The URL can be used to link to this page

98-908Council File # �J�df ORIGINAL Presented RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Green Sheet # 62254 �L Referred To Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the September 15, 2 1998 decision of the L.egislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 address: 4 Propert�p ep aled 5 629 North Street # 1 6 Decision: Appeal denied. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Yeas Na s Absent Blakey ✓ Coleman � Harris � Benanav ✓ Reiter ✓ Bostrom � L�� ✓ 14 Adopted 6y Council: Date a� .� \� � 15 Adoption 16 sy: 1� Approved 18 By: Appellant Donald Callahan Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council 1 9�'- 9�� City Council ��,N�„ 10/1/98 GREEN SHEET No 62254 Rathy Lantry, 266-8670 October 7, 1998 � TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES u�� u��— ❑ pIYAiTOR1EY ❑ CRYCIiRK ❑ nurcu�aEaxc¢son. ❑ wuur,.taom�ccro ❑ WVORIORASVSr41n ❑ (CUP ALL LOCATfONS FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the decision of the Legislative Aearing OfEicer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the September 15, 1998 meeting on 629 North Street lll. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB CAMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION IFAPPROVED Has this persorJfirtn eoerv.nrked under a canfract for Nia tleparlmeM7 YES NO Has Mis PereoNfirm ever been a cdY emPbY�? YES NO Dces this persor�im possesa a sldll not normallypossessetl Dy arry curreM cdy emPioyee7 YES NO Is Nis persoNfirtn a targetetl vendoYl VES NO � rv:R .,L.",��f��rn'i�, �u*1'�'�$Y �. , '., ;. �. : -.± F . f AMOUNT OFTRANSACTION SOURCE (qRC�E ON� VES NO ACTNITY NUMBER (EJPWN) �Id'"q°� MINUTBS OF TI� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING September 15, 1998 Room 330, City Hall Gerry Strathman, L.egsiative Hearing Officer STAFF PRESENT: John Conway, License, Inspection, Environmental Protection (LIEP); Karl Johnson, Public Works; Tom LeClair, LSEP; Phillip Owens, Fire Prevenrion; James Prill, Code Enforcement; Paula Seeley, Code Enforcement; Maynard Vinge, Code Enforcement; Don Wagner, LIEP Gerry Strathman called the meeting to order at 1:31.m. 1285 Hamline Avenue North (Laid over from 8-4-98) Gerry Strathman laid over to the November 17, 1998 Property Code Enforcement meeung. Mr. Strathman spoke to the owner Robert Davis today who indicated he had filed a petition for an encroachment pemut from the City. This layover will give the owner time to get this pemut. 1148 Seventh Street West (Laid over from 8-18-98) (Note: the appeal on this properiy was originaily heard on 7-14-98. It had been laid over to 8-4-98, 8-18-98, and 9-15-98.) No one appeared representing the property. Phil Owens reported nothing has been done to proceed with this property, therefare, he requested the appeal be denied. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal citing the owner has had ample time to deal with the situation. 439 Portland Avenue (Rescheduled from 9-1-98) Louis Sudheimer, owner, appeared to request the ability to extend the sewer and water connecuon from the rear of the house to a new carriage house that he received pernussion to build from the Zoning Departrnent and the Heritage Preservation Commission. The garage will be torn down. The project will take about 45 feet of addifional length of sewer and water lines to connect from the house to this building. The Sewer Deparunent feels the new line violates the State building code, and the existing pipe will not be able to handle the load of the two units and might fail. The new building will be a two bedroom home with a four car garage. Mr. Sudheimer plans to convert his present duplex back to a single family home as it originaliy was and then move the second unit to the cairiage house. Mr. Sudheimer stated the State Building code does grant local governing authorifies the flexibility to grant variances when necessary. Regazding The Sewer DepartmenY s contenrion it will be an additionai load, there actually is not. The pipe as it exists now has been handling two units for decades. There does not seem to be anything wrong with the exisfing system. The present piping system is high quality, heavy duty cast iron. The system proposed by the Sewer Department will be . i . i �s PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 9-15-98 Page 2 light weight plastic. The same danger of failure exists for either system. In addition, the tunneling and trenching the City is requiring, will be disruptive to the home. Mr. Sudheimer showed a map of the house and explained in detail what the City's plans and his plans are for the system. Mr. Sudheimer says his plans do not include disrupting