Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG RTPS 1997 0402 RDA REGANNOTATED MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 1997 7:00 P.M. -park Corrununity Center 799 Moorpark Avenue i. CALL TO ORDER: 7:15 P.M. 2. ROLL CALL: ALL AGENCY MEMBERS PRESENT. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT: 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Consider Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of February 19, 1997. Staff Recommendation: Approve the minutes as processed. APPROVED 5. PRESENTATIONS /ACTION /DISCUSSION: A. Consider Removal of Building at 224 High Street, Construction of Facade and Budget Amendment in the Aggregate Amount of $5,500.00 from Tax Increment Revenues. Staff Recommendation: That the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency Board adopt Resolution No. 97 -51 l Amending the FY 1996/1997 budget in the aggregate amount of $5,500 from Tax Increment Revenues for expenses related to this project; further, that the Redevelopment Agency Board authorize the Executive Director to: 1) Proceed with the removal of the building at 224 High Street; and 2) Proceed with development of conceptual design and construction of a facade for this site. APPROVED RESOLUTION 97 -51. 6. ADJOURNMENT: 7:33 P.M. ITEM.` l4 MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENCY REPORT TO: Chairman and Board Members of the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency FROM: Steven Hayes, Economic Development/Redevelopment Manager DATE: March 21, 1997 (Mtg. 04/02/97) Subject: Consider Removal of Building at 224 High Street, Construction of Facade and Budget Amendment in the Aggregate Amount of $5,500.00 from Tax Increment Revenues September 15, 1993, the Agency purchased 224 High Street from the Ventura County Transportation Commission. On January 1, 1994, the Agency entered into a rental agreement with Mr. Eugene Galick whereby he would receive free rent of the building, in return for custodial duties and maintenance of the newly acquired property. 0 On November 8, 1996, the Agency served Mr. Galick a 30 -day Notice of Termination for the lease of 224 High Street. Since November 8, he has not occupied the building and has been removing his possessions. The Building and Safety Department has inspected the building and observed numerous code violations. (See attached memorandum dated December 16, 1996.) According to the Building and Safety Department, "It may be questionable that we can repair and remodel this building to facilitate its reuse for any occupancy in a cost - effective way." Therefore, staff is requesting authorization to proceed with the demolition of the building and to construct a new facade and provide additional temporary parking for special events held on High Street. It timated that cost for the demolition of the building MOORPAAK $4,000. This will include clearing the site and the ea ing of decomposed granite. If the Agency concurs, staff 000005 will develop conceptual designs for a facade and obtain bids for the demolition. It estimated that the cost of design and construction of the facade will be $1,000.00. The total cost for demolition and construction would be $5,500.00 with a ten percent contingency. FUNDING It is recommended that Tax Increment Revenues be allocated for this project. RECOMMENDATION That the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency Board adopt Resolution 97- amending the FY 1996/1997 Budget in the aggregate amount of $5,500 from Tax Increment Revenues for expenses related to this project. Further, that the Redevelopment Agency Board authorize the Executive Director to: 1. Proceed with the removal of the building at 224 High Street. 2. Development of conceptual design and construction of a facade for this site. C: \M \LEASt \SGH.031- 03/25/97 -march 27, 1097 MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Hayes, Economic Development Manager FROM Jim MacDonald, Senior Building Inspe DATE: December 16, 1996 SUBJECT: 224 -226 High Street On October 5, 1993, this office performed an inspection at your request to determine the condition of the above subject buildings. The inspection was performed by Building Inspector Tom Greer and a hand written report was provided at that time. The report identified several items that were in direct violation of Uniform Code requirements as adopted by the City of Moorpark. Pursuant to your request another inspection was performed on December 12, 1996, to determine the condition of the above subject buildings and identify any additional violations. This report does not represent all of the violations that may exist on the site but rather an attempt to identify the major safety concerns and other obvious violations. SH &SC= State Health and Safety Code UAC= Uniform Administrative Code _ UCADB= Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings UHC= Uniform Housing Code 224 High Street 1. 