Loading...
1999 07 08 CC Minutes, SpecialIN MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN JULY 8,1999 The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas, met in special session on July 8, 1999, at 5:30 p.m., in the Don M. Hullum Conference Room of the Baytown City Hall with the following in attendance: Victor Almendarez Council Member David Byford Council Member Calvin Mundinger Council Member E. Frank Hinds, Jr. Council Member Coleman Godwin Council Member Scott Sheley Council Member Pete C. Alfaro Mayor Monte Mercer City Manager Ignacio Ramirez City Attorney Eileen P. Hall City Clerk The meeting was opened with a quorum present, and the following business was conducted: Hold Appeal Hearing on the Growth Management and Development Advisory Commission's Denial of the Final Plat Approval for Country Club Estates, Section 1 Mayor Alfaro called to order the appeal of the decision of the Growth Management and Development Advisory Commission of the City of Baytown to deny the final plat for Country Club Estates, Section 1, Baytown, Hams County, Texas. He stated that the appeal was at the request of Mr. James P. Hutchinson on behalf of Mr. M. T. Amad, the owner of the property. Mr. Amad verified that he wished to pursue the appeal. Mayor Alfaro said that as with all hearings before the Council, the rules of evidence were informal; however, he asked both parties to refrain from using irrelevant or redundant testimony. 990708 -2 Minutes of the Special Session — July 8,1999 Mayor Alfaro swore in the witnesses: James Hutchinson, M. T. Amad, Monte Mercer, Herbert Thomas, and Howard Wellspring. He said that each party would have three minutes for opening statements. Mr. James Hutchinson spoke on behalf of Mr. M. T. Amad. He stated that Mr. Amad's contractor, Clary Brothers Services, removed more than was needed for the street grade; however, the contractor did not realize that until the roadways had been lime stabilized with six inches of subgrade. When he discovered the undercut, he put in a small amount of select fill (a 60-40 mixture of sand and clay recommended by geotextile engineers for building slabs) maybe three inches in some places but most of it is one -half inch thick. He explained that the contractor poured some of the streets before he was aware that the City Engineer wanted a filter fabric that would let water through and stop granular material so the sand would not be pumped up through the construction joints if they opened. Mr. Hutchison stated that he did not believe that would happen and that Mr. Amad would like to furnish a $150,000 five -year bond covering the pavement to protect the City. City Engineer Howard Wellspring, on behalf of the City of Baytown, responded that the sections of roadway without the geotextile membrane are unacceptable and do not furnish the same degree of protection. He noted that a sample of sand taken from the stockpile turned to quicksand when water was added to it. Mr. Wellspring, in working with Mr. Hutchison, had proposed a solution that would not require removal of the entire street and would adequately prevent the sands from moving through the joints. The contractor would go back to the joints, saw cut and remove the concrete two feet on each side of the existing joints, excavate eight inches down, put in cement - stabilized sand, and then place the concrete. The rebar could be reused and if damaged in any way, an eighteen -inch rebar would be required. It would need to be drilled into the pavement nine inches. Very important to this remedy is the use of an epoxy product to seal together the new concrete and the old concrete in order not to create a new joint. The expansion joint is still required because of the expansion of the concrete, but if the proposed procedure is adhered to, no new path is created for the water to get down into the concrete where the sand is. Mr. Wellspring stated that it would be equitable for the City to accept the portions of the roadway with the geotextile membrane. He felt the roadways with the membrane and a type 4 joint sealant are adequately protected. However, the portion of roadway being recommended for removal provides a solution limited to the work at the joints. He concluded that the reason for the five -year maintenance bond was not that he anticipated damage to the road in the five - year period but that this was an unconventional use of this procedure. 990708 -3 Minutes of the Special Session — July 8,1999 Mayor Alfaro said that each side could present witnesses starting with Mr. Amad. Neither Mr. Amad nor the City wished to call witnesses. Mayor Alfaro asked for closing statements. Mr. Amad said that a $150,000 bond would be adequate to replace the entire pavement. He also said that he did not believe that the sand Mr. Wellspring brought in was the same fill that was used in the roadway. He reiterated that the roadways could be cored and tested but that would take another two weeks. In response to Council inquiry, Mr. Wellspring stated that the maintenance bond is a second layer of protection to the City and the bond should umbrella the entire project. Mr. Hutchison stated if the contractor reworked the joints, no bond should be necessary, and he did not wish to do both. There being no closing statement from the City, Mayor Alfaro closed the hearing. Consider Affirming, Reversing, or Modifying the Decision of the Growth Management and Development Advisory Commission Concerning the Denial of the Final Plat Approval for Country Club Estates, Section 1 Council Member Almendarez said that the responsibility for the problem was the developer's because he selected the contractor. He said he thought the city ordinance should be enforced. In response to inquiry from Council, Herbert Thomas stated that random core samples could be taken and possibly fill material found that passes the test, but if there is sand, it will pump through the cracks and the street will fail. Howard Wellspring reiterated that once the cuts are made and the new fill put in, the job should be up to city