the City's plantings nor disrupfing the ornamental gazdens in his own yard. The City has also suggested he tie into his e7cisting line, which would allow him to avoid the extra costs of digging up Portland Avenue, but he would be exposed to different charges. In addirion, he would have to hire City workers to do the work. He then would have to pay contractors to repair the City's streets. Another alternarive is Arundel Street. He would have to pay for the costs of tearing up that street as well. Mr. Sudheimers solution is the least expensive. Louis Sudheimer showed pictures to Gerry Strathman of his property. Karl Johnson reported Public Warks usually handles from the City main to the building. LIEP handles it from there. The initial services was built in 1885. Waste from the new structure would be entering a system that is over 100 years old. A failure in that section would result in backup inside the main house. Construction of a manhole where the old and new service would be combined would not necessitate construction in the street. This would involve digging under the existing service in front of the house and constructing a manhole where the pipe from the existing structure and the new structure enter and continue out into the street. Thomas I.eClair distributed a copy of State Law 4715.0310, Use of Public Sewer and Water Systems Required, which reads in part "Every building must have iYs own independent connection with a public or private sewer, except that a group of buiidings may be connected to one or more manholes which are constructed on the premises, and connected to a public or private sewer. These manholes must conform to the standards set by the local sewer authority." Gerry Strathman asked about consequences if Louis Sudheimer's proposal for service should fail. Thomas I.eclair responded it would be a lazger expense for the homeowner to install the manhole then instead of now. Karl Johnson responded Mr. Sudheimer's basement would be the recepticle for sewage from both structures. Mr. Strathman asked when the service from the street to a residence fails and the residence suffers sewer damage, is that considered the homeowner's problem or does the City have some responsibiliry. Mr. Johnson responded it is considered the responsibility of the homeowner from the main to the building. Gerry Strathman asked I.ouis Sudheimer would he be willing to stipulate in writing to the City that should the proposed system fail, he would have no recourse to the City in regazds to any damages, injury, or losses that he would suffer. Mr. Sudheimer responded he would be willing to put that in writing and indemnify the City of Saint Paul. Thomas I.eClair stated any indemnity clause should be part of the deed when a house is sold to another person. Mr. Strathman agreed. Gerry Strathman granted the variance on condiuon that the owner provide a binding indemnification to the City whereby the owner would relieve the City of any responsibility for any damages that the present owner or any subsequent owners might experience as the result of this ► �� l j) ♦ PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NO'I`ES OF 9-15-98 Page 3 variance being granted. The determinations the City has made aze correct and in conformance with City ordinances and the building codes. However, the City does have the authority to grant variances under certain circumstances, and there needs to be some flexibility for this property. This is a historic dishict and what the owner plans to do is congruent with preserving that district. 2000 Seventh Street West #114 No one appeazed representing the property. Pat Fish reported this unit was condemned by the inspector for tenant sanitarion. The tenant was given time to remove excess combustibles. The inspector went there to meet with the attorney to explain what had to be removed from the apartment. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. 370-372 Fuller Avenue Terrance Luther, owner, appeared and stated he is getting unfair treatment. This properry was troubled with drugs and prostitution. Mr. Luther was not able to safely access the property until 7une 30 because he had filed an unlawful detainer against the people that lived there. Since then, over $5,000 has been spent on the property. Thirty yards of trash has been taken out. The basement was emptied. At that time, the inspector came by and took photographs. The garbage was cleaned up on Monday. Gerry Strathman stated the orders he has in front of him list seven violations and asked which are still outstanding. Terrance Luther responded only Violations 1 and 7 are left. Violation 1, Replace the bathroom electric outlet with a G.F.C.I. outlet, is not done. Regazding