'S OWN.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AT THIS TIME? COMMISSIONER FRANCIS? UH, SECOND THE MOTION.
I BELIEVE THE MOTION HAS ALREADY BEEN SECONDED.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION AT THIS TIME? HEARING NONE.
I WILL MOVE TO A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE MOTION BY MYSELF AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUSGROVE.
I WILL CALL YOUR NAMES AND INDICATE WHETHER YOU'LL BE VOTING TO APPROVE.
COMMISSIONER TOM LOVICH, UH, I BELIEVE YOU SAID SOMETHING, COMMISSIONER TOM LOVICH, BUT YOU MIGHT HAVE BEEN MUTED WHEN YOU ACTUALLY SAID IT.
[00:45:01]
A FROM COMMISSIONER TOM LOVICH.AND CHAIR, VICE CHAIR ALSO VOTES AYE.
UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION TONIGHT, MS. VINKY.
I BELIEVE THAT THE MOTION AND THAT THE ORDER AS AMENDED WILL BE MAILED TO YOU IN A WEEK'S TIME.
[4. Case Number: CL 2024-158389]
TIME WE WILL MOVE ON TO CASE NUMBER FOUR.ITEM NUMBER FOUR ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER CL 20 24 15 8 3 8 9 AND IS REGARDING A RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 1 1 7 GARWOOD STREET.
THE EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE COPPER COLORED BOOKS IN YOUR READERS AND GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.
HERE ARE SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE.
THIS CASE IS REGARDING A FIRE DAMAGED RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX STRUCTURE.
THE CASE WAS OPENED IN MAY, 2024 AS A RESULT OF A COMPLAINT REGARDING A FIRE ON MAY 13TH, 2024.
THERE ARE NO ACTIVE PERMITS FOR THIS PROPERTY.
THIS STRUCTURE IS AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND IS CONSIDERED SUBSTANDARD WITH UNSAFE CONDITIONS, WHICH REQUIRES REPAIR.
IN YOUR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER READER, YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH CONTAINS THE COMPLAINING CASE HISTORY.
A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP MAPS OF THE PROPERTY, NOTICE OF VIOLATION, NOTICES OF HEARING FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING, PROOFS OF MAILING AND THE REQUIRED POSTINGS, A FIRE INCIDENT REPORT, AND A POLICE ACTIVITY REPORT.
EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO H AND THE RECOMMENDED ORDER CODE INSPECTOR GAVIN PIKA IS HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AS DEPICTED.
INSPECTOR PIKA, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.
MY NAME IS GAVIN PIKA AND I AM AN INSPECTOR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT CODE COMPLIANCE.
THE PROPERTY BEING BROUGHT BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A DUPLEX RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 3 1 1 7 GARWOOD STREET, AUSTIN, TEXAS.
THE OWNER OF RECORD HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS MANUEL A RAMIREZ, SUSANNA R AND ROY RAMIREZ AT 4 7 0 5 MUNSON STREET, AUSTIN, TEXAS.
THE CASE ORIGINATED ON 20TH OF MAY, 2024 WITH A 3 1 1 COMPLAINT FOR FIRE DAMAGE TO A COMPLEX, UH, DUPLEX.
MY APOLOGIES, AND WAS INITIALLY INSPECTED BY OFFICER ANDRES DEVERA AND HIS OPTION OBSERVATIONS WERE MADE.
AND I QUOTE, THE MOST EXTENSIVE DAMAGE SEEMED TO BE TO THE INTERIOR, WHICH I COULD PARTIALLY VIEW AS THE FRONT DOOR AND WINDOWS WERE MISSING OR DESTROYED.
THE UPPER AREAS OF THE EXTERIOR WALLS NEAR THE ROOF WERE SEVERELY BURNED AND CHARRED WITH SIGNIFICANT BURN MARKS AND CHARRING NEAR THE WINDOWS AND DOORS.
BASED ON WHAT I COULD SEE, THE INTERIOR WALLS, CEILING AND EVERYTHING WITHIN THE STRUCTURE APPEARED TO BE SEVERELY BURNED AND CHARRED.
AND AT THAT TIME, A NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS ISSUED ON 20TH OF MAY, 2024.
BASED ON THESE OBSERVATIONS, MUL MULTIPLE FOLLOW UP INSPECTIONS AND SUED WITH CONTACT BEING MADE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER.
UH, THE PROPERTY OWNER INITIALLY STATED THAT THEY HAD PLANNED TO DEMOLISH A STRUCTURE AND ON JULY 22ND, 2024, DURING A FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION AND CONTACT MAID, THE OWNER STATED THAT THEY WERE WAITING ON THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO ADVISE THEM REGARDING THE ELECTRICAL METER AND PERMITTING.
THE OWNER WAS ADVISED AT THAT TIME THAT THE PROPERTY COULD NOT REMAIN IN THE CONDITION THAT IT WAS IN FOR A PROLONGED PERIOD OF TIME, AND THAT THEY MAY WANNA BE PROACTIVE IN RE REPAIRING OR DEMOLISHING THE PROPERTY DUE TO THE EXTENSIVE DAMAGE.
ON OCTOBER 2ND, 2024, I CONDUCTED A FOLLOW UP INSPECTION AND FOUND THE PROPERTY REMAINED IN THE CONDITION THAT IT HAD BEEN IN SINCE THE FIRE ON MAY 13TH, 2024.
I DID MAKE CONTACT WITH MR. RAY RAMIREZ AND INQUIRED ABOUT THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND AT THAT TIME, I WAS INFORMED THAT MR. RAMIREZ WOULD BE WORKING TO GET THE PERMIT SOON.
I DID ADVISE THAT THE PROCESS COULD TAKE SOME TIME AND MR. RAMIREZ TO BEGIN THE PROCESS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
I ALSO ADVISED THAT THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN REFERRED TO THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION AND TO THE STATE.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY REQUIRED PERMITS ON THE PROPERTY.
AND I WILL NOTE THAT THERE IS ALSO A SCHOOL NEARBY AND THERE HAS BEEN BOTH POLICE AND PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS ACTIVITY AT OR NEAR THIS PROPERTY.
[00:50:02]
I WILL NOW PRESENT MY PHOTOS AND ADDRESS THE VIOLATIONS.THIS IS A CONTEXTUAL PHOTO OF THE PROPERTY, UH, EXHIBITING 3 1 1 7 GARWOOD.
AS YOU CAN SEE THE EXTENSIVE DAMAGE TO THE UPPER PARTS OF THE EAVE AND THE, UH, EXTERIOR WALLS.
EXHIBIT TWO B IS ANOTHER PHOTO SHOWING MORE DAMAGE FURTHER DOWN, UM, OF THE EVE.
UH, AND OF COURSE THEY, SINCE THE INITIAL FIRE, UH, THEY DID BOARD UP THE WINDOWS AND THEY HAVE FENCED THE PROPERTY.
UH, BUT THIS IS ANOTHER ANGLE OF THE CONTEXTUAL, UH, OF THE PROPERTY.
THIS IS A PHOTO OF THE GARAGE AREA.
THE, UH, STRUCTURE IS CONNECTED BY A CARPORT AREA, UM, AND IT DOES EXHIBIT THE EXTENSIVE DAMAGE TO THE THANK YOU, UH, RAFTERS IN THE EXTERIOR PART OF THE GARAGE CARPORT AREA.
THIS IS A CLOSEUP PHOTO OF THE ELECTRICAL METER.
UM, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE GLO, THE METER HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE STRUCTURE.
AND THIS IS A, UH, ANOTHER CONTEXTUAL VIEW FURTHER OUT FROM THE STREET.
THEY JUST HAVE A, HE HAS, I'M SORRY.
UH, THIS IS ANOTHER PHOTO CONTEXTUAL, UH, VIEW OF THE STRUCTURE FURTHER OUT FROM THE PROPERTY.
AND THIS IS A CLOSEUP, UH, JUST EXHIBITING THE DAMAGE TO THE EXTERIOR.
UH, THIS IS A CONTEXTUAL PHOTO SHOWING THE CONNECTING CARPORT OF, UH, 3 1 1 9 GARWOOD AND 3 1 1 7 GARWOOD.
UH, JUST A, UH, A COMPARISON OF THE ONE STRUCTURE TO THE OTHER EXHIBITING THE DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY.
AND THIS IS AN ANGULAR PHOTO EXHIBITING THE BACK PART, UM, IN THE SIDE OF THE, UH, STRUCTURE AT 3 1 1 9 3 1 1 7 IS ON THE, UH, OTHER SIDE.
UH, THIS CONCLUDES MY TESTIMONY AND I'M ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THOSE DESCRIBED IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT, THE CODE OFFICIAL FOUND THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS A PUBLIC AND AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND IS CONSIDERED SUBSTANDARD WITH UNSAFE CONDITIONS.
STAFF ASKED THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT IN CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO H.
STAFF ALSO REQUEST THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER THE OWNER COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING, ONE WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED.
A, OBTAIN AND FINALIZE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS.
B, CORRECT ALL VIOLATIONS CITED TO THE RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX STRUCTURE AND IDENTIFIED IN THE ORDER OF THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS.
C REQUEST INSPECTIONS FROM AUSTIN, CITY OF AUSTIN, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH ONE A AND ONE B, AND TWO ON THE 46TH DAY OF COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED.
ASSESS A CIVIL PENALTY OF $250 PER WEEK THAT WILL CONTINUE TO ACCRUE UNTIL THE CODE OFFICIAL DETERMINES THAT THE REPAIRS REQUIRED BY THIS ORDER ARE COMPLETE.
RA SHALL ACCRUE AT A RATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL.
AND WITH THAT, THE CITY CONCLUDES ITS PRESENTATION.
UM, I BELIEVE WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE OWNER ONLINE.
CAN HE UNMUTE AT THIS TIME? UH, SORRY.
I BELIEVE, UH, THERE'S SOMETHING TO SAY FROM CITY STAFF ADMIT EXHIBITS.
UM, I WILL ALSO AT THIS TIME ADMIT EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO A THROUGH TWO H.
UH, MY NAME IS ANDREW RAMIREZ.
I'M THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR SUSANNA AND AURORA ARM AT THE PROPERTY ADDRESS.
HAVE WE SWORN HIM IN? HAS HE BEEN SWORN? I'M SORRY.
UM, WERE YOU IN ATTENDANCE EARLIER WHEN I SWORE IN OTHER PEOPLE GIVING TESTIMONY? UH, UH, I'M SORRY, I WAS, I HAD IT ON.
[00:55:01]
I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THAT THE PHONE IS A LITTLE BIT STATICKY.UH, WERE WERE YOU SWORN IN? YES, MA'AM.
UM, AT THIS TIME WE WILL GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE OF CITY STAFF BEFORE MOVING INTO YOUR AFFIRMATIVE PRESENTATION.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS, YOU MAY DO SO NOW.
UH, WELL THE QUESTION IS, I, I THINK YOU ALREADY ANSWERED IT.
SO YOU'RE SAYING RIGHT NOW THERE'S ACTUALLY NO PENALTIES, UH, VIA, UH, FEES THAT ARE ACCUMULATING RIGHT NOW.
IS THAT CORRECT? UH, I BELIEVE, I BELIEVE SO.
UM, I THINK HE ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY FEES CURRENTLY ACCRUING, UH, AT THIS TIME, NO.
OTHER THAN THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FEE THAT'S BEEN ASSESSED, UM, UH, NO OTHER FINES HAVE BEEN, UH, LEVIED AGAINST THE PROPERTY OR NO OTHER CITATIONS HAVE BEEN ISSUED.
THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
UM, MR. RAMIREZ, IF YOU HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, YOU MAY NOW MOVE INTO YOUR AFFIRMATIVE PRESENTATION.
UH, UH, AGAIN, MY NAME IS ANDREW RAMIREZ.
I'LL BE REPRESENTING SUSANNA AND ROY RAMIREZ ON THE PROPERTY OF ADDRESS OF 31 17 GARWOOD STREET.
UH, THEY TOLD ME DUE TO THEIR MEDICAL CONDITIONS, THEY ASKED ME US THAT WE CAN HELP THEM WEIGH IN ON THIS SERIOUS MATTER TRYING TO GET THIS MATTER RESOLVED AND TRYING TO GET, GO THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS OF TRYING TO RENOVATE DURING TIME.
SO WE'VE ALREADY, I'VE ALREADY OBTAINED, UH, UH, AN ARCHITECT AS WELL TOO, AS, AS, AS AN ENGINEER.
SO THEREFORE WE CAN HAVE DRAWINGS PRESENTED TO THE, UH, HAVE EVERYTHING DRAFTED UP.
SO THEREFORE WE CAN DO A FORMAL PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO GO INTO THE REPAIR OF THIS PROPERTY.
UH, WE'RE ALSO GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET AN ENGINEER OBS A FIRE OBSERVATION LETTER SHOWING FOR WHATEVER HAS BEEN DAMAGED ONTO THE PROPERTY.
SO THEREFORE EVERYTHING IS GOING INTO COMPLIANCE AND TRYING TO FOLLOW PROTOCOL, YOU KNOW, AND MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE GONNA BE IN COMPLIANCE OF THIS PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, FOR THE TIME ON.
SO, UH, RIGHT NOW WE'RE WAITING ON A SURVEYOR RIGHT NOW TO GIVE US THE INFORMATION.
SO THEREFORE I CAN GO AHEAD AND TURN THAT OVER TO OUR ARCHITECT.
SO THEREFORE HE CAN CONTINUE AND FINISH OUT HIS, HIS, UH, HIS SET OF PLANS.
SO THEREFORE WE CAN SUBMIT IT INTO THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
SO THEREFORE WE CAN OBTAIN A PR NUMBER.
AND, UM, I THINK THAT THAT'S IT RIGHT NOW WHERE WE'RE AT, I KNOW THAT, UH, THEY WENT AHEAD AND SECURED THE PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, UH, AROUND ALL, WE SECURED IT ALL THE WAY AROUND.
WE BOARDED IT ALL UP AND WE TRIED TO GET ALL THE REMOVAL, YOU KNOW, OF THE DEBRIS THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY THAT'S BEEN ON THERE SINCE THE, THE FIRE DAMAGE THAT HAD OCCURRED.
UM, SO OF COURSE NOTHING HAS TAKEN PLACE UNTIL WE ACTUALLY GET OUR, THE, THE PERMIT ACTIVE.
SO THEREFORE WE CAN GO INTO THE REMODEL, UH, AND RESTORE THE PROPERTY.
AND, AND UNTIL THAT, RIGHT NOW, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT.
I KNOW THE TWO, THE CITY I KNOW, UH, SUBMITTING IN, UH, OTHER PERMITS TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
I DON'T KNOW IF 45 DAYS IS ACTUALLY SUBSTANTIAL.
I, I WASN'T GONNA SEE MAYBE IF WE COULD REQUEST AN ADDITIONAL MORE THAN 45 DAYS SO TO ALLOW, UH, THE PERMANENT PROCESS, UH, TO PROCESS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY, MR. RAMIREZ.
AT THIS TIME, IF CITY STAFF HAS ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. RAMIREZ, UM, YOU MAY ASK THEM NOW.
HEARING NONE, I WILL OPEN THE DISCUSSION UP TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.
IF COMMISSIONERS HAVE NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME, I WOULD WELCOME A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING.
THAT IS CHAIR STOAT MOTION FOR CLOSING THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING.