224 High Street appears to have be converted to residential use since 1979. PD904 was a sign permit for 226 High Street and indicates the use of 224 High Street as storage. Violation: UAC Section 301.1 2. The canopy at the front of the building is deflecting under the roof load and should be abated by repair or removal. Violation: SH &SC Section 17920.3 (b) 6 VWQWJ 3. Inadequate light and ventilation throughout. Violation: UHC Section 504 SH &SC, Section 17920.3 (a) 8 4. The lights in the residence are not correctly wired or supported. There are exposed conductors. Violation: SH &SC Section 17920.3 (d) 5. There is less that the minimum 24 inches of clearance in front of the toilet. Violation: UHC Section 503.3 6. There is a room at rear with a dirt floor covered with plywood and carpet. There is exposed electrical. Violation: SH &SC Section 17920.3 (d), UHC Section 601.2 7. Ceiling heights below the mezzanines are below the minimum 7 feet required by code. Violation: SH &SC Section 17920.3 #9, UHC 503.1 8. Stairs to the two interior mezzanines are substandard and unsafe. The minimum widths, tread run and height are not correct. The head room at each stairway is less than the required 6 feet 8 inches and there are no handrails at the front stairway and the handrail for the front stairway is too wide. Violation: UCADB Section 302 #1 9. The mezzanine at the front of the building appears to be severely deflecting under the weight of the storage and other uses above. There is a potential for collapse if more weight were added. The mezzanine is carried by a truss at the entryway. The truss does not appear to be deflecting but the use is very unusual. An engineer should be consulted for this use of this truss. Violation: SH &SC Section 17920.3 (b) #6 10. The side yard has a deck constructed with a substandard stairway, similar to a "ships Ladder". These types of ladders are approved for equipment platforms in commercial buildings but not for residential use. Violation: UCADB Section 302.1 11. The building does not have a heating system Violation: SH &SC Section # 17920.3 (a) #6, UHC Section 701.1 12. Between the garage and the residence there is only an exposed, unprotected stud wall. A 1 hour firewall is required. Violation: SH &SC Section 17920.3 (m) 13. Florescent light fixtures in the garage are not installed or wired correctly. Violation: SH &SC Section 17920.3 (d) 14. The trusses in the garage are deflecting beyond the allowable permitted deflection. Violation: SH &SC Section 17920.3 (b) #6 1. The exterior grade at the south east side of the building drains toward and into the building. There is dirt built up against the building in apparent attempt to divert water away from the building. At the south east corner of the building the water accumulates and drains into the shop area of Gemco Plumbing. Violation: UCADB Section 302 #14 2. There is T -bar ceiling in the shop area that is in a state of severe deterioration and lack of maintenance. The support wires for the T -bar are not "wrapped" to provide adequate support as required in the UBC. The lights in the shop area are not installed, supported or wired correctly. The conductors are exposed at the T -Bar.' Violation: UCADB Section 302 #4,5,9,13 3. There is a horizontal FAU installed in the shop area which serves the front office space. The single wall 4" vent for the FAU is installed so as to create a "trap" condition for the accumulation of condensation water that will eventually rust through the vent. Violation: UCADB Section 302 #13 4. There is exposed electrical above the bathroom in the shop and the ventilation fan for the bathroom works but is not vented to the exterior as required by code. Violation: UCADB Section 302 #13 5. Water from the west side of 226 enters at the walls of the office due to poor drainage on the west side. Violation: UCADB Section 302 #14 6. The sub -panel for the building is located behind an un- permitted wall in the shop area. The panel has several "knock- outs" missing in the dead front. There is inadequate working space for the electrical panels and associated electrical equipment. There could be ungrounded parts of the building encroaching into the working space which would create an unsafe situation for a person servicing the electrical equipment. Violation: UCADB Section 302 #13 7. There is an electrical receptacle on the east side of the building at grade level and is not GFCI protected. Violation: UCADB Section 302 #13 8. The water heater is installed outdoors and is not protected from vehicular impact. Violation: UCADB Section 302 #13 UW(AI 9. The water heater is not braced to resist seismic activity and the temperature and pressure relief valve is not properly terminated. Violation: UCADB Section 302 #13 10. There is an unstable canopy at the front of the building. The canopy is supported on posts that are embedded in concrete and rotted. The canopy should be abated by removal or repair. Violation: UCADB Section 302 #6, 11 11. The building contains numerous holes in the walls and roof providing little weather protection. Violation: UCADB Section 302 #14 In order to bring the subject buildings into compliance with the uniform codes as adopted by the City of Moorpark, the above items including any life safety items should be repaired and upgraded to current code standards. The residential use of 224 High Street is an unsafe use as specified in UAC Section 203. In accordance with Section 1134B of the 1994 UBC, items such as the entrance, bathrooms, parking and path of travel would be required to be made accessible to the disabled. Additionally, other agency requirements such as planning and fire would need to be consulted to determine their requirements, if any. If you have any questions regarding this inspection please contact me. cc: Address file Chron 1 11 `