specifications; however, he had requested the maintenance bond because of the unproven technology. Council Member Hinds moved to require the saw cut, the joint fill, and the $150,000 bond to cover the whole area. Council Member Byford seconded the motion. Council Member Mundinger moved to amend the motion to have the $150,000 bond cover only the areas that do not meet city specifications. The motion to amend died due to lack of second. The vote on the original motion follows: 990708 -4 Minutes of the Special Session —July 8,1999 Ayes: Council Members Byford, Hinds, and Godwin Mayor Alfaro Nays: Council Members Almendarez, Mundinger, and Sheley Hold Appeal Hearing on Urban Rehabilitation Standards Review Board Order to Demolish the Structure Located at 1912 California Mayor Alfaro called to order the appeal of the decision of the Urban Rehabilitation Standards Review Board of the City of Baytown to demolish the structure located at 1912 California Street, Baytown, Texas. The appeal was scheduled at the request of Ms. Vivian Lawson, the owner of the property. Ms. Lawson stated that she wished to pursue her appeal. Mayor Alfaro said that as with all hearings before the Council, the rules of evidence were informal; however, he asked both parties to refrain from using irrelevant or redundant testimony. Mayor Alfaro swore in all witnesses: Vivian Lawson, Debbie Barnes, and Monte Mercer. Mayor Alfaro said that each side would be allowed three minutes to present an opening statement beginning with Ms. Lawson. Ms. Lawson said that she had moved in with a relative because she could not afford to maintain her home. She said she was trying to board up the property and looking for help in rehabilitating the house. The City Manager stated that the initial investigation of the property began on March 2 at the request of neighbors. He said that Demolition Inspector Debbie Barnes found numerous code violations and determined the house was unfit for human habitation. The owner was notified of the code violations and instructed to secure the house within thirty days. After thirty days, on May 3, the inspector asked the Urban Rehabilitation Standards Review Board (URSR) to review the case and since the house appeared to be structurally sound and repairable, asked the Board to issue an order to secure the house. The owner did not attend the May 3 meeting and the Board issued an order to demolish the house. However, because the agenda item did not include the words, "Discuss and consider action" to demolish, the item was placed on the agenda for June 7. The owner was notified of the June 7 meeting, and she did not attend. At the June 7 meeting, the Board again voted to issue an order to demolish the house. 990708 -5 Minutes of the Special Session — July 8,1999 In accordance with procedures, Mayor Alfaro allowed each party to call witnesses and cross - examine witnesses. City Inspector Debbie Barnes testified that the investigation began on March 2. On March 3 a letter was sent to the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Lawson, notifying them of the code violations. She said that the while the notice was sent out in March, the return receipt was returned on April 21 and had been held by the post office. On April 19 Ms. Barnes spoke to Mrs. Lawson by telephone and advised her to secure the property. On April 22, a notice of violation was mailed to the owners and posted on the house advising of the URSR Board meeting on May 3, 1999. On May 3, 1999, the URSR Board issued an order to demolish the house. On May 17 a notice of violation was mailed to the owners and posted on the house. On June 7, the URSR Board again voted to demolish the house. On June 29, the house was re- inspected. The house had been partially boarded up but not according to code. Mrs. Lawson said she wanted to continue boarding up the house and try to get on the list to have it rehabilitated. Ms. Barnes said the City could have the house boarded up within the next ten days and that the typical time line from boarding up to demolition would be six months to a year. The City Manager said the City takes the least onerous course of action in order to correct the problem. He said that since the house was structurally sound, the staff did not think it met all the criteria for demolition; therefore, boarding up was recommended. Mayor Alfaro stated that since there was no more testimony to be heard regarding the appeal of the order of the Urban Rehabilitation Standards Review Board to demolish the structure located at 1912 California Street, Baytown, Texas, that closing statements would be heard. He said that each side would be allowed three minutes to present a closing statement beginning with Ms. Lawson. Ms. Lawson asked Council to give her a chance to complete boarding up the house and to attempt to get it rehabilitated. The City Manager reiterated that it is staff practice to recommend the least restrictive course in order to resolve the problem. He said that since the house is structurally sound, the staff recommendation was to secure the structure in compliance with city code to prevent unauthorized entry. He said that if the structure continues to deteriorate after boarding up, the inspector can reinspect and take it back to the Board for further review. Mayor Alfaro closed the appeal hearing. 990708 -6 Minutes of the Special Session — July 8,1999 Consider Affirming, Reversing, or Modifying the Decision of the Urban Rehabilitation Standards Review Board Order to Demolish the Structure Located at 1912 California Council Member Sheley moved to accept the staff recommendation. Council Member Almendarez seconded the motion. Council Member Almendarez emphasized to Ms. Lawson that she needed to board up the house properly and maintain the yard and home as though she were living there. The vote follows: Ayes: Council Members Almendarez, Byford, Mundinger Hinds, Godwin, and Sheley Mayor Alfaro Nays: None Adjourn As there was no further business to be transacted, the meeting was adjourned. Eileen P. Hall, City Clerk