THAT IS A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER FRANCIS.
HEARING SIX AYES AND NO NAYS, THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING IS NOW CONCLUDED.
MR. RAMIREZ, IF YOU JUST STAY ON THE LINE, WE MAY STILL HAVE QUESTIONS OF YOU, BUT AT THIS TIME THE AFFIRMATIVE
[01:00:01]
PORTION OF YOUR PRESENTATION IS CONCLUDED.UM, I WILL TURN IT BACK TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND WOULD WELCOME A MOTION.
MAD CHAIR, MADAM CHAIR, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS, UH, MOVE TO ADOPT STAFF'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND LAW STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER, UH, WITH THE CAVEAT TO CHANGE THE 45 DAYS TO 90 DAYS AND 91ST DAY, THE PENALTIES BEGIN TO ACCRUE.
IS THERE A SECOND FOR COMMISSIONER FRANCIS'? MOTION? SORRY, THAT IS A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER LOCKHART.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION FROM COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NONE, WE WILL NOW MOVE INTO A ROLL CALL VOTE.
AYE CHAIR, VICE CHAIR ALSO VOTES.
THERE BEING SIX A'S AND NO NAYS.
UM, MR. RAMIREZ, IN CASE YOU COULDN'T HEAR, UM, UH, AS WELL, THAT MOTION AS AMENDED WOULD GIVE YOU 90 DAYS BEFORE THE PENALTY FEES WOULD START TO KICK IN.
THAT'S THE MAXIMUM THAT IS, UH, TYPICALLY ALLOWABLE IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.
UM, SO THAT ORDER WILL BE MAILED TO YOU IN ABOUT A WEEK.
[5. Case Number: CL 2025-014703]
THIS CASE, WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, WHICH IS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE.READY TO MOVE TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM? YES.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER CL 2 2 5 0 1 4 703 AND IS REGARDING A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 0 6 CLOVER COURT.
THE EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE OLIVE GREEN BOOKS IN YOUR READERS IN GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.
HERE ARE SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE.
THIS CASE IS ABOUT A FIRE DAMAGE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT ARE UNINHABITABLE.
THE CASE WAS OPENED IN SEPTEMBER, 2024 AS A RESULT OF A COMPLAINT.
THERE ARE NO ACTIVE PERMITS FOR THE PROPERTY RELATED TO THE SIGHTED VIOLATIONS.
HOWEVER, A PLAN REVIEW FOR DEMOLITION IS IN PROCESS.
THE STRUCTURE IS AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND IS CONSIDERED SUBSTANDARD WITH UNSAFE CONDITIONS AND REQUIRES REPAIR.
IN YOUR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER OR READER, YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH CONTAINS THE COMPLAINING CASE HISTORY.
A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP MAPS OF THE PROPERTY, ALL REQUIRED NOTICES, PROOFS OF MAILING AND POSTINGS.
AND EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO G AND THE RECOMMENDED ORDER.
INTERIM SUPERVISOR ERICA THOMPSON IS HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AS DEPICTED.
SUPERVISOR THOMPSON, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.
I'M A SUPERVISOR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT CODE COMPLIANCE.
I'M PRESENTING THIS CASE ON BEHALF OF CODE INSPECTOR LATASHA PATERNO, WHO WAS UNABLE TO BE PRESENT THIS EVENING.
THE PROPERTY BEING PRESENTED IS RE IS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 0 6 CLOVER COURT.
THE OWNER OF RECORD WAS IDENTIFIED AND CONFIRMED THROUGH THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT AS FOUR BROTHERS REMODELING LLC LIFE ESTATE.
THEN AFTER JULY OF 2024, THE OWNER LISTED WAS FONG FAM.
ON SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2024, A COMPLAINT WAS RECEIVED VIA 3 1 1 FOR A DETERIORATED PROPERTY THAT WAS A FIRE AND SAFETY HAZARD AND BEING USED BY SQUATTERS.
THIS PROPERTY HAS TWO STRUCTURES ON IT TO INCLUDE A PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND A SHED BEHIND IT.
IT IS A THIRD OF A MILE FROM ST.
AN INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED FROM THE PUBLIC VIEW APPROVED VANTAGE POINT, AND OBSERVED WAS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN OPEN REAR DOOR, ALSO OBSERVABLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
THE CITY CONTRACTOR WAS CONTACTED TO SECURE THE OPEN DOOR.
THE LANDSCAPING WAS MAINTAINED, BUT THE ROOF, EXTERIOR SIDING, SOFFIT, AND FASCIA WERE DETERIORATED.
A NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS MAILED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER VIA REGULAR AND CERTIFIED MAIL.
THE CERTIFIED MAIL CARD WAS RETURNED, SIGNED, INDICATING IT WAS RECEIVED ON OCTOBER 8TH.
[01:05:01]
VIOLATION WAS ALSO POSTED ON THE PROPERTY.ON NOVEMBER 13TH, THE INSPECTOR SPOKE WITH THE REALTOR FOR MR. FONG FAM.
SHE PROVIDED COURT DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THE LEGAL FILING INDICATING THAT MR. FAM WAS THE PROPERTY OWNER.
THE REALTOR STATED THAT MR. FAM WAS IN THE PROCESS OF SELLING THE PROPERTY.
ON NOVEMBER 14TH, A TEXT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE RE REALTOR STATING THAT THE SALE DID NOT GO THROUGH.
ONCE AGAIN, THE TRAVIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORDS WERE VERIFIED AND MR. FAM WAS NOW LISTED AS A PROPERTY OWNER.
AS A RESULT, MR. FAM WAS SENT A COPY OF THE SAME NOTICE OF VIOLATION ON JANUARY 8TH.
THE INSPECTOR SPOKE WITH MR. FAM WHO REQUESTED AN EXTENSION STATING THAT THE HOUSE WAS UNDER CONTRACT, BUT IF THE SALE FELL THROUGH, HE WOULD BE APPLYING FOR A DEMOLITION PERMIT.
THE INSPECTOR CONDUCTED MONTHLY FOLLOW-UP INSPECTIONS FROM OCTOBER THROUGH CURRENT AND THE CONDITIONS REMAIN THE SAME.
ON MARCH 24TH, 2025, THE INSPECTOR CONDUCTED A FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION AND OBSERVED A PERSON EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS ON THE PREMISES AND THE BOARDING OVER THE DOOR TO THE ACCESS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REMOVED.
THE PERSON HAD THEIR BELONGINGS STORED ALONG THE NEIGHBORING FENCE OUTSIDE OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
THE INSPECTOR RECEIVED AN EMAIL AND LATER SPOKE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO RELATED THAT HE HAD SIGNED A CONTRACT WITH THE COMPANY TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY.
MR. FA WAS NOTIFIED OF THE UNAUTHORIZED PERSON STAYING AT THE PROPERTY AND OF HOW TO REQUEST ASSISTANCE FROM A PD TO HAVE THEM REMOVED AS OF APRIL 19TH, 2025.
A REVIEW OF THE CITY'S PERMITTING DATABASE REVEALED THAT A PLAN REVIEW HAS BEEN OPENED FOR THIS PROPERTY.
THE PLAN REVIEW REQUEST IS FOR DEMOLITION OF THE STRUCTURES.
A SEARCH OF THE PROPERTY'S HISTORY REVEALED 22 SEPARATE CODE COMPLAINTS SINCE 2015, THE PROPERTY WHICH IS ON A CORNER LOT IS UNSIGHTLY AND AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE TO THE COMMUNITY, CONSISTENTLY DRAWING THE ATTENTION OF CRIMINALS AND PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS.
I WILL NOW PRESENT MY PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS DEPICTED.
PHOTO TWO A IS THE DILAPIDATED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH DAMAGED SIDING AND BOARDED WINDOWS AND DOORS.
NEXT PHOTO, PHOTO TWO B IS THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AS OBSERVED FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OF THE AS.
IF YOU ARE STANDING ON CLOVER COURT AND DEPICTS THE DAMAGED ROOF INSIDING, THE DAMAGE TO THE ROOF IS SORT OF HARD TO SEE, BUT OVER ON THE RIGHT SIDE UNDERNEATH THE TREE BRANCH, THERE'S A PART OF THE ROOF DAMAGED, AND THEN OVER BY THE SATELLITE ON THE LEFT SIDE, THE ROOF IS ALSO DAMAGED.
NEXT PHOTO, PHOTO TWO C IS ANOTHER PHOTO OF THE FRONT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
NEXT PHOTO, PHOTO 2D IS THE WEST SIDE OF THE HOUSE, AS SEEN FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ALONG, UH, SOUTH FIRST STREET, TWO E IS THE REAR OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND THE CARPORT.
YOU CAN SEE THE DILAPIDATED SIDING AROUND THE BOTTOM PART OF THE STRUCTURE.
TWO F IS ANOTHER VIEWPOINT OF THE PREVIOUS PHOTO.
HOWEVER, YOU CAN SEE THE DAMAGED SIDING BETTER FROM THIS VIEW AT THE BOTTOM OF THE STRUCTURE.
UM, PHOTO TWO G IS THE RARE OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND YOU CAN SEE THE DILAPIDATED SIDING, UM, THERE AS WELL AT THE BOTTOM OF THE STRUCTURE.
AND I JUST WANNA MAKE NOTE THAT IN ALL PHOTOS YOU CAN SEE THE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF GRAFFITI SHOWING THIS PROPERTY TO BE AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE.
UM, I STRONGLY URGE THE COMMISSION TO ACCEPT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND THIS CONCLUDES MY TESTIMONY.
BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THOSE DESCRIBED IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT, THE CODE OFFICIAL FOUND THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS A PUBLIC AND AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND IS CONSIDERED UNSAFE WITH SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS.
STAFF ASKS THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO G.
STAFF ALSO REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER THE OWNER COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING, ONE WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED A, OBTAIN AND FINALIZE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS.
B, CORRECT ALL VIOLATIONS CITED TO THE RESIDENTIAL AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IDENTIFIED IN THE ORDER OF THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS.
[01:10:01]
REQUEST INSPECTIONS FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH ONE A AND ONE B AND TWO ON THE 46TH DAY OF COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED.ASSESS A CIVIL PENALTY OF $250 PER WEEK THAT WILL CONTINUE TO ACCRUE UNTIL THE CODE OFFICIAL DETERMINES THAT THE REPAIRS REQUIRED BY THIS ORDER ARE COMPLETE INTEREST SHALL ACCRUE AT A RATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL.
AND WITH THAT, THE CITY CONCLUDES ITS PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION, SUPERVISOR THOMPSON.
AT THIS TIME I WILL ADMIT EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO A THROUGH TWO G.
I WILL ALSO ADMIT THE PROPERTY OWNER'S EXHIBITS AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER ON THE PHONE.
IS THIS ESTHER? HERS? IF AT THIS TIME YOU CAN UNMUTE YOURSELF, THE KEY IS STAR SIX TO UNMUTE YOURSELF.
UM, MY NAME IS ESTHER HERKO AND I I'M REPRESENTING FONG F.
UM, TO CONFIRM, WERE YOU HERE EARLIER WHEN I SWORE IN EVERYONE GIVING TESTIMONY TONIGHT? YES.
AND AT THIS TIME YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS YOU WOULD LIKE OF CITY STAFF BEFORE MOVING INTO YOUR AFFIRMATIVE PRESENTATION.
I DO, I DO NOT HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF.
IN THAT CASE, YOU MAY MOVE INTO YOUR AFFIRMATIVE PRESENTATION.
UM, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO WORK OFF OF THE EXHIBITS THAT YOU HAVE PROVIDED FOR US, THEY CAN BE PULLED UP.
UM, IN, IN THE THE POWERPOINT, UM, UH, OWNER'S EX UH, EXHIBITS, UH, THERE IS A, THE, THE DEMOLITION CONTRACT THAT WAS SIGNED, UM, BETWEEN THE DEMOLITION CON COMPANY AND MR. FONG.
THERE'S ALSO AN EMAIL, UH, CONFIRMATION FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN THAT THE APPLICATION FOR THE THE DEMOLITION, UM, WAS RECEIVED ON UH, APRIL THE 15TH OF 2025.
UH, THE CONTRACTOR FEE, THE CONTRACTOR PAID THE PERMIT FEES ON APRIL 20TH FOR 2025 IN 2025.
AND UM, THE ESTIMATED PERMIT APPROVAL TIMEFRAME WE UNDERSTAND IS FOUR TO TO SIX WEEKS.
ONCE WE, UM, THE OWNER RECEIVES APPROVAL VIA PERMIT, UH, THE DEMOLITION PROJECT ITSELF CAN BE TAKEN CARE OF IN TWO TO TWO THREE DAYS.
DOES THAT CONCLUDE THE AFFIRMATIVE PORTION OF YOUR PRESENTATION? UH, YES.
I ALSO WANNA ADD THAT THE, UM, THE GAS LINE, UH, DISCONNECT CONFIRMATION WAS RECEIVED AND UM, THE GAS COMPANY WILL BE TURNING OFF THE GAS BEFORE THE DEMOLITION ON, UM, ON THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE ON, ON MAY THE FIFTH.
WE HAVE THAT, UH, CONFIRMATION.
THERE'S ALSO A, A NEW SURVEY, UH, WITH THE, THE, THE TREE LOCATION THAT WAS REQUIRED, UM, FOR THE UM, DE THE DEMOLITION APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED, A SURVEY WITH THE TREE LOCATION THAT'S PART OF THE PACKET.
UH, THIS TIME IF CITY STAFF HAS ANY QUESTIONS OF MS. OTTS? HEARING NONE, UM, I WILL OPEN UP TO MY FELLOW, OH, SORRY.
UM, MR. KLES, I BELIEVE I DID, BUT JUST FOR THE RECORD, I WILL ADMIT THE PROPERTY OWNERS EXHIBITS AND WITH THAT I WILL NOW OPEN IT UP TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.
BUT BEFORE I DO, I DO WANNA ASK MS. HERTZ.
UM, SOMETHING WE DID EARLIER WAS AMEND A REPAIR ORDER TO A DEMOLITION ORDER.
UM, THE CURRENT ORDER WE HAVE BEEN ASKED TO ADOPT IS A REPAIR ORDER, WHICH WOULD GIVE YOU 45 DAYS TO REPAIR THE STRUCTURE.
THAT COULD ALSO BE SATISFIED BY DEMOLISHING THE
[01:15:01]
PROPERTY.UM, BUT IN CASES LIKE THESE I SOMETIMES PREFER TO, UH, ASK THE COMMISSION TO, UH, ADOPT A DEMOLITION ORDER.
INSTEAD, I WANTED TO ASK WHETHER YOU WOULD PREFER US TO ISSUE A DEMOLITION ORDER AS OPPOSED TO A REPAIR ORDER? YES, PLEASE.
WE, WE REQUEST A, A DEMOLITION ORDER.
UH, THAT I WILL OPEN IT UP TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS.
HEARING NONE, I WILL INVITE ANY MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION.
THAT IS A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER LOCKHART.
THAT IS A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER GRO.
SORRY, STILL LANDING THAT NAME.
UM, UH, I WILL NOW CALL THE VOTE.
HEARING SIX AYES AND NO NAYS, THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING IS NOW CONCLUDED.