Violation 7, Mr. Luther has a letter from a company that will clean and inspect the furnace when their schedule allows. Mr. Strathman asked about long term plans for the G.F.C.I. in the bathroom. Mr. Luther responded he is willing to fix it, but it may take 6 months. Before fixing the G.F.C.I., he would like to do other things before winter comes. Maynard Vinge reported the G.F.C.I, needs to be done. An extension can be given for six months for a G.F.C.I. in the bathroom. Geny Strathman stated of the seven items here, five have been resolved, and there is a contract on the sixth. He asked when the electrical contractor will do the wark. Terrance Luther responded he has not picked one yet. Mr. Strathman asked was someone living there. Mr. Luther responded yes and the property has been thoroughly inspected. Gerry Strathman laid over to the October 20, 1998 Properry Code Enforcement meeting citing most items have been done and only one item is left. ��od �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOT`ES OF 9-15-98 Page 4 629 North Street # 1 Donald Caliahan, owner, appeazed and stated he is looking for a short extension to get his house refinanced. He needs the electricity turned back on. He started making payments in May. The payment in July was late and the electricity was tumed off. James Prill reported Code Enforcement received a routine nouce from Northem States Power that the electricity was off at this property. Code Enforcement sent a notice to the owner to restore the electricity. When it was not restored, Code Enforcement proceeded with the condemnarion. Gerry Strathman asked would the condemnation be lifted when the electricity is restored. Mr. Prill responded yes. Mr. Strathman asked how long it will be before the electriciry will be restored. Donald Callahan responded the bill will probably be paid in two weeks and the electricity will be turned on at that time. Gerry Strathman demed the appeal. His decision will not be effective unril September 23 when the City Council approves it. In the meantime, the enforcement of this arder is suspended. 960 Tuno Avenue Ronald Staeheli, owner, appeared. He provided a 3 ring binder with photographs and paperwork to Gerry Strathman and stated he is appealing most of the Code Compliance Inspecrion report. Every time he has to deal with anyone at the building depaztment, he is told the items deal with the maintenance code. The scope of the building code is it only applies to construction, alteration, moving demolition, or repair of any building or structure. Mare than half of the things on the code compliance report does not exist in Chapter 34. Ronald Staeheli went over the items on the Code Compliance report as follows: Building Item 1- There has been settlement of the structure. Chapter 34 says nothing about a settled shucture. Building Item 2- Replace badly broken and unlevel cellar floor. Chapter 34 does not mention anything about a cellar floor at all. Building Item 3- Provide permanent type support posts under main beam complete with adequate footings on approved soil. They aze permanent under the building code. If the threads are peened on the temporary type, they then become permanent and meet the code. Building Item 4- Evidence of water in the cellar at one time, raise grade on exterior...with gutters... Chapter 34 does not mention gutters, but they have to be kept up if they are there. Building Item 7- Rebuild rear entry steps and/or proper materials, etc. He would like this one rewritten so he can repair the stairs. Building Item 13 - Relevel structure. "Level" does not appeaz in the maintenance code. Electrical Item 1- Add ouflet in living room and rear bedroom. There are three outlets in the living room which is about 10' by 11' and there are two outlets in the bedroom, which is about 9' X 9'. Electrical Item 4- Install smoke detector to U.B.C. There is a hazd wired smoke detector with battery back up outside of the sleeping room, there are smoke detectors in each bedroom, and in the basement. Piumbing Basement Item 1- Water heater-no union between gas shutoff valve and appliance. i� '♦, PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEET`ING NOTES OF 9-15-98 Page 5 T'here is an extra union further up the line that still isolates the water heater that was missed. It is flared copper so that works as a union. Chapter 34 does not bring anything up to plumbing code except for saying it cannot leak. Plumbing Basement Item 3- First Floor bathtub waste ann is backpitched. It is not backpitched. First Floor Item i- No water shutoff on water closet. This is not required under the maintenance code. Ronald Staeheli stated every foundation settles. He has a letter from a neighbor