MS. HELOTS, AT THIS TIME THE AFFIRMATIVE PORTION OF YOUR PRESENTATION IS CONCLUDED, BUT COMMISSIONERS MAY STILL HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU, SO PLEASE STAY ON THE LINE AND AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN UP FOR DISCUSSION, BUT I THINK I WILL MOVE THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER THAT THE OWNER COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED, OBTAIN AND FINALIZE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS.
DB DEMOLISH ALL PORTIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND REMOVE AS DEBRIS LEAVING THE LOT CLEAN AND RAKED AND C REQUEST INSPECTIONS FROM CITY OF AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH ONE A AND ONE B AND TWO ON THE 46TH DAY.
IF COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED, A AUTHORIZE THE CODE OFFICIAL TO PROCEED WITH DEMOLITION AND TO CONSIDER ALL PORTIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES INCLUDING ANY ITEMS IN AND AROUND THE STRUCTURE AS DEBRIS AND DISPOSE OF AS SUCH AND B, THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE ON.
NOTICE THAT THE CODE OFFICIAL IS AUTHORIZED TO ASSESS ALL EXPENSES INCURRED AGAINST THE PROPERTY UNLESS EXEMPTED BY THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION.
A LIEN FOR THOSE EXPENSES MAY BE FILED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND RECORDED WITH THE TRAVIS COUNTY DEED RECORDS, INTEREST SHALL ACCRUE AT A WEIGHT OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FALL WITH A MOTION ON THE TABLE, I WOULD HEAR ANY SECONDS.
THAT IS A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER LOCKHART.
WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN UP TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS FOR DISCUSSION.
HEARING NONE, I WILL MOVE INTO A ROLL CALL VOTE.
AND THE VICE CHAIR ALSO VOTES AYE.
HEARING SIX AYES AND NO NAYS THE MOTION AS AMENDED.
UH, NOTE THE MOTION PASSES, UM, FOR MS. OTTS.
UM, THAT ORDER WILL GET SENT TO YOU IN A WEEK AND IT WILL BE THAT DEMOLITION ORDER.
UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES THIS AGENDA ITEM.
UM, I HAVE BEEN REQUESTED BY CITY STAFF TO CALL A 10 MINUTE RECESS.
WE WILL RECONVENE AT 8:10 PM HERE I AM.
I CALLED THE MEETING TO BE RECONVENED AT 8:10 PM LET THE RECORD ALSO SHOW THAT WE WENT INTO A 10 MINUTE RECESS AT 8:00 PM DUE TO ONE MEMBER NEEDING TO STEP AWAY FROM THE DAAS.
[6. Case Number: CL 2025-014720]
THIS TIME, I BELIEVE WE WILL HEAR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX.[01:20:01]
AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER CL 2 2 5 0 1 4 7 2 AND IS REGARDING A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 9 1 1 BENNETT AVENUE.THE EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE TURQUOISE BOOKS IN YOUR READERS AND GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.
HERE'S SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE.
THIS CASE IS REGARDING A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITH TWO DWELLING UNITS.
TONIGHT WE ARE ADDRESSING UNIT A.
THE CASE WAS OPENED IN JULY, 2022.
AS A RESULT OF A COMPLAINT, THERE ARE NO ACTIVE TRADE PERMITS FOR THE CURRENT DEFICIENCIES.
THE NOTED VIOLATIONS CREATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND THE STRUCTURE IS CONSIDERED SUBSTANDARD WITH UNSAFE CONDITIONS.
IN THE GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER OR READER, YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH CONTAINS THE COMPLAINING CASE HISTORY.
A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP MAPS OF THE PROPERTY, A NOTICE OF VIOLATION, NOTICE OF HEARING FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING AND PROOFS OF MAILING AND THE REQUIRED POSTINGS.
AND EXHIBIT TWO WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO I AND THE RECOMMENDED ORDER CODE INVESTIGATOR COURTNEY BRITT IS HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AS DEPICTED.
INSPECTOR BRITT, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.
COURTNEY BRITT AND CODE INVESTIGATOR
THE OWNER OF RECORD HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS JOSEFA DOMINGUEZ BONNIS PER THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT ON JULY 5TH, 2022.
WE RECEIVED A COMPLAINT FOR THIS PROPERTY VIA 3 1 1 FOR WORK WITHOUT PERMIT.
ON AN ADDITION TO UNIT A INSPECTOR LATASHA PATERNO CONDUCTED AN INSPECTION, DOCUMENTED THE VIOLATIONS, AND MAILED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO THE OWNER IDENTIFIED IN THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT ON JULY 7TH, 2022.
ON AUGUST 6TH, 2022, INSPECTOR PAT PATERNO OBSERVED THAT THE WORK CONTINUED WITHOUT THE REQUIRED PERMITS.
SHE ISSUED AN ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION ON AUGUST 10TH.
THE OWNER WAS FOUND LIABLE ON OCTOBER 8TH.
ON NOVEMBER 7TH, 2022, INSPECTOR PATERNO CONDUCTED A FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION AND DETERMINED THAT THE OWNER HAD CEASED ANY UN PERMITTED WORK FROM 2023 TO JANUARY, 2025.
CODE INSPECTORS CONDUCTED FOLLOW-UP VISITS TO THE PREMISES AND CONFIRMED NO NEW WORK CONDUCTED AND NO NEW PERMITS FILED.
ON JANUARY 9TH, 2025, I CONDUCTED A FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION AND OBSERVED NINE STRUCTURAL CODE VIOLATIONS IN ADDITION TO THE VIOLATION FOR WORK WITHOUT PERMIT.
I DOCUMENTED THE VIOLATIONS AND MAILED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO THE OWNER IDENTIFIED IN THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT ON JANUARY 10TH, 2020 25.
SINCE ASSUMPTION OF THIS CASE IN JANUARY, I HAVE SPOKEN AND EMAILED WITH THE OWNER'S DAUGHTER AND EXPLAINED THE CODE VIOLATION PROCESS, THE BSC PROCESS AND PROVIDED CONTACT INFO FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS TEAM IN ORDER TO APPLY FOR PERMITS.
ALSO, INSPECTOR SYLVIA VILLA REAL HAS RELAYED THE SAME INFORMATION TO THE OWNER IN SPANISH.
ON APRIL 7TH, 2025, I CONDUCTED A FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION AND CONFIRMED THAT THE VIOLATIONS REMAIN VALID.
I'LL NOW PRESENT MY PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS DEPICTED.
PHOTO TWO A IS A CONTEXTUAL PHOTO OF THE FRONT OF THE PREMISES.
THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON THE PREMISES OWNED AS ONE PROPERTY BY THE SAME OWNER.
ONLY UNIT A IS THE SUBJECT OF TODAY'S CASE.
NEXT PHOTO, PHOTO TWO B IS A SECOND CONTEXTUAL PHOTO.
THE GRAY STRUCTURE IN THE REAR IS UNIT B, NOT SUBJECT TO THIS CASE.
THE YELLOW SIDING IS PART OF THE UNPERMITTED ADDITION TO UNIT A.
NEXT PHOTO TWO C IS A PHOTO OF THE ROOF OF THE ADDITION WITH MULTIPLE LAYERS OF TORN TARP, MISSING SHINGLES AND EXPOSED ROOFS.
THIS IS A VIOLATION OF IPMC, SECTION 3 0 4 0.7 FOR ROOFS AND DRAINAGE.
NEXT PHOTO, PHOTO 2D IS THE REAR OF THE UNPERMITTED STRUCTURE.
HERE WE CAN SEE A VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 0 7 0.1, THE MISSING HANDRAILS AND GUARDS AROUND THE, UH, NON-EXISTENT PATIO.
AT THE EXTERIOR ENTRANCE, WE SEE UNSAFE CONDITIONS FOR SECTION 3 0 4 0.1 0.1 FOR THE MISSING EGRESS STAIRWAY AND LANDING.
UH, SECTION 3 0 4 0.2, THE PAINT, UH, FOR PROTECTIVE TREATMENT FOR THE PAINT AND SEALANT MISSING FROM THE WINDOW AND DOOR TRIM AND SECTION 3 0 5 6 0 5 0.3, UH, FOR LUMINAIRES, MISSING THE SWITCH CONTROLLED LIGHT AT THE EGRESS.
NEXT PHOTO, PHOTO TWO E SHOWS THE ROTTED LOWER EDGE OF SIDING MISSING CORNER TRIM AND BROKEN CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALL ON THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
THIS IS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 0 4 0.6 FOR EXTERIOR WALLS AND SECTION 3 0 4 0.5 FOR FOUNDATION WALLS.
NEXT PHOTO, PHOTO TWO F SHOWS THE CURTAIN WALL MISSING FROM THE ENTIRE UNPERMITTED EDITION.
[01:25:02]
PHOTO TWO G SHOWS BOARDED WINDOWS ON THE SOUTH FACING WALL OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AND IN THE FOREGROUND A BROKEN AND DILAPIDATED FENCE.THIS IS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 0 4 0.6 FOR WINDOW SKYLIGHT AND DOOR FRAMES AND 3 0 2 0.7 FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
NEXT PHOTO, PHOTO TWO H SHOWS A MISSING SECOND STORY WINDOW, WHICH IS ALSO A VIOLATION FOR THE UH, WINDOWS AND DOOR FRAMES.
NEXT PHOTO, PHOTO TWO I SHOWS SEVERELY DEGRADED ROOFING FASCIA AND TRIM, WHICH IS ALSO A ROOFING DEFICIENCY.
I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THOSE DESCRIBED IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT, THE CODE OFFICIAL FOUND THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS A PUBLIC AND AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND IS CONSIDERED UNSAFE WITH SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS.
STAFF ASKS COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO.
I STAFF ALSO REQUEST THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER THAT THE OWNER COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING, ONE WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED.
A, OBTAIN AND FINALIZE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS.
B, CORRECT ALL VIOLATIONS CITED TO THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND IDENTIFIED IN THE ORDER OF THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS C REQUEST INSPECTIONS FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH ONE A AND ONE B AND TWO ON THE 46TH DAY.
IF COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED, ASSESS A CIV CIVIL PENALTY OF $250 PER WEEK THAT WILL CONTINUE TO ACCRUE UNTIL THE CODE OFFICIAL DETERMINES THAT THE REPAIRS REQUIRED BY THIS ORDER ARE COMPLETE INTEREST SHALL ACCRUE AT A RATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL.
AND WITH THAT, THE CITY CONCLUDES ITS PRESENTATION.
UM, AT THIS TIME I WILL ADMIT EXHIBITS ONE AND EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO I I WILL ALSO ADMIT THE PROPERTY OWNER'S EXHIBITS.
UM, AT THIS TIME I BELIEVE THERE ARE TWO REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE PROPERTY, UH, MS. BENITEZ AND A MS. DOMINGUEZ, IF YOU WOULD MIND INTRODUCING YOURSELF.
I BELIEVE ONLY ONE OF YOU IS, UH, ACTUALLY OFFERING TESTIMONY, BUT YOU WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF NOW.
IS THAT, UM, OR HE'S HERE? YES.
UM, WELL AT THIS TIME IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND ALSO MR. HERNANDEZ.
I AM TRANSLATING TONIGHT FOR JOSE VA BENITEZ ON THE PROPERTY CASE NUMBER SIX.
UM, WE ALSO HAVE ON THE PHONE CARLOS HERNANDEZ, WHICH IS THE GENTLEMAN THAT WE HAVE HIRED, UM, TO HELP US REPRESENT OURSELVES WITH THE PERMITTING.
UM, OUR ONLY QUESTION I GUESS WOULD BE IF YOU GUYS DID HAVE HIM ONLINE, IF YOU GUYS HAVE ALSO RECEIVED THE, UM, DOCUMENTS THAT HE HAS SUBMITTED FOR THE PERMITS OR THE EXTENSION.
UH, YES, IF THAT IS, IIII DO JUST WANNA BE CLEAR, WERE, WERE YOU ASKING WHETHER WE'VE RECEIVED THE, HE STATED THAT HE SUBMITTED A, AN EXTENSION FOR US FOR THE PERMITTING, SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT HE SUBMITTED.
THERE'S SEVERAL DOCUMENTS JUST GO THROUGH WHICH BE SEVERAL DOCUMENTS.
UM, I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT, UM, MR. HERNANDEZ IS ACTUALLY NOT ONLINE AT THIS TIME.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT WAS A MISTAKE.
I MEAN, I THINK WE COULD DO IT WITHOUT HIM.
UH, AND, AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, WAS YOUR QUESTION ANSWERED? YES.
SO THIS IS JUST PRETTY MUCH THE EVERYTHING.
I MEAN, IF HE'S NOT ON THE LINE, THAT'S FINE.
IN THAT CASE, YOU MAY BEGIN YOUR AFFIRMATIVE TESTIMONY.
SO WE HIRED, UH, CARLOS HERNANDEZ FROM HTC DESIGN BILL
[01:30:01]
MARCH 15TH TO, UH, HELP HIRE HIM WITH HELP, UH, WITH THE PERMITS.SO HE DID SUBMIT ALREADY THE PERMIT ON THERE, SO WE JUST WANTED AN EXTENSION FOR 90 DAYS IF TO BE ABLE TO PROCESS EVERYTHING AND RECEIVE, UH, SOME TYPE OF RESPONSE AND THEN CONTINUE WITH THE NEXT STEP AS FAR AS THE ACTUAL BUILD.
IS THAT ALL YOU'D LIKE TO SAY FOR YOUR AFFIRMATIVE TESTIMONY? THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANY QUESTION FROM CITY STAFF FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE? UH, HEARING NONE, I WILL OPEN IT UP TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, MOVE TO CLOSE THE HEARING.
UH, THAT IS A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER FRANCIS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THIS HEARING IS VERY SECOND.
I'LL SECOND THAT IS A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER MUSGROVE.
UM, UH, AT THIS TIME I WILL CALL THE VOTE.
UM, FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE REPRESENTATIVE AT THIS TIME, WE HAVE CLOSED THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING.
UM, WE WILL STILL ASK YOU TO STAY UP.
WE MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU, BUT AT THIS TIME, THE AFFIRMATIVE PORTION OF YOUR TESTIMONY IS CONCLUDED.
UM, AT THIS TIME, I WOULD WELCOME ANY MOTION FROM COMMISSIONERS, UH, ON AN ORDER.
MADAM CHAIR, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS MOVE TO ADOPT STAFF'S FINDINGS OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE LAW.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT TO THE ORDER UNDER SECTION ONE TO CHANGE THAT TO 90 DAYS AND SECTION TWO TO THE 91ST DAY.
IS THERE A SECOND FOR COMMISSIONER FRANCIS'S MOTION? SECOND.
THAT IS A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER LOCKHART.
AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN IT UP TO OTHER COMMISSIONERS FOR DISCUSSION.
HEARING NONE, I WILL MOVE INTO A ROLL CALL VOTE.
I'LL CALL YOUR NAME AND SIGNIFY WHETHER YOU AGREE.
AND THE VICE-CHAIR ALSO VOTES.
HEARING SIX A'S AND NO NAYS, THIS MOTION PASSES AND THE ORDER AS AMENDED WILL BE MAILED TO YOU, UM, IN ABOUT A WEEK.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION TONIGHT.
[7. Case Number: CL 2018-097104]
TIME, WE WILL MOVE TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.ITEM NUMBER SEVEN ON THE AGENDA, CL 20 18 0 9 7 1 0 4 IS A RETURNING CASE REGARDING AN UNOCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 7 7 0 8 MANASSAS DRIVE.
STAFF EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE PLUM BOOKS IN YOUR READERS OR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.
HERE ARE SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE.
THIS CASE IS REGARDING A VACANT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.
IN JUNE, 2018, THE COMMISSION ISSUED AN ORDER FOR REPAIR WITHIN 60 DAYS WITH A PENALTY OF $250 PER WEEK TO BEGIN TO ACCRUE.
ON THE 61ST DAY OF REPAIRS WERE NOT COMPLETE.
THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE REMAINS IN DISREPAIR.
NO BUILDING PERMIT HAS BEEN OBTAINED TO MAKE THE REQUIRED REPAIR SINCE THE BSC ORDER WAS ISSUED IN 2018.
AS OF TODAY'S DATE, THE ACCRUED CIVIL PENALTY TOTALS $86,035 AND 71 CENTS AND CONTINUES TO ACCRUE THE NOTED VIOLATIONS CREATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND THE STRUCTURE IS CONSIDERED UNSAFE WITH SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS.
WE ARE RECOMMENDING MODIFICATION OF THE EXISTING ORDER TO CHANGE IT FROM REPAIR TO DEMOLITION AND KEEP THE CURRENT PENALTIES IN PLACE.
IN YOUR READER OR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER, YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING PREVIOUSLY ADMITTED EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO A TWO A THROUGH TWO J EXHIBIT THREE, WHICH CONTAINS AN UPDATED COMPLAINTANT CASE HISTORY, A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP MAPS OF THE PROPERTY, NOTICES OF HEARING FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING, PROOFS OF MAILING AND THE REQUIRED POSTINGS.
A COPY OF THE EXISTING BSC ORDER TRV 20 18 115 0 9 5, AND A PENALTY STATEMENT THROUGH TODAY'S DATE.
AND EXHIBIT FOUR, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS FOUR A THROUGH 4K IN THE RECOMMENDED ORDER CODE.
INVESTIGATOR FARRAH PRESLEY IS HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE EXHIBIT PHOTOS FOR THIS CASE AND WE'LL
[01:35:01]
DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AS DEPICTED.INVESTIGATOR PRESLEY, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.
MY NAME IS FARRAH PRESLEY AND I'M AN INVESTIGATOR FOR THE CASE REVIEW AND ESCALATION TEAM OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
THIS CASE IS BEING BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE BSE COMMISSIONERS FOR CONSIDERATION OF DEMO.
THIS WAS A PREVIOUS CASE HEARD AT BSE IN JUNE OF 2018.
THE STRUCTURE RECEIVED A REPAIR ORDER.
THE THE OWNER NEVER COMPLIED WITH THE BSE ORDER OR KEPT UP COMMUNICATION WITH CODE.
THIS PROPERTY HAS EXPERIENCED SERIOUS NEGLECT THAT HAS LED TO THE STRUCTURE NEEDED TO BE DEMOLISHED.
THE STRUCTURE IS UNSAFE AND SOUND THROUGH A NUMBER OF SITE INSPECTIONS.
I'VE OBSERVED THE FOLLOWING STRUCTURAL ISSUES THAT HAVE PROGRESSED OVER THE TIME PERIOD OF HAVING THIS CASE.
ALONG WITH THE ADDITION OF THE ROOF COLLAPSING NEAR THE BACK DOOR.
THE SIDING FASCIA BOARD AND DECKING OF THE ROOF IS DECAYED DETERIORATING WITH SEVERAL HOLES AND IN SOME PLACES MISSING ALTOGETHER.
THE DETERIORATION IS MORE PROFOUND ON THE ROOF AND BACKSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.
THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE, THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE IS FULL OF JUNK AND DEBRIS.
YOU CAN SEE IT'S STACKED ALL THE WAY UP TO THE CEILING ALONG THE FRONT WINDOWS OF THE STRUCTURE.
AND IN THE GARAGE WINDOWS, SEVERAL NEIGHBORS COMPLAINED OF RODENTS AND WILD ANIMALS HAVING SEEN COMING AND GOING INTO THE STRUCTURE.
THIS PROPERTY IS SECURE AND ONLY THE YARD IS BEING MAINTAINED BY THE BANK'S HIRED MAINTENANCE CONTRACTOR.
I'LL NOW TAKE YOU THROUGH PHOTOS MARKED FOUR A THROUGH 4K.
FOUR A IS A CONTEXTUAL PICTURE OF THE FRONT OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE.
NEXT PHOTO FOUR B SHOWS A CLOSEUP CONTEXTUAL PHOTO OF THE LEFT SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE ALONG WITH SEVERAL HOLES IN THE ROOF'S, DECKING AND DILAPIDATED GARAGE DOORS ALONG WITH THE DECKING AND FACIA BOARD MISSING FROM THE LEFT BACK SIDE OF THE ROOF.
NEXT PHOTO SHOWS A CLOSEUP VIEW OF ONE OF THE HOLES IN THE DECKING OF THE ROOF NEAR THE NEAR THE CHIMNEY.
NEXT PHOTO, EXHIBIT D SHOWS THE ROOF DECKING THAT IS DETERIORATED WITH HOLES, SEVERAL HOLES LETTING IN THE ELEMENTS OF NATURE.
EXHIBIT FOUR, UH, NEXT EXHIBIT, SORRY, FOUR E SIDE VIEW OF THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE.
THE NEIGHBOR HAS TRIED TO REPAIR THE FENCE, ALSO A CLOSEUP VIEW OF THE ROOF WHERE YOU CANNOT SEE HOLES BUT ALL THE DECKING IS MISSING BELOW.
THE SHINGLES WERE KIND OF WAVES ON THAT SIDE.
THIS IS THE BACK SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE, THE BACK DOOR AND WINDOW.
THE ROOF IS MISSING AROUND THESE AREAS WITH SEVERAL HOLES.
I WAS TOLD THIS WAS CAUSED BY A TREE LOOM FALLING ON THE ROOF BUT WAS NEVER REPAIRED.
THE HOLES IN THE ROOF HAVE HAS CAUSED SEVERAL DAMAGE TO THE FRAMING OF THE ROOF.
CLOSEUP VIEW OF THE MISSING DECKING AND DAMAGE THAT IS BEING CAUSED TO THE RAFTERS AND FRAMING OF THE ROOF.
CLOSEUP VIEW OF THE ROTTING SIDING AND FRAMING AROUND THE BACK WINDOW BY THE BACK DOOR.
FOR I THE HOLE IN THE ROOF ABOVE THE WINDOW THAT IS CAUSING ALL THE WATER DAMAGE TO THE FRAMING AND SIDING AROUND THE BACK WINDOW.
THIS IS THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.
UH, WITH THE STRUCTURE ON THE THE ROOF, YOU CAN SEE SEVERAL HOLES IN THE SIDING AND FACIA BOARD AND THE ROOF DECKING AS WELL.
THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE FULL OF JUNK AND DEBRIS CAN BE SEEN THROUGH THE FRONT WINDOWS OF THIS STRUCTURE.
NEXT, A REPAIR ORDER WAS ISSUED FOR THIS CASE IN JUNE, 2018.
THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN VACANT SINCE THE ORIGINAL BSE ORDER.
NO WORK OR PERMITS WERE EVER PULLED FOR REPAIR.
I WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER TO ADOPT STAFF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, THIS CONCLUDES MY TESTIMONY.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THOSE DESCRIBED IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT, THE CODE OFFICIAL FOUND THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS A PUBLIC AND ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND IS CONSIDERED UNSAFE WITH SOME SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS.
STAFF ASKED THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBIT THREE, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS FOUR A THROUGH 4K.
STAFF ASKED THE COMMISSION TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR THIS CASE.
FINDING OF FACT THE COMMISSION ISSUED ITS CURRENT ORDER, TRV 2 0 1 8 115 0 9 5 ON JUNE 27TH, 2018, FINDING A FACT THIS ORDER WAS NOT TIMELY APPEALED AND THE TIME PERIOD IN WHICH THE ORDER COULD HAVE BEEN APPEALED HAS LAPSED FINDING A FACT IN ITS CURRENT ORDER.
THE COMMISSION ASSESSED A CIVIL PENALTY OF $250 PER WEEK.
TO DATE, PENALTIES HAVE ACCRUED IN THE AMOUNT OF $86,035 71 CENTS AND CONTINUE TO ACCRUE.
AS OF TODAY'S DATE, THE PROPERTY REMAINS IN VIOLATION.
STAFF ASK THE COMMISSION TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS.
ONE ISSUE A NEW ORDER THAT WILL SUPERSEDE THE PRIOR REPAIR ORDER.
TRV 2 0 1 8 1 1 5 0 9 5 ISSUED ON JUNE 27TH, 2018 TO KEEP THE ACCRUED PENALTY OF $86,035 AND 71 CENTS IN PLACE FROM THE PRIOR REPAIR ORDER ISSUED.
[01:40:03]
INTEREST WILL NO LONGER CONTINUE TO ACCRUE.ORDER THE OWNER COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED.
A, OBTAIN AND FINALIZE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS.
B DEMOLISH ALL PORTIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND REMOVE HIS DEBRIS, LEAVING THE LOT CLEAN AND RAKED.
AND C REQUEST INSPECTIONS FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH THREE A AND THREE B FOUR ON THE 46TH DAY OF COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED.
A AUTHORIZE THE CODE OFFICIAL TO PROCEED WITH DEMOLITION AND TO CONSIDER ALL PORTIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, INCLUDING ANY ITEMS IN AND AROUND THE STRUCTURES AS DEBRIS AND DISPOSE OF AS SUCH.
AND B, THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE ON NOTICE THAT THE CODE OFFICIAL IS AUTHORIZED TO ASSESS ALL EXPENSES INCURRED AGAINST THE PROPERTY UNLESS EXEMPTED BY THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION.
A LIEN FOR THOSE EXPENSES MAY BE FILED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND RECORDED WITH THE TRAVIS COUNTY DEED RECORDS.
INTEREST SHALL ACCRUE AT A RATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL.
AND WITH THAT, THE CITY CONCLUDES ITS PRESENTATION.
INVESTIGATOR PRESLEY AT THIS TIME, UM, I WILL ADMIT EXHIBIT THREE AND FOUR A THROUGH 4K AND I BELIEVE THAT WE DO NOT HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, BUT I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE A PERSON WHO IS CALLING IN.
YOU SHOULD HAVE SEVERAL NEIGHBORS.
UM, IF, UH, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND, UH, OFFER A TESTIMONY, UH, YOU ARE WELCOME TO.
IF YOU WOULD NOT LIKE TO, YOU'LL ALSO WELCOME TO
UM, REAL QUICK BEFORE WE DO, UM, BEGIN, I THINK I MAY HAVE SEEN YOU WALK IN A LITTLE BIT AFTER I GAVE THE OATH.
UM, IF YOU DON'T MIND ME SWEARING YOU IN AT THIS TIME.
UM, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL PROVIDE THIS EVENING IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? IF SO, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING I DO.
YOU MAY, UM, AT THIS TIME BEGIN YOUR AFFIRMATIVE TESTIMONY.
UM, I MOVE TO TO 77 12 MANASSAS.
AT THAT TIME THAT BUILDING WAS ALREADY ON UN UNOCCUPIED AND FALLING INTO DISREPAIR.
AND NUMEROUS TIMES NEIGHBORS HAVE MADE ATTEMPTS TO COME IN AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS.
AND IT HAS NEVER, NOTHING HAS NEVER REALLY TAKEN EFFECT.
UM, PEOPLE HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT THE RATS IN THE AREA.
UH, BASICALLY YOU ALMOST HAVE TO WALK IN THE STREET BECAUSE THE TREES ARE SO UNTRIMMED.
UM, REALLY THE BEST THING THAT COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN TO THE PLACE IS FOR IT TO NOT BE THERE ANYMORE.
AND THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT.
SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.
UM, AT THIS TIME, I BELIEVE I WILL, SENIOR VICE CHAIR.
FOR THE RECORD, COULD WE PLEASE HAVE THE WITNESS IDENTIFY HIMSELF? YES, THAT IS A GOOD POINT.
WOULD YOU MIND IDENTIFYING YOURSELF? I'M SORRY.
MY NAME IS DAVID LOWKEY AND I LIVE AT 77 12 MANASSAS.
UM, WITH THAT, AT THIS TIME, I WOULD INVITE MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS THEY HAVE DURING THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING.
SORRY, I MIGHT'VE, I MIGHT'VE MISSED THIS.
THIS IS A QUESTION DIRECTED AT THE CODE OFFICERS AND STAFF.
UM, I MEAN, DO WE HAVE ANY WORD FROM THE OWNER? UH, OR, OR ARE WE KIND OF YELLING INTO THE VOID RIGHT NOW? I MEAN, HOW, HOW MUCH? I MEAN, I'M, I'M CURIOUS WHETHER WE'RE KIND OF GETTING CLOSE TO LIKE ABANDONED PROPERTY TERRITORY AND I JUST WANTED TO HEAR CODE WHETHER IS THERE AN OWNER, HAVE WE TALKED TO THEM? UM, UM, JUST WHAT'S THE SITUATION? COMMISSIONER TO MILANOVICH, WE HAVE MADE EVERY EFFORT TO TRY TO FIND THIS OWNER.
WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY CONTACT WITH HER, I DON'T BELIEVE, SINCE 2018.
SINCE, YEAH, SINCE THE TIME OF THE LAST BSC ORDER.
[01:45:01]
I DON'T THINK SHE WAS IN ATTENDANCE AT THE LAST MEETING.AND WE HAVE, SHE WAS, OH, SHE WAS IN ATTENDANCE AT THE LAST MEETING.
BUT WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY RECENT COMMUNICATION WITH HER AT ALL.
UM, WE'VE LOOKED THROUGH LEXINEXIS, WE'VE MADE ALL KINDS OF ATTEMPTS TO TRY TO FIND HER AND WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO.
UM, JUST A QUICK, JUST A QUICK NOTE ON THAT.
UM, SO SHE IS STILL ALIVE 'CAUSE THE TAXES ARE BEING PAID.
WE JUST CANNOT GET AHOLD OF HER.
AND I'VE TALKED TO NEIGHBORS ON EITHER SIDE.
I'VE NEVER HAD THE CHANCE TO MEET THIS NEIGHBOR.
BUT, UM, THE, IT'S ON BOTH SIDES.
THEY'RE HAVING TO MOW THE PROPERTY ON THE FRONT WHEN THE BANK DOESN'T DO IT, AND THEY'RE HAVING TO RE FENCE CONSTANTLY 'CAUSE PEOPLE KEEP BREAKING INTO THE FENCE AND BREAKING INTO THE HOUSE.
I'M SORRY, DID I HEAR YOU SAY THAT THE TAXES ARE BEING PAID.
THE TAXES ARE PAID, AND WE HAVE HAD COMMUNICATION WITH SOMEONE FOR THE LENDER WHO IS MAINTAINING THE PROPERTY TO SOME DEGREE.
THANK YOU FOR THAT INFORMATION.
IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AT THIS TIME? HEARING NONE, I WOULD WELCOME A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING.
SO MOVE THAT IS A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER FRANCIS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? THAT'S A SECOND.
HEARING SIX AYES AND NO NAYS, THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THIS HEARING IS CLOSED.
YOU ARE WELCOME TO STAY UP WHILE WE DISCUSS THIS.