who says that the exterior of the foundation has remained unchanged for the ten years he has been there. Donald Wagner stated he handles the vacant buiiding program. The housing code does not address specifics, such as how much settling. The housing code says all exterior surfaces will be maintained in a professional state of maintenance and repair. Gerry Strathman asked why he believes it is settling. Mr. Wagner responded that on the east and west walls there was a major crack that was closed up. The window above is as much as 1'h inches out of wack. There is about a 5 to 6 inch difference from the center of the basement floor to the outside wall. It was heaved in the center and cracked wide open. Mr. Staeheli was given an option to seek an engineer; an engineer's evaluation is acceptable. A little dirt around the foundarion may have helped. Mr. Strathman asked do many houses settle. Mr. Wagner responded this property has the most extreme foundafion condition he has ever seen and is creating a risk to the integrity of the structure. Geiry Strathman asked about the other issues. Donald Wagner responded the water shutoff item is not necessary and that variance could be granted. There is a new law for smoke detectors. If more than $1,000 of work is done on a property, a smoke detector is required on each level. Gerry Strathman asked would there be any value in fufther discussion with Ronald Staeheli on site to see if a mutual understanding can be met. Donald Wagner responded he would be glad to go over items besides the foundaUon. Mr. 5taeheli responded he would be willing to make repairs to anything that is a specific violation in the maintenance code. He does not want to tear out a foundation and drill to bedrock just because the code says general maintenance. If it is done the way Mr. Wagner suggests, then the building will be condemned. If a new foundation is built, then Mr. Staeheli has to meet new codes because that is specifically in the law. A structural engineer is not going to sign off on it. Gerry Strathman stated if something cannot be worked out, the appeal will be denied, then Ronald Staeheli can pursue this with the City CounciL Mr. Staehefi responded he wouid like to frame this in such a way so that Don Wagner understands the only code he has is the maintenance code. Mr. Strathman stated if Mr. Staeheli only wants to pursue the principle of the matter, the appeal will be denied. Don Wagner stated Mr. Staeheli has stated a number of untruths, therefore Mr. Wagner cannot wark with him any longer. He suggested John Conway work with Mr. Staeheli. Gerry Strathman asked John Conway would he be willing to work with Ronald Staeheli. Mr. Conway responded he would. Gerry Strathman laid this over to the November 17, 1998 Property Code Enforcement meeting. �;��i PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOT`ES OF 9-15-98 Page 6 80 West Lawson Avenue No one appeazed representing the property. Paula Seeley from Code Enforcement appeared. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. 1424.1428,1430,1432,1434,1436 Case Avenue; and 1741,1751,1761 Sims Avenue Robert McClay for Gazden Acquisition Limited Partnership appeazed. Gerry Strathman stated the best starting point would be the orders that have been annotated by Pat Fish. Robert McClay stated he did not have the annotated copy. Mr. Strathman explained Ms. Fish noted if each item was appealed previously or if the item was new. It is Mr. Suathman's view that anything on the orders that the City Council decided on aze not appealable a second time to the City, however there aze other avenues of appeal after that. The other items are appealable and can be discussed here. Robert McClay stated the properties on Sims were converted from two bedroom to four bedroom units in approximately 1990. By design the units provide housing for lazge families with many children. The Case properties were constructed in 1983 and also are designed far larger families. They are tt�ree bedroom units and there aze 24 units in the particular complex. The properties were foreclosed and operated by Fannie Mae for a number of years. Mr. McClay's client purchased the properties in 1995, a little less than three years ago. The scope of managing the properties was far more involved than they anticipated. In 1948, they expended over $50,000 in efforts to get the properties in a suitable condition. Additionally, they have evicted or failed to renew leases on perceived problem tenants. Of the 24 units on Case, five of them continue to be vacant for this reason. Addifionally, three of the properties that are presently under lease are subject to unlawful detainer actions which will have hearings this Thursday. Of