UM, AT THIS TIME, I WOULD OPEN IT UP TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO MAKE A MOTION.
I, I MOVED TO ADOPT STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER IN ITS ENTIRETY.
I WILL GIVE THAT TO COMMISSIONER MUSGROVE.
UM, SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER MUSGROVE.
UM, AT THIS TIME, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION FROM COMMISSIONERS? HEARING NONE.
I WILL MOVE INTO A ROLL CALL VOTE.
HEARING SIX AYES AND NO NAYS, THE MOTION PASSES AND THE ORDER WILL BE MAILED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.
UM, AND, UH, THAT CONCLUDES THIS AGENDA ITEM AND WE
[8. Case Number: CV 2020-117536]
WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.SO WE'RE AT ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT ON THE AGENDA IS AN APPEAL REGARDING A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1500 EAST 12TH STREET.
THE CASE NUMBER IS CV 20 2107 536.
THE CASE CAN BE FOUND IN THE BLUE BOOKS IN YOUR READERS OR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.
THIS APPEAL BEGAN AS A COMPLAINT ABOUT WORK WITHOUT PERMIT AT THE PROPERTY.
UPON INSPECTION STRUCTURE, CONDITION, STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS WERE VIOLATIONS WERE FOUND, WHICH LED TO THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
THE OWNER FILED AN APPEAL OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
SUBSEQUENT SUBSEQUENTLY, AN AMENDED NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS ISSUED, AND AS A RESULT, THE ORIGINAL APPEAL WAS WITHDRAWN AND AN AMENDED APPEAL LETTER WAS SUBMITTED.
WE ARE HERE TONIGHT TO ADDRESS THE AMENDED APPEAL OF THE AMENDED NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
HERE ARE SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE.
THE INITIAL COMPLAINT DATE IS AUGUST 3RD, 2020.
THE AMENDED NOTICE OF VIOLATION INCLUDED EIGHT STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS, WHICH TO DATE HAVE NOT BEEN CLEARED IN THE READERS OR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.
YOU'LL FIND STAFF EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO.
EXHIBIT ONE CONTAINS THE PROPERTY OWNER'S AMENDED APPEAL LETTER DATED MARCH 24TH, 2025, THE COMPLAINING CASE HISTORY, A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD, AFFIRMING OWNERSHIP MAPS OF THE PROPERTY, THE AMENDED NOTICE OF VIOLATION DATED MARCH 13TH, 2025, NOTICES FOR TONIGHT'S HEARING, PROOFS OF MAILING AND POSTINGS.
AND EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO F AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
RECOMMENDATION INVESTIGATOR WILLIS ADAMS IS HERE TO PRESENT THE CITY'S
[01:50:01]
CASE AND WILL TESTIFY TO THE SPECIFICS PRIOR TO THE AMENDED APPEAL.INVESTIGATOR ADAMS, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.
MY NAME IS WILLIS ADAMS. I'M A COLD INVESTIGATOR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
THE PROPERTY BEING PRESENTED IS LOCATED AT 1500 EAST 12TH STREET.
IT'S A COMMERCIALLY MIXED USE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CURRENT OWNER SINCE 2016.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT A BUSY, BUSY INTERSECTION ALONG A BUSY THOROUGHFARE WITH A, WITH A MIDDLE SCHOOL LESS THAN A MILE AWAY.
AND THAT'S KEELING MIDDLE SCHOOL.
ON DECEMBER 13TH, 2024, OUR DEPARTMENT RECEIVED A COMPLAINT REGARDING THE PROPERTY AT 1500 EAST 12TH STREET.
THE COMPLAINT INDICATED THERE WERE OPEN DOORS ON THE STRUCTURE.
I DISPATCHED MYSELF TO THAT PROPERTY ARRIVED AROUND 10 30 THAT MORNING.
THIS WAS FRIDAY THE 13TH, BY THE WAY.
I OBSERVED THAT THE DOOR ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE, WHICH IS KAMAL STREET SIDE, WAS OPEN.
I WALKED AROUND TO THE FRONT OF THE STRUCTURE, THE TWO DOORS ON THE FRONT, THEY WERE CLOSED, BUT ONE OF THE DOORS WAS UNLOCKED.
I WENT BACK TO MY VEHICLE, CONTACTED OUR DISPATCH, AND ASKED THEM TO CONTACT A PD TO SEND AN OFFICER OUT FOR A POSSIBLE BREAKING AND ENTERING.
ABOUT 15 TO 20 MINUTES LATER, AN OFFICER CITY OF AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT APPEARED AT THE LOCATION.
THE OFFICER WENT TO THE DOORWAY, IDENTIFY HIMSELF AS AN OFFICER, CITY OF AUSTIN, AND ASKED IF ANYBODY WAS INSIDE.
HE WAITED AND HE, HE PROCEEDED INSIDE.
I REMAINED OUTSIDE THE STRUCTURE.
MAYBE 10 MINUTES LATER HE REAPPEARED IN THE DOORWAY AND CAME OUT AND SAID THAT HE DID NOT SEE ANYONE INSIDE.
MENTIONED SOME ISSUES INSIDE THE STRUCTURE, BUT DID NOT SEE ANYONE.
ABOUT FIVE MINUTES LATER, I GOT BACK IN MY TRUCK.
I CONTACTED ONE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE OWNERSHIP.
HIS NAME WAS WILL, I THINK IT'S WILL CAMPOS.
AND I EXPLAINED THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE PROPERTY WAS OPEN.
THERE WAS A DOOR OPEN ON THE WEST SIDE.
THERE WAS A DOOR THAT WAS UNLOCKED ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
AND THEY, THE PROPERTY NEEDED TO BE SECURED.
HE INDICATED HE WOULD SEND SOMEBODY OUT TO TAKE CARE OF THE PROPERTY.
I WAITED, UH, MAYBE, I'M NOT SURE.
SOMEWHERE AROUND 11 A REPRESENTATIVE ARRIVED.
UM, HE WENT TO THE REAR GATE OF THE PARKING LOT AREA, OR THE COMMON AREA UNLOCKED THE GATE.
I, WE SPOKE, WE, UH, IDENTIFIED MYSELF.
HE IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AND ASKED HIM COULD I GO INSIDE THE COMMON AREA, THE FENCED AREA.
HE WALKED OVER TO THE STRUCTURE AND SAW THAT THE REAR DOOR HAD BEEN PULLED OFF.
AT THAT POINT, I KNOW THIS TRASH, DEBRIS ON THE PROPERTY.
I KNOW THERE'S TWO LARGE DUMPSTERS, UH, A WHOLE PILE OF TIRES AND BRUSH.
HE CAME BACK OVER TO ME AND SAID THAT HE WOULD BORE UP THE STRUCTURE AND HE WOULD TAKE CARE OF IT.
AT THAT POINT, I LEFT THE PROPERTY A SHORT TIME LATER, UM, I WENT AND DID SOME OTHER INSPECTIONS, WENT BACK TO THE OFFICE AND SENT OUT A NOTICE OF VIOLATION FOR THAT PROPERTY.
AFTER REVIEW OF THAT FIRST NOTICE THAT THE NEXT, WE AMENDED THAT NOTICE, AND IT WAS SENT OUT ON MARCH 13TH, 2025.
THE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ABOUT TO SHOW OF THE PROPERTY.
I IDENTIFIED THE DEFICIENCY OBSERVED ON THE TH ON THE 13TH OF DECEMBER.
UH, EXHIBIT TWO A AND IN THIS EXHIBIT YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THERE ARE TWO, UH, PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PHOTOGRAPH.
ON THE LEFT IS THE, THE DATE OF INSPECTION ON 12 13 20 24.
THE COMPLAINT CALLED IN FOR THE OPEN DOORWAY.
[01:55:01]
THE PHOTOS, THE PHOTO ON THE RIGHT SIDE WILL BE THE PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN ON 3 11 20 25.THAT WAS THE FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION DONE BY, UM, BY MYSELF ON THAT DATE.
UH, THIS IS A CONTEXTUAL PICTURE.
IT'S SHOWING JUST THE, I GUESS THE, THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE ON THAT SIDE.
YOU'LL SEE THAT ALL THE WINDOWS ARE BOARDED UP ON BOTH PHOTOGRAPHS.
THERE IS A, UM, STAIRWELL LEADING UP TO THE SECOND FLOOR.
UH, THIS STAIRWELL WAS, UH, WAS RECONSTRUCTED IN 2022.
NO PERMITS WERE OBTAINED FOR DOING THAT STRUCTURE, FOR DOING THAT STAIRWELL.
UH, IT'S NEXT EXHIBIT, PLEASE.
ON THE TWO B SLIDE, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE, THE DOORWAY THERE ON THE, THERE'S TWO DOORS.
THE DOOR IN THE MIDDLE IS A DOOR THAT WAS OPEN ON, UH, DECEMBER 13TH, 2024.
AND THIS IS A PICTURE ON THE THREE 11 SHOWING IT'S STEEL BOARDED.
THIS IS THE REAR PROPERTY, THE COMMON AREA, THE PARKING LOT AREA.
I GUESS, UH, YOU'LL SEE THERE ON 1213.
THERE'S A LARGE PILE OF TIRES ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE EAST SIDE FENCE.
THERE'S BRUSH AND, AND ON THE, UH, ALSO BY THE TIRES, YOU'LL SEE TRASH AND DEBRIS ALSO IN THE LOT.
AND ON, UH, 3 11 20 25, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE IS STILL SOME BRUSH.
IT LOOKS LIKE A MATTRESS ON THE, ON THE EAST SIDE, ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
THE NEXT SLIDE IS, AGAIN, THIS IS FROM THE ALLEYWAY BEHIND THE PROPERTY.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE BRUSH, THE DUMPSTERS, A PILE OF TRASH OVER ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
AGAIN, THERE'S BRUSH BY THE DUMPSTER, SOME TRASH AS WELL.
UH, ACTUALLY THIS, I KIND OF EXTENDED MY CAMERA ON THIS, SHOWING THAT AN HVAC SYSTEM ON THE SECOND LEVEL HAS BASICALLY JUST FALLEN APART.
YOU ALSO NOTICE THAT, UH, THERE'S SOME ISSUES WITH THE SIDING AS WELL.
THERE'S ALSO, UM, ISSUES WITH THE WINDOW FRAMING AS ONE.
THE FACT THERE'S A PIECE OF IT LAYING ON TOP OF THE ROOFTOP ON BOTH PHOTOGRAPHS.
THIS IS THE FRONT SIDE CONTEXTUAL SIDE.
THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY ON EAST 12TH STREET, UH, YOU'LL SEE THAT ALL THE WINDOWS AND DOORS ARE BOARDED.
THE DOORWAY ON THE, WHERE THE SMALL STEPS ON THE RIGHT SIDE, THAT'S WHERE THE ADDRESS HAS BEEN.
UH, THERE'S ONLY TWO NUMBERS THERE RIGHT NOW.
SO IT DOESN'T IDENTIFY THE PROPERTY AT ALL.
UH, YOU CAN SEE, UH, ALSO THAT THERE IS A, UM, WELL, YOU CAN'T SEE THAT, BUT THERE, THERE'S, UM, THAT'S BETTER.
THERE'S A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF GRAFFITI.
UH, THERE'S A HOLE IT LOOKS LIKE ON THE LEFT SIDE BY THE, NEAR THE GARBAGE CAN IN THE FOUNDATION WALL.
AND SOME OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS, THE IDENTIFICATION OR THE DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE VIOLATIONS OF THE IPMC.
OBTAINING PERMIT FOR THE STAIRWELL.
THE ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION, 3 0 4 13 0.1 WINDOW AND DOOR FRAMES, AND 3 0 4 0.12 HANDRAILS AND GUARDRAILS FOR THE STAIRWELL ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, AS WELL AS 3 0 8 0.1.
ACCUMULATION OF TRASH AND GARBAGE AND DEBRIS.
AND I'M I'LL ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
UM, STAFF ASKS THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO A THROUGH TWO F, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AS WELL, AS WELL AS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
RECOMMENDATION STAFF ALSO REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR THIS CASE, AND DENY THE AMENDED APPEAL, THEREBY UPHOLDING THE DEFICIENCIES WITHIN THE AMENDED NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY, INVESTIGATOR ADAMS. UM, BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE PROPERTY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE, I DO JUST WANT TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION FROM CITY STAFF AND THE, AND, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE I HAVE HERE IN OUR GOOGLE DRIVES
[02:00:01]
A, UM, FOLDER LABELED APPELLANT EXHIBITS FOR 1416 EAST 12TH STREET.IT'S LABELED THE SAME COLOR AS THE CURRENT AGENDA ITEM, BUT IT DOESN'T CONTAIN ANY INFORMATION ASIDE FROM THE TYPICAL LIKE PLACARD.
UM, I WAS WONDERING, WERE PROPERTY OWNERS EXHIBITS, UM, SENT AND WAS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE PART OF TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION? YES.
SO YES, THESE APPELLANT EXHIBITS ARE PART OF YOUR BACKUP.
AND THEN THEY ALSO HAVE A PRESENTATION WHICH IS FURTHER DOWN.
IT'S CALLED BSC MEETING OF APRIL 20.
IT DOES A DIFFERENT, IT LOOKS LIKE A PICTURE OF BUILDING ON IT, BUT THAT WAS THEIR PRESENTATION.
THAT THEY WANT TO HAVE SHOWN ON SCREEN.
AND I BELIEVE THE EXHIBITS ARE JUST IN THE BACKUP.
THEY WERE NOT GONNA PUT THOSE UP ON THE SCREEN.
THEY JUST WANTED THOSE IN THE BACKUP.
AND THOSE WOULD NEED TO BE ADMITTED.
AND I'M NOT SURE IF THEY WANT THE PRESENTATION ADMITTED OR NOT.
SO WE DO WANT THE PRESENTATION ADMITTED.
UM, AND WE WANTED OUR EXHIBITS ADMITTED.
BUT IN LOOKING AT THE, THE BLUE SLIDE THAT SAYS 1416, THERE'S NOTHING BEHIND IT.
YES, THAT, THAT WAS WHAT I WAS THINKING.
I DO SEE THE SLIDE SHOW PRESENTATION, BUT UM, WE ON OUR END ALSO, UM, DO NOT SEE ANYTHING IN THE, UH, WE CAN UPLOAD THEM.
UM, I WILL START THEN BY ADMITTING, UM, CITY'S EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO A THROUGH, UH, TWO F WE HAVE ACCESS, UM, EXHIBIT, UH, ADMITTING THOSE EXHIBITS AND ALSO ADMIT THE PROPERTY OWNERS' POWERPOINT, WHICH, WHICH I DO JUST WANNA CONFIRM THAT MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS CAN SEE WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT WE'RE ALL ABLE TO ACCESS THAT POWERPOINT.
UM, IT'S THE ONE THAT'S LABELED LIKE THIS.
APOLOGIZE, I LOCKED OFF MY PLACARD.
UM,
UM, SO IF WE COULD MAYBE TAKE A BRIEF RECESS.
IN THAT CASE, I WILL CALL THIS MEETING OF VOTING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION TO A RECESS.
WE, LET'S SAY A SEVEN MINUTE RECESS TO EIGHT TO NINE O'CLOCK.
SEEING THAT WE HAVE A QUORUM, I CALL THIS MEETING TO RECONVENE AT 9:00 PM UM, COULD I GET AN UPDATE ON WHETHER THE PROPERTY OWNERS EXHIBITS HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, MR. KLES? YES.