the 18 units on Sims, four of them are vacant far the same basis. Over the past three months, the owners have committed additional resources, money, and people to the maintenance of the two complexes and have made great progress. Mr. McClay requests that Mr. Strathman determine the following issues: whether the deficiencies noted aze sustained, what deficiencies remain,and does the present conditions warrant revocation of the certificate of occupancy. First, it should be determined whether an item is on a prior list and on this list. Second, deternune whether the deficiency noted is within the scope of the building maintenance code, Chapter 33, or the property maintenance code, Chapter 34. Mr. McClay stated he is here with Jim Crockarell who is associated with the management group and is knowledgeable as to each of the units. He will advise to the particular deficiencies noted, and whether the item has been corrected. After Mr. Strathman hears the evidence, Mr. McClay believes � ��; PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 9-15-98 Page 7 it will show the present condition of the units does not warrant revoking the certificate of occupancy, the appeal should be granted, and the proposed action by the City denied. Pat Fash stated the City and the Fire Department have spent an exorbitant amount of time on these properties. Ms. Fish presented a booklet of photographs to Gerry Strathman of the properties taken over time. Some photog�aphs were taken today. Ms. Fish does not feel the appeilants should be granted this appeal simply on technicaliries and resents having to argue these technicalities again. It should not be the resgonsibility of the Fire Department to have to tell a management company to cleanup the gazbage and replace the tile in the entry. Over a period of a yeaz, ongoing orders have been issued on this property. None of the items listed here aze unreasonable. Most are common sense maintenance items. The arguments presented here are unreasonable and petty. Gerry Strathman asked was a copy of the annotated version supplied to Robert McClay. Pat Fish responded it was not. Mr. Strathman stated there will be a recess in order to provide Mr. McClay a copy of the annotated document and to review them plus the photographs. (Recess 3:04 to 3:18 p.m.) Robert McClay suggested each item be gone through to deternune if it has been corrected. Geny Strathman stated he does not have the authoriry to take testimony on matters the Council akeady has ruled on. Robert McClay responded some of the items were remedied and then reoccuired. Therefore, it would be subject to a new appeal. Mr. Strathman stated he operates under Chapter 8 and it does not put him in the position of second guessing City officials. Rather, his authority is whether the City officiais have given proper notification to the owner, whether an opportunity to correct has been provided, and whether the actions are reasonable. This is a legislative review of an administrative process. For example, Mr. Strathman cannot decide whether or not the floors are dirry because he is not a tryer of fact. Robert McClay stated if Mr. Strathman's role is to determine whether the action is reasonable, he cannot deternune that without considering the condition of the property today. Pat Fish stated she made an appointment, the management and the owner knew what time she would be there, and they had copies of the deficiency list. At least for the inspection, the condition should have been corrected. Geny Strathman stated it is appropriate for him to make a decision as to whether he finds Pat Fish's findings credible. He will hear from her as to what she saw on August 28� and he will hear from Robert McClay as to what he saw on the 28`". What the condition is today or some other day, Mr. Strathman has no way of knowing. Mr. McClay stated he disageed. Mr. Strathman responded the record will show his arguments. 1424 Case Avenue James Crockarell went through the items as follows: � �ii PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 9-IS-98 Page 8 Item 1- The haliways and stairwells were cleaned the morning of the inspection. There is now a contract with an outside firm to clean. Residents will clean also. Itam 2- The carpeting does not need to be replaced. It has been shampooed, dyed, and it would pass Section 8 certification. Item 3- The broken tile in the entry has been replaced. Pat Fish stated Item 2 was put on at the request of maintenance because she made a comment about the carpeting being in bad condition. The cieaning of the hallways and stairwells was not sufficient. Ms. Fish has no objection to appealing the tile. She was not told by maintenance people they had been cleaned. James