WE ARE, UH, PRINTING THEM RIGHT NOW AND WE WILL CIRCULATE THEM AND WE WILL LABEL THEM ONCE YOU ADMIT THEM.
[02:06:33]
THANK YOU.UH, IF I COULD GET AN UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THOSE EXHIBITS, THAT WOULD BE APPRECIATED.
WE HAVE A SET OF EXHIBITS SO WE CAN PASS AROUND AND, UM, THEN WE'LL UPDATE.
WE'LL JAMES, WE PROBABLY SHOULD UPLOAD THEM.
WE'RE GONNA ANNOUNCE THEM INTO THE RECORD AND WE'LL PASS THEM AROUND.
WHAT ABOUT FOR THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON SCREEN, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO UPLOAD THEM INTO THE GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.
SO, UM, WE MAY NEED TO MAKE ANOTHER CO COPY OF THE REMAINING EXHIBITS.
IT'S ALL, IT'S ALL ELECTRONIC.
ALL YOU GOTTA DO IS JUST PUT IT INTO THE
THEY WON'T BE IN THE RIGHT ORDER BECAUSE SHE RENUMBERED SOME.
IF WE NEED TO GO INTO ANOTHER RECESS, WE CAN, UM, SONIA YEAH, I, I RECOMMEND DOING SO.
THIS WAY WE'RE NOT ON THE RECORD WITHOUT TAKING ANY ANSWER OR DOING ANYTHING.
UM, DOES, UH, 10 MINUTE RECESS SOUND REASONABLE? LESS.
I CALL THE, UH, MEETING OF THE VOTING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION BACK TO ORDER AGAIN.
THAT TIME IS NINE 15 FOR THE RECORD.
UM, I BELIEVE WE HAVE THE PROPERTY OWNER'S EXHIBIT NOW ADDED TO THE GOOGLE DRIVE AND THOSE WILL BE DETAILED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.
I THINK YOU MAY, I THINK YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THE CITY ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME, AND IF YOU HAVE NONE, THEN YOU'RE FREE TO BEGIN YOUR AFFIRMATIVE PORTION OF YOUR PRESENTATION.
I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF CITY STAFF RIGHT NOW.
UM, MY NAME IS BLAIR PENA AND I REPRESENT THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY.
UM, JUST FOR THE RECORD TO GET THE EXHIBITS TAKEN CARE OF, UM, WE'RE GONNA BE SEEKING TO ADMIT EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH IS THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF VIOLATION DATED DECEMBER 16, EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH IS THE AMENDED NOTICE OF VIOLATION THAT WAS SENT TO MY OFFICE AS THE ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR THIS PROPERTY OWNER.
[02:10:01]
THE AMENDED NOTICE OF VIOLATION THAT WAS SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.EXHIBIT THREE IS THE CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT, UH, WHERE THE PROPERTY OWNER CHANGED ITS NAME.
EXHIBIT FOUR IS THE LAWSUIT THAT WE FILED AGAINST THE CITY OF AUSTIN RELATED TO THE HISTORICAL ZONING DESIGNATION THAT WAS FORCED UPON THIS PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT FIVE IS THE ORDER FROM THE MUNICIPAL COURT MATTER RELATED TO THE LACK OF A BUILDING PERMIT ON THIS PROPERTY.
AND EXHIBIT EIGHT IS PORTIONS OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 12TH.
IF WE'LL GO AHEAD AND FLIP TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THE NUMBERS IN THE GOOGLE DRIVE ARE GOING TO BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THE NUMBERS I JUST READ OUT, WHICH IS WHY I WENT AHEAD AND IDENTIFIED THEM, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
I DID EMAIL MY EXHIBITS IN ADVANCE, BUT I THINK WE JUST HAD SOME TECHNICAL ISSUES THERE.
SO WE ARE ASKING THE COMMISSION TO SET ASIDE OR RESEND THE VIOLATIONS RELATED TO THIS PROPERTY FOR THREE MAIN REASONS.
FIRST, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS QUOTED PROVISIONS OF THE CODE THAT THE OWNER IS ALLEGED TO HAVE VIOLATED DO NOT APPLY.
SECOND, ONE WAY TO CURE THESE VIOLATIONS WOULD BE TO DEMOLISH THIS BUILDING.
AND THIS OWNER ACTUALLY STARTED THIS PROCESS BY TRYING TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING.
HOWEVER, THE BUILDING AGAINST THE OWNER'S WISHES WAS DESIGNATED HISTORIC.
AND SO NOW THE OWNER CANNOT REMEDY THESE VIOLATIONS BY DEMOING THE BUILDING.
THIRD, WHEN IT COMES TO THE FAILURE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT, UM, THE OWNER EITHER PREVIOUSLY PAID A FINE IN MUNICIPAL COURT OR THAT MATTER HAS BEEN REFERRED TO MUNICIPAL COURT, WHICH IS REFERRED TO IN THE ORDER THAT I PROVIDED AS ONE OF THE EXHIBITS.
UM, IF WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
I WANNA GIVE Y'ALL JUST A BRIEF TIMELINE HERE.
THE OWNER ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY IN 2015 AND AT THAT TIME IT WAS NOT DESIGNATED HISTORIC IN 2018, THE OWNER CHANGED ITS NAME.
AND SO AS PART OF OUR REQUEST, I WOULD ASK THAT, UH, ANY ORDERS THAT GET ENTERED, UH, REFLECT THE CORRECT NAME, WHICH IS 1500 DASH 1501 OH, SORRY, LET ME, 2018 SPACE 1500 DASH 1501 EAST AUSTIN LP.
NOW IN FEBRUARY OF 24, THE OWNER HAD AN INSPECTION OF THIS BUILDING PERFORMED AND LEARNED THAT IT HAD ASBESTOS.
THE ENGINEER ADVISED THAT ANYTHING OTHER THAN DEMOLITION WOULD BE A SAFETY HAZARD TO THE COMMUNITY.
SO A FEW MONTHS LATER, THE OWNER APPLIED TO DEMOLISH THIS BUILDING AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF $30,000.
A SIDE NOTE, THE PRIOR OWNER HAD PREVIOUSLY APPLIED FOR A DEMOLITION PERMIT AND IT WAS GRANTED, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, BUT FOR WHATEVER REASON, IT WASN'T DEMOLISHED BEFORE MY CLIENT PURCHASED IT.
SHORTLY AFTER MY CLIENT SOUGHT TO DEMOLISH THIS BUILDING, THE CITY REFERRED THE PROPERTY OVER TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE.
BY JULY 3RD, THE CITY HAD APPLIED FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION WITHOUT THE OWNER CONSENT AND AGAINST THE OWNER WISHES.
IF WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
ON DECEMBER 12TH, 2024, THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERED THE, THE REQUEST TO DESIGNATE THE PROPERTY HISTORIC.
I ATTENDED THIS MEETING AND THE VOTE TOOK PLACE AROUND 6:00 PM ON THAT NIGHT.
AND AT THE END OF THE NIGHT, THERE WAS AN ORDINANCE PASSED THAT OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED THE PROPERTY HISTORIC.
HOWEVER, IT SAID THAT THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION DIDN'T TAKE EFFECT UNTIL DECEMBER 23RD, 2024.
THE VERY NEXT DAY AT 10:00 AM APPROXIMATELY, UH, INSPECTOR ADAMS VISITS THE PROPERTY, UM, TO INSPECT IT.
AND WE BELIEVE HE WAS THERE BECAUSE IT WAS DESIGNATED HISTORIC AND WE WERE NO LONGER ABLE TO DEMOLISH IT.
ALL OF THESE NOTICES OF VIOLATION RELATE TO THIS HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND A REQUIREMENT TO REPAIR THE BUILDING UP TO ITS ORIGINAL, I GUESS, STRUCTURE BACK FROM A HUNDRED YEARS AGO.
UM, DURING THIS VISIT, WHICH WAS CONDUCTED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE, UM, MR. ADAMS NOTED ALL OF THESE VIOLATIONS.
NOW, A A FEW DAYS LATER ON DECEMBER 16 IS WHEN WE GOT THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
AND AGAIN, WE GOT THAT NOTICE OF VIOLATION BEFORE THE ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THIS BUILDING.
UH, IF YOU CAN LOOK AT THE NEXT SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE THAT SEVERAL
[02:15:01]
OF THE ITEMS FROM THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF VIOLATION INCLUDED VIOLATIONS RELATED TO THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING.NOW, THE INTERIOR OF THE BU, THE THE BUILDING IS BOARDED UP AS BEST AS IT CAN BE.
THERE ARE BREAK-INS AND THE OWNER DOES WHAT IT CAN TO TRY TO SECURE THE PROPERTY.
SO WE WERE CONCERNED WITH HOW INTERIOR VIOLATIONS WERE NOTED AND WE'VE RA WE RAISED THOSE CONCERNS FOR INTERIOR VIOLATIONS.
UM, AS PART OF OUR ORIGINAL APPEAL.
IF WE COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
OUR CONCERN WITH THE PHOTOS WITH THE INTERIOR VIOLATIONS, UH, REALLY COMES INTO THREE DIFFERENT PORTIONS HERE.
ONE IS THE LANDLORD OR THE OWNER.
THEY HAVE A RIGHT NOT TO CONSENT TO ENTRY.
AND IN SPEAKING WITH MY CLIENTS, THEY DIDN'T CONSENT TO HAVE OFFICER ADAMS ENTER THE BUILDING TO TAKE ANY PHOTOS OF THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING.
NOW, WE DID SUBMIT A PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST AND WE WERE PROVIDED WITH PHOTOS OF THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED.
BUT THIS IS A RUNDOWN STRUCTURE THAT NEEDS TO BE DEMOLISHED.
ADDITIONALLY, IF THERE OWNER CONSENT, OFFICER ADAMS SHOULD HAVE OBTAINED A WARRANT.
AND OF COURSE WE KNOW THERE WAS NO WARRANT ISSUED.
LASTLY, WE ASKED FOR THE A PD OFFICER'S BODY CAM TO SEE WHAT TOOK PLACE DURING THIS INSPECTION.
AND CONTRARY TO WHAT INSPECTOR ADAMS SAYS TODAY, THE OFFICER, ACCORDING TO THE VIDEO CAM DID NOT ENTER THE PROPERTY AT ALL.
IN FACT, HE'S HEARD ON THE VIDEO STATING, WELL, I'M NOT GOING IN THERE BECAUSE THAT'LL BE A TRESPASS.
ON JANUARY 3RD IS WHEN WE FILED OUR ORIGINAL APPEAL RELATED TO THE NOTICE OF THE VIOLATION.
AND ON MARCH 13TH IS WHEN WE GOT THE AMENDED NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
NOW I WILL TELL YOU WE'VE INCLUDED THE AMENDED NOTICE IN VIOLATION AS EXHIBITS TWO AND TWO A AND WE'VE GOT THOSE TWO COPIES IN THERE.
ONE SENT TO MY OFFICE AND ONE SENT TO THE OWNER BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT THE SAME.
I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHY THERE WERE DIFFERENT NOTICES SENT OUT, BUT THEY ARE DIFFERENT NOTICES.
I WILL TELL YOU THOUGH, THAT ALL OF THE NOTICES OF VIOLATION ARE BASED ON OBSERVATIONS THAT WERE TAKEN ON DECEMBER 13TH, AGAIN WHEN THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION HAD NOT TAKEN EFFECT YET.
AFTER WE RECEIVED A COPY OF THE AMENDED NOTICE OF VIOLATION, WE WITHDREW OUR ORIGINAL APPEAL AND THEN WE APPEALED THE AMENDED NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
ADDITIONALLY, ON MARCH 28, WE FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY OF AUSTIN CONTESTING THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
ON APRIL 9TH, THERE IS A PENDING MUNICIPAL CASE OR THERE WAS A PENDING MUNICIPAL CASE RELATED TO THE OWNER'S FAILURE TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT.
AND ON APRIL 9TH, THAT CASE WAS SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING CIVIL SUIT THAT WAS PENDING.
SO, REASONS TO SET ASIDE THE QUOTED SECTIONS OF THE CITY CODE THAT WE ALLEGEDLY VIOLATED DO NOT APPLY.
I'VE LISTED THOSE SECTIONS ON MY PRESENTATION AND THOSE ALL RELATE TO OCCUPIED BUILDINGS.
AGAIN, THIS IS A VACANT STRUCTURE.
NOBODY IS MEANT TO BE INSIDE OF THIS BUILDING AND EVEN A PD REFUSED TO GO INSIDE.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, INSPECTOR.
NOW I WILL ALSO TELL YOU WE DIDN'T APPEAL ALL OF THE NOTICES OF VIOLATION.
THERE WERE TWO THAT WE DIDN'T APPEAL 'CAUSE WE THOUGHT THEY WERE REASONABLE AND WE COULD COMPLY WITH THEM.
AND ONE OF THOSE VIOLATIONS WAS OF 3 0 4 0.3 REQUIRING AN ADDRESS.
AND YOU CAN SEE WE WENT AND WE PUT UP THE ADDRESS FOR THE BUILDING.
THE OTHER VIOLATION THAT WE DID NOT CONTEST HAS TO DO WITH THE ACCUMULATION OF RUBBISH AND GARBAGE OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
THIS IS A PHOTO THAT WE TOOK YESTERDAY TO CONFIRM THAT THE VIOLATION WE DIDN'T APPEAL HAS BEEN CURED.
SO, ON THE OTHER ONE ABOUT OBTAINING A PERMIT, AGAIN, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS ALREADY, I, I THINK IT MIGHT BE A, A PROBLEM OF DOUBLE TO JEOPARDY HERE.
BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE VIOLATION, THAT'S NOTED, THAT'S THE FIRST BOX ON THIS SLIDE.
IT SAYS, OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE STAIRWELL CONSTRUCTED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.
NOW WE HAVE INSPECTION NOTES FROM INSPECTOR ADAMS, UM, THAT ARE DATED JANUARY OF 2024, WHERE INSPECTOR ADAMS STATES THAT THE OWNERS PAID THE CITATION PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN
[02:20:01]
PERMITS FOR THE STAIRWELL RECONSTRUCTED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.SO I'M NOT SURE HOW WE CAN CONTINUE TO HAVE THE SAME, SAME VIOLATION WHEN IT'S, IT'S CURRENTLY PENDING IN MUNICIPAL COURT AND IT THERE WERE FINES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY PAID.
IF WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
AND I DON'T WANT TO FORGET THAT WE HAVE THIS LAWSUIT.
UM, THE OWNER CANNOT CURE THESE VIOLATIONS BY DEMOLITION, UM, WHICH IS THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE SOLUTION.
WHEN THE CITY DESIGNATED THIS PROPERTY AGAINST THE OWNER'S WISHES, THE CITY HAD DOCUMENTATION THAT SUGGESTED THE COST TO REMEDY THIS, THESE VIOLATIONS.
THE COST TO BRING THE PROPERTY BACK TO ITS HISTORICAL LOOK IS OVER $5 MILLION.
IT'S UNFAIR TO REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDER WHEN IN 30 DAYS AT THAT, WHEN EITHER THE, THE CITED RULES DON'T APPLY OR THE INSPECTION DATES WERE PERFORMED WHEN THE ORDINANCE WASN'T READY.
AND THE ONLY REASON WHY THESE VIOLATIONS EXIST IS BECAUSE THE BUILDING HAS BEEN DESIGNATED HISTORIC AND WE ARE CURRENTLY PROTESTING THAT.
SO ONE OF THE VIOLATIONS REQUIRES US TO OBTAIN ALL BUILDING PERMITS AND TRADE PERMITS FOR RESTORATION OF A HISTORICAL BUILDING.
AND WE NEED TO DO THAT WITHIN 30 DAYS, WHICH IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE.
IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE AS OUR ALTERNATIVE RELIEF, IF YOU ALL ARE UNWILLING TO RESCIND OR OVERTURN THESE VIOLATIONS, WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU EXTEND THE COMPLIANCE DEADLINE FROM 30 DAYS TO THREE YEARS.
IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A PERMIT TO RESTORE A HISTORICAL BUILDING, BUILDING PLANS HAVE TO BE COMPLETED.
THIS IS A PICTURE I GRABBED OFF OF GOOGLE EARTH AND YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS PHOTO THAT THE PROPERTY HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
THESE ELECTRICAL LINES LOOK LIKE THEY ARE INCHES AWAY FROM THE ROOF.
THE TELEPHONE POLE IS WITHIN A FOOT, A FOOT AND A HALF OF THE SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE, AND THE TRAFFIC LIGHT EXTENDS ALMOST ALL THE WAY TO THE WALLS OF THIS BUILDING.
SO THESE ARE ALL ISSUES THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED BEFORE WE CAN GET ANY KIND OF BUILDING PERMIT.
IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
ONCE WE GET THE PLANS, THEN WE CAN APPLY FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT.
OH, AND I DO WANNA MENTION THAT FOR HISTORICAL RENOVATION, YOU CAN'T JUST HIRE ANY CONTRACTOR.
THESE ARE SPECIALTY CONTRACTORS.
AND THE OTHER THING IS, IS TRYING TO FIND BUILDING PLANS FOR A BUILDING THAT'S A HUNDRED YEARS OLD WHEN THE CITY'S RECORDS ARE NOT THAT GREAT, BACK A HUNDRED YEARS AGO IS GONNA MAKE THIS PROCESS OF TRYING TO REHABILITATE THE PROJECT AND OBTAIN THE PERMIT THAT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT.
BUT ONCE WE APPLY FOR THE CITY PERMIT, THEN IT GOES TO THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION WHERE WE HAVE TO APPLY FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
AND AGAIN, THAT IS WHERE THEY GO THROUGH AND THEY DETERMINE WHETHER THE FIXES THAT WE ARE PROPOSING ARE SUFFICIENT TO COMPLY WITH WHAT THEY BELIEVE A BUILDING LOOKED LIKE A HUNDRED YEARS AGO.
AND IT'S ANOTHER BACK AND FORTH PROCESS THE SAME WAY THE CITY PERMITTING PROCESS IS.
IF WE CAN PASS THAT STAGE, THEN THE ULTIMATE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HAS TO BE, UH, VOTED ON BY THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION WHO ONLY MEETS ONCE A MONTH, MUCH LIKE THIS COMMISSION HERE.
SO FOR THESE REASONS, IF THIS COMMISSION IS INCLINED TO LEAVE THESE VIOLATIONS IN PLACE, WHICH WE DON'T BELIEVE IS THE BEST REMEDY, IT'S GONNA TAKE AT LEAST THREE YEARS TO GET THIS PROPERTY IN A CONDITION TO WHERE WE CAN GET A BUILDING PERMIT BECAUSE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THE BUILDING AND JUST THE ATTEMPTING TO GET RECORDS AND ALL OF THE PROCESSES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE PERMIT.
I WILL SAY THAT I KNOW WE JUST RECENTLY FILED OUR LAWSUIT, BUT IF OUR LAWSUIT IS SUCCESSFUL, THEN WE WON'T HAVE TO SPEND $5 MILLION TO REPAIR THE BUILDING AT ALL.
IF OUR LAWSUIT IS SUCCESSFUL, WE CAN ADDRESS ALL OF THESE VIOLATIONS BY DEMO DEMOLISHING THE BUILDING THE WAY WE ALWAYS WANTED TO DO.
AT THIS TIME, I WILL PASS IT TO CITY STAFF TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS.
AT THIS TIME, I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION, COMMISSIONER, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE REFERENCE TO SOME OF THE ERRORS IN, IN THE, UH, OWNER'S, UH, REPRESENTATIVE'S TESTIMONY.
UH, THE REASON I WAS THERE ON DECEMBER 13TH, 2024, AND I HAVE THE CASE NUMBER, IT'S CODE CASE 20 24 1 6 2 8 2 6.
[02:25:05]
THAT WAS CALLED INTO THE CITY OF AUSTIN.AND THAT'S WHY I WAS DISPATCHED TO THAT PROPERTY.
I HAVE THE COMPLAINANT'S NAME.
WE DON'T DISCLOSE THAT INFORMATION IN PUBLIC, BUT THAT WAS THE COM REASON I WAS THERE THAT DAY.
IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER THAT PROPERTY IS HISTORICAL OR NOT.
THE OTHER THING THAT, UH, THE REPRESENTATIVE OR THE OWNER JUST STATE OR STATED EARLIER WAS THAT, THAT I WENT, SOMEHOW WENT INSIDE THE PROPERTY.
I SWORE AN OATH WHEN I CAME IN HERE TODAY.
I HAVE NEVER BEEN IN THAT PROPERTY.
IN FACT, I'VE LIVED IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
I LIVED IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 25 YEARS.
I KNOW A LOT ABOUT THAT PROPERTY, BUT I'VE NEVER BEEN INSIDE.
THE OTHER THING WAS THE OFFICER THAT SHOWED UP THAT DAY, THE CONVERSATION ON HIS CAM WAS RIGHT, WAS OUTSIDE THE STRUCTURE.
HE TURNED HIS CAM OFF AND WENT INSIDE THE STRUCTURE.
I OBSERVED HIM GO INSIDE AND IF HE WAS HERE TO TESTIFY, HE'D TELL YOU THAT HE WENT INSIDE THAT STRUCTURE.
I'LL DEFER ANYTHING ELSE TO OUR STAFF.
UM, I WILL AT THIS TIME JUST FOR THE RECORD IN CASE IT GOT MIXED UP.
AT THIS POINT, I WILL ADMIT CITY'S EXHIBITS ONE A AND TWO A THROUGH TWO F AND UM, SORRY, INVESTIGATOR ADAMS, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING MORE? I HAVE ONE OTHER THING THAT WE'RE HERE TODAY FOR THE NOV THAT WAS MAILED OUT ON MARCH 13TH, 2025.
ANYTHING PRIOR TO THAT? THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR.
UM, LIKE I WAS SAYING, I AM ADMITTING EXHIBITS FROM CITY STAFF, EXHIBITS ONE A AND ONE AND TWO A THROUGH TWO F AND WILL ALSO BE ADMITTING THE PROPERTY OWNER'S EXHIBITS ONE, TWO AND TWO A AND THREE THROUGH FIVE.
I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL THE ONES THAT WE HAD.
IS THAT CORRECT? UM, SO I BELIEVE THAT ALL OF THE EXHIBITS HAVE BEEN ENTERED PROPERLY AT THIS POINT.
UM, I HOPE EVERYONE HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THOSE.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO INVESTIGATOR ADAMS AT THIS POINT, UM, REGARDING THE INTERIOR VIOLATIONS.
UM, I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU HAVEN'T BEEN INSIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
WHAT WAS THE BASIS FOR THE INTERIOR VIOLATIONS IN THAT CASE? UH, I JUST GAVE THAT REPORT TO ROBERT.
HEY, YOU'RE WELCOME TO ANSWER OBJECT THAT WHAT WE'RE HERE TONIGHT TO DO IS TO HEAR AN APPEAL, RIGHT? MM-HMM
WE'RE NOT PRESENTING FOR AN ORDER, WE'RE NOT DOING ANY OF THAT.
THIS IS AN APPEAL BASED OFF OF THE VIOLATION THAT WAS SENT IN MARCH.
SO THE ORIGINAL VIOLATION THAT THEY RES THAT WE RESCINDED AND THEN THEY RESCINDED THEIR APPEAL ON THAT ONE HAD THE INTERIOR, NOT, NOT THE ONE WE'RE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT.
SO THAT ONE'S A NON-ISSUE, RIGHT? THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
AND I DO WANT TO COVER A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WAS SAID.
UM, SO OKAY, WE WENT OVER THE INTERIOR, UM, ISSUE.
NOW I THINK SHE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THE QUOTED SECTIONS OF THE CITY CODE ALLEGEDLY VIOLATE DON'T APPLY TO THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE OF SOMETHING ABOUT IT BEING A VACANT BUILDING.
I MEAN, THE IPMC, UH, I HAVE A CERTIFICATION IN IPMC, I'VE HAD IT FOR 13 YEARS.
I'VE KEPT IT CURRENT, UH, FROM THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL, AND I CAN ABSOLUTELY SAY THAT IT APPLIES TO EVERY STRUCTURE.
DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S, UM, OCCUPIED OR VACANT.
AND THEN AS FAR AS THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY THING, I WANTED TO TOUCH ON THAT, NOT THAT IT MATTERS 'CAUSE WE'RE HERE TO, WE'RE REALLY HERE TO JUST TALK ABOUT DID THE VIOLATIONS EXIST OR WAS THE VICE THE NOTICE IMPROPERLY SERVED? UH, SORRY.
I WOULD, UM, I'M BEING ASKED TO ACKNOWLEDGE, UM, MS. HERRE, UM, GO AHEAD.
UM, JUST A REMINDER, UM, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL OBSERVING DECORUM IN PROPER PROCEDURE.
UM, IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS OR IF YOU IN YOUR DISCRETION WISH TO GIVE THE CITY AND, UH, THE PROPERTY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE A RECAP, UM, THAT'S FINE.
BUT I, I DO JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE FOLLOWING PROPER PROCEDURE.
SO IF, IF THIS IS THE CITY'S OPPORTUNITY TO RECAP AND KIND OF RESPOND, THEN PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE ALSO HAS THAT EQUAL OPPORTUNITY.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
I WAS ACTUALLY SOMEWHAT HAVING THAT
[02:30:01]
CONCERN.UM, I WILL GIVE, UM, DIVISION MANAGER MORE THE OPPORTUNITY TO FINISH, I THINK HIS RECAP IN RESPONSE AND THEN I WILL PASS IT BACK TO MS. PENA TO ALSO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND AND, UH, PERHAPS ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC THINGS THAT THEY HAVE, UH, SAID.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE DIVISION MANAGER MOORE.
YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK ON THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CONCERN MAINLY FOR HER, NOT BECAUSE OF IT'S GONNA BE CONSIDERED HERE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S NOT, WE'RE HERE JUST TO TALK ABOUT WAS IT A VIOLATION OR NOT, OR WAS THE NOTICE IMPROPERLY SERVED? THOSE ARE THE TWO THINGS Y'ALL WILL CONSIDER TONIGHT ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDED ORDER, RIGHT? MM-HMM
UM, BUT AS FAR AS THE DOUBLE DOUBLE JEOPARDY THING, I MEAN, WHEN YOU WENT TO MUNI COURT OR WHATEVER'S BEING DECIDED IS BASED OFF OF THESE VIOLATIONS, WE'RE NOT HERE TO IMPOSE A FINE, WE'RE NOT HERE TO PRESENT A CASE TO GET AN ORDER, ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
SO THERE IS NO, UM, NOTHING LIKE THAT GOING ON.
IF THAT CONCLUDES THE CITY'S RECAP, I'LL PASS IT TO MS. PENA TO ALSO HAVE SOME TIME.
UM, IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT TWO AND EXHIBIT TWO A, THE VERY FIRST VIOLATION IS GENERAL SECTION 3 0 5 0.1.
AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION, IT SAYS THE INTERIOR OF A STRUCTURE AND EQUIPMENT THEREIN HAS NOT BEEN MAINTAINED IN GOOD REPAIR STRUCTURALLY SOUND AND IN A SANITARY CONDITION.
SO I, I RECOGNIZE THAT IT HAS BEEN AMENDED.
UM, AND I I'M NOT TRYING TO REHASH, UH, THE ONES FROM THE FIRST VIOLATION NOTICE, BUT THERE ARE REFERENCES TO THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE AND HOW IT HAD BEEN MAINTAINED, WHICH WAS WHY IT WAS PART OF OUR PRESENTATION.
UM, IF THAT CONCLUDES YOUR RECAP REAL QUICK.
I BELIEVE I AM BEING ASKED TO TAKE A MOMENT BY STAFF WHILE WE WAIT ON THAT.
UM, I DO JUST WANT TO ASK FOR CLARIFICATION FROM INVESTIGATOR ADAMS. YES.
REGARDING WHETHER THOSE REFERENCES TO THE INTERIOR ARE IN THE AMENDED ORDER AND THE AMENDED VIOLATIONS IN THE IPMC, UH, 3 0 5 0.1 GENERAL, SHE READ THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THAT, THAT, UH, OF THAT.
BUT THERE'S ANOTHER PARAGRAPH ATTACHED TO THAT.
AND THE SECOND PARAGRAPH SAYS, EVERY OWNER OF A STRUCTURE CONTAINING A ROOMING HOUSE, HOUSEKEEPING UNITS, A HOTEL, A DORMITORY, TWO OR MORE DWELLING UNITS, OR TWO OR MORE NON-RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCIES SHALL MAINTAIN IN A CLEAN AND SANITARY CONDITION TO SHARE THE PUBLIC AREAS OF THE STRUCTURE.
THAT'S ALSO PART OF 3 0 1 0.5.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT EVEN THOUGH THAT PROVISION DOES INCLUDE SOMETHING RELATED TO INTERIOR, THE ACTUAL PART THAT'S BEEN VIOLATED IS RELATING TO THE EXTERIOR? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
UM, AT THIS TIME, I'LL PASS IT TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, BUT I I, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY, ESPECIALLY FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NEW TO THE COMMISSION, UM, THIS IS A, UH, APPEAL OF A NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
SO THE PROCEDURAL POSTURE IS DEFINITELY DIFFERENT THAN MOST OF THE OTHER CASES THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED TONIGHT.
I I JUST WANNA HIGHLIGHT THAT, THAT WE'RE NOT DISCUSSING A PENALTY, AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY ASSESSING, UM, WE ARE, WE ARE NOT ASSESSING A FINE, WE ARE DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS IN FACT PROPERLY GIVEN AND WHETHER WE WILL ACCEPT THE APPEAL OR CONTINUE WITH THAT NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
UM, WITH THAT, I WILL RECOGNIZE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
UH, MRS. PENA, IF IT'S OKAY, I JUST HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS BECAUSE I WANT TO GET MY TIMELINE STRAIGHT FOR, UH, REAL QUICK, THE VICE CHAIR REC RECOGNIZES, UH, COMMISSIONER TOM LOVICH.
OH, THANK YOU MADAM VICE CHAIR.
UM, SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, SURE.
2015, UH, THE PROPERTY IS PURCHASED, RIGHT? YES.
AND AT THAT TIME, THE PREVIOUS OWNER WAS SEEKING A DEMOLITION ORDER? NO, THE DEMOLITION ORDER HAD BEEN SOUGHT A FEW YEARS BEFORE THAT, AND FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE WORK WASN'T COMPLETED.
SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE, UH, THEN, UH, IT WAS PURCHASED IN 2015, BUT THEN AT A, AT, AT SOME POINT AFTER 2015 AND BEFORE 2024, THE, UH, THAT MEANT THAT OWNERSHIP CHANGED TO NOW BE THE 1500 TO 1501 LP COMPANY.
RIGHT? WHAT DO YOU MIND TELLING ME WHAT YEAR
[02:35:01]
THAT WAS? SO IT, IT'S NOT THAT THE OWNERSHIP CHANGED, UM, IT WAS, I BELIEVE IT WAS A, A DIFFERENT NAME FOR A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND THEY WENT THROUGH THE TEXAS SECRETARY OF STATE TO JUST CHANGE THE NAME.IF IT WERE A HUMAN PERSON, IT WOULD BE A CHANGE ON A BIRTH CERTIFICATE'S NAME.
WHAT YEAR WAS THAT? THAT WAS IN 2018.
SO THEN THE, THE BODY CORPORATE OF THE OWNER HAS NOT CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY BY, WITH THE NAME CHANGE.
SO IT'S THE SAME NUM, SAME PEOPLE? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND HOW MANY EMPLOYEES DOES, I MEAN, IS THIS LIKE A LARGE COMPANY? I MEAN, HOW MANY EMPLOYEES DOES THIS LP HAVE? I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE THE, THE KNOWLEDGE TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT.
AND, UH, DO YOU, DO YOU HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE OF HOW MANY PROPERTIES ARE OWNED BY THIS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP? THIS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, I BELIEVE OWNS TWO.
AND DO YOU KNOW THE OTHER PROPERTY? AND IF, AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD, THAT'S OKAY.
I WAS LOOKING UP THE TCAD RECORDS EARLIER, AND I BELIEVE THE OTHER PROPERTY IS 1501 EAST 13TH STREET.
SO THAT'S JUST ONE BLOCK UP? YES.
NOW, UH, IS, IS THE, IS YOUR CLIENT WILLING TO SHARE, I MEAN, INTERNAL DOCUMENTATIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, VALUATIONS PLANS FOR WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO IN THIS PROPERTY WHEN THEY BOUGHT IT IN 2015? I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DATE, BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS MAYBE IN 2022 THAT THEY SUBMITTED LIKE A PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, UH, WHICH INDICATED SOME SORT OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING.
WHICH WE ALL LIKE, WE LOVE, WE LOVE AND SEE FAMILY HOUSING.
SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, FROM 2015 TO 2022, DID YOUR CLIENT PERFORM ANY INSPECTIONS OF THE PROPERTY? I THINK IT MIGHT'VE BEEN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, BUT, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO KEEP IT CLOSED AND BOARDED UP, UM, THIS PROPERTY IS PART OF A, A BIGGER BLOCK.
UM, AND I THINK THERE WAS ALWAYS AN INTENTION TO EXPLORE, UH, MULTIFAMILY HOUSING FOR THIS AREA.
UM, BUT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, OTHER THAN JUST KEEPING IT CLOSED, I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING ELSE.
SO YOUR, YOUR CLIENT DID NOT HAVE A, AN IDEA OF WHAT REPAIRS WERE REALLY NECESSARY UNTIL MAYBE 2022 OR 2024, AS YOUR TIMELINE INDICATES WAS YOUR FIRST INSPECTION? I'M SORRY, I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO ANSWER THAT.
AND, WELL, I, I GUESS MY, MY QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, AT, WE SAW THE SITE DETERIORATE WHERE THERE WAS GARBAGE OUTSIDE, YOU KNOW, AS RECENTLY AS LAST YEAR.
SO I, I GUESS THE ROUTINE MAINTENANCE DID NOT INCLUDE TRASH CLEARING.
I KNOW THAT THERE WERE DUMPSTERS THAT WERE TAKEN OUT THERE AND THERE WERE MATERIALS THAT WERE STORED ON SITE, BUT THAT THOSE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN CLEANED UP.
AND I MEAN, YOU'D AGREE THAT YOUR, YOUR, IS YOUR, YOUR CLIENT HAS SOME EXPERIENCE, UM, BUYING COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES AND, AND FLIPPING THEM? I, I DON'T, I DON'T, I'M ASSUMING SO, YES.
UH, WELL, AND THEN ASSUMING, SO I MEAN, YOUR CLIENT UNDERSTANDS THAT BUILDINGS DETERIORATE AND THOSE COSTS KIND OF EXPONENTIALLY INCREASE UNLESS YOU FIX IT QUICKLY, RIGHT? LIKE THE DETERIORATION OF THE HOUSE CAN, CAN GET VERY EXPENSIVE VERY QUICKLY.
BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT IN THIS AREA OF TOWN, THERE ARE SEVERAL LOTS THAT ARE BOUGHT FOR THE PURPOSES OF BEING TORN DOWN.
UM, AND IF THAT IS THE INTENT OF AN OWNER, THEN IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MAKE SENSE TO TRY TO REPAIR THE BUILDING.
I HAVE SEVERAL CLIENTS WHO HAVE PURCHASED PROPERTIES TO TRY TO IMPROVE NEIGHBORHOODS.
BUT BETWEEN 2015 AND 2024, IT'S, IT'S TRUE THAT YOUR CLIENT DID NOT PURSUE A DEMOLITION ORDER BEFORE THEY FINALLY FILED FOR DEMOLITION.
I DON'T BELIEVE THEY HAD APPLIED FOR DEMOLITION, CORRECT.
THAT ANSWERS ALL MY QUESTIONS.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS AT THIS TIME? MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THAT'S A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING FROM COMMISSIONER LOCKHART.
I BELIEVE THAT'S A SECOND FROM CHAIR STOAT? OR WAS THAT A QUESTION? NO, THAT WAS A SECOND.
[02:40:01]
IS A MOTION TO CLOSE FROM COMMISSIONER LOCKHART AND A SECOND FROM CHAAT.HEARING SIX AYES AND NO NAYS, THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THIS HEARING IS NOW CONCLUDED.
MS. PENA, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO STAY THERE, WE MAY STILL HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
UM, AT THIS TIME, I WOULD WELCOME A MOTION ON AN ORDER FROM ANY OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, MADAM CHAIR, CHAIR DOT, UH, FOR PURPOSE OF STARTING A CONVERSATION, MOVE TO DENY THE APPEAL.
THAT IS A MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL.
AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, WOULD THAT BE ADOPTING STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER IN ITS ENTIRETY? THAT'S RIGHT.
AND IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? THAT'S A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER LOCKHART.
UM, IF THERE'S ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS, I OPEN THE FLOOR TO DISCUSSION, BUT I WILL START WITH COMMISSIONER SOAP.
UH, I'LL STAND, I'LL LET THE, THE BODY DISCUSS.
WELL, IN THAT CASE, I WILL START WITH MYSELF.
UM, I THINK THAT THIS IS AN INTERESTING CASE.
UM, FRANKLY, I, I DON'T THINK THAT WE AS A COMMISSION CAN NECESSARILY PARSE ALL OF THE LEGAL ISSUES THAT ARE SURROUNDING THIS.
UM, BUT I DO THINK THAT OUR POSITION HERE, AND AGAIN, I I I EMPHASIZE THE PROCEDURAL POSTURE EARLIER, THAT WE ARE JUST ASKED WHETHER TO, UM, ACCEPT OR DENY THE APPEAL OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
AND I THINK THAT IN THIS CONTEXT, MUCH OF WHAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP IS ACTIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO DESIGNATE THIS AS A HISTORICAL PROPERTY.
UM, CLAIMS ABOUT THE PRIOR NOTICE OF VIOLATION AS UNAMENDED.
AND I AM LEFT UNCLEAR WHAT THE OPERATIVE OBJECTIONS ARE TO THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION THAT WOULD GIVE US GROUNDS TO ACCEPT THE APPEAL.
SO IN, IN LIGHT OF THAT, UM, I, I, I I, I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE THAT I, I, I'M JUST NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT GROUNDS WE WOULD HAVE TO ACCEPT THE APPEAL AND I DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULD, UM, RIGHT.
RECOGNIZING JUST AS A, CAN YOU HIGHER? SORRY.
UM, JUST TO, AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, SO THAT THE BOARD YOU ARE, OR THE COMMISSION IS AWARE OF ITS OPTIONS, UM, TECHNICALLY YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO DISMISS AN APPEAL IF YOU FIND THAT THERE IS NO STANDING, UM, TO APPEAL IN THE FIRST PLACE.
UM, YOU MAY ALSO DENY THE APPEAL AS YOU'VE STATED.
UH, YOU MAY GRANT THE APPEAL OR ACCEPT THE APPEAL AS YOU'VE STATED.
UM, AND FINALLY, YOU CAN ALSO CHOOSE TO MAKE MODIFICATIONS TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER.
UM, AGAIN, IF YOU FIND THAT PERHAPS CERTAIN ASPECTS MAY OR MAY NOT APPLY, CERTAIN VIOLATIONS MAY OR MAY NOT APPLY.
OR IF, IF YOU WANT TO EXTEND THE TIME OR SOMETHING OF THAT SORT OR ADJUST THE RECOMMENDED, UM, THE RECOMMENDED CURE OF THE, OF THE VIOLATION, THAT IS CERTAINLY UP TO, TO YOU ALL IF YOU SO FIND SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL SIX OF YOU ARE AWARE WHAT YOUR OPTIONS ARE THIS EVENING.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
AND I, I, I DO JUST WANT TO ASK BRIEFLY, IS A, YOU, YOU SAID THAT A DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL WOULD BE SPECIFICALLY IF WE FOUND THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE STANDING TO APPEAL.
SO IT'S, IT'S VERY MUCH NARROW MM-HMM
UM, BUT UNDER THAT PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE, YES.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
UM, AGAIN, I WILL OPEN IT UP TO THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION BY MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, UM, MADAM VICE CHAIR, IF I MIGHT.
RECOGNIZING COMMISSIONER TOM MONDOVI.
YEAH, I, I AM ALSO, I MEAN, UM, MS. PENA, YOU AND YOUR CLIENT HAVE A, A BIG OLD MESS ON YOUR HANDS, AND I'M VERY SYMPATHETIC, UM, ON OUR END, LIKE THE MADAM VICE CHAIR JUST EXPLAINED, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, UH, WE HAVE A LIMITED SCOPE TO DEAL WITH, UM, THESE ISSUES.
UM, I'LL ALSO SAY THAT I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THE PROBLEMS AND THE COST OF THIS SORT OF THING.
I MEAN, THAT SAID, THAT IS KIND OF THE RISK OF INVESTING
[02:45:01]
IN PROPERTY FOR PROFIT.UM, THE HISTORICAL ORDINANCE EXISTED AT THE TIME THAT YOUR CLIENT BOUGHT THE PROPERTY.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT YOUR EMPLOY YOUR CLIENT'S CORPORATION.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE A LARGE REAL ESTATE FIRM.
OR IF THEY'RE CONNECTED TO LARGE REAL ESTATE FIRMS WHERE, YOU KNOW, IT'S A, A ONE OR, YOU KNOW, A A VERY SMALL CORPORATION THAT JUST OWNS ONE OR TWO PROPERTIES.
YOU KNOW, UM, I HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THOSE KINDS OF STRUCTURES.
UM, BUT I, I THINK THAT YOUR CLIENT TOOK ON A RISK WITH BUYING AN OLD BUILDING AND, YOU KNOW, RESPECTFULLY, ROUTINE MAINTENANCE JUST DIDN'T CUT IT.
AND SO NOW THEY HAVE A MUCH LARGER PROBLEM ON THEIR HANDS NOW THAT IT HAS BEEN DESIGNATED A HISTORIC BUILDING BY THE DULY ELECTED CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
AND SO I THINK IT ALSO IS INCUMBENT ON US AS THE, AS THE APPOINTED MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF, OF BY THAT COUNCIL TO RESPECT AS MUCH AS WE CAN THEIR, THEIR DECISION.
SO, UH, I I, YOU KNOW, I, I WOULD BE OPEN TO CONSIDERING ALL SORTS OF OPTIONS TO, IF THERE ARE ISSUES THAT WE CAN DEAL WITH WITHIN OUR SCOPE, WE CAN PUT THOSE IN OUR, IN ONE BUCKET, AND THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE STUFF THAT WE CAN'T DEAL WITH, AND THEN WE CAN FOCUS ON THESE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US.
BUT, AND AGAIN, I'M SYMPATHETIC TO YOUR CLIENT, BUT HE BOUGHT PROPERTY HOPING, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M ASSUMING HE, YOUR CLIENT BOUGHT PROPERTY HOPING TO MAKE MONEY, AND THIS IS JUST A HUGE PICKLE THAT THEY'RE IN.
AND I, I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I RESPECT THAT.
BUT WE ALSO HAVE A JOB TO DO WHERE FOR 10 YEARS, I MEAN, THERE'S BEEN NO RENOVATION OF THIS PROPERTY, UM, WHETHER TO BE COMFORT, MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY OR ANYTHING ELSE.
AND SO I THINK FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS A PROBLEM WITH PROPERTY THAT ISN'T DOING ANYTHING.
AND SO I THINK, UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE FRUSTRATED AND YOUR CLIENT IS FRUSTRATED WITH THESE PROCESSES AND THEY'RE ANNOYING AND THEY TAKE FOREVER, BUT THESE ARE THE LAWS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
AND SO I WOULD JUST SAY, I HOPE WE CAN GET SOME CLARITY DURING THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT WE CAN DEAL WITH ON THIS BOARD AND, AND, UM, AND DO SOMETHING WITH AND, UH, WHAT WE CAN'T.
BECAUSE LIKE YOU SAID, THERE'S ONGOING LITIGATION.
UH, ANYONE THAT CAN HELP ENLIGHTEN US AND GUIDE US THROUGH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO.
BUT I'LL ALSO SAY, YOU KNOW, YOUR CLIENT, UH, JUST MAYBE JUST MADE A BAD INVESTMENT AT THIS POINT AND THE COST IS GONNA BE WHAT IT COSTS.
UH, IF, IF THE, IF THE ORDER IS TO FIX UP A PROPERTY, I MEAN, THAT'S WITHIN OUR SCOPE.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION? HEARING NONE, THERE IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE WITH A SECOND TO ADOPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER, WHICH WOULD BE A DENIAL OF THE APPEAL.
I WILL CALL FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE.
AYE THE VICE CHAIR ALSO VOTES.
UM, THE ORDER WILL BE MAILED TO YOU WITHIN A WEEK AND UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION TONIGHT.
I BELIEVE THAT THAT IS THE LAST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA, BUT THERE ARE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS IF, UM, THE CITY AND ONE CLARIFICATION, THERE'S NO ORDER.
IT WOULD JUST BE, UH, A LETTER.
JUST A NOTICE OF THE DENIAL OF APPEAL.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. WE HAVE ONE ITEM THAT WILL BE ON THE NEXT AGENDA, UM, THAT IS A PENALTY RELIEF HEARING REGARDING 25 0 3 EAST O TORF STREET, TRIO APARTMENTS.WE HAD TWO COMMISSIONERS THAT ASKED FOR THAT TO BE PLACED ON THE NEXT AGENDA.
WE DIDN'T GET THE SECOND REQUEST UNTIL YET THIS WEEK.
SO THAT WILL BE ON THE MAY AGENDA.
AND ANYTHING ELSE? UM, I THINK OUR NEXT MEETING IS MAY 28TH.
IN THAT CASE, I WILL ADJOURN THIS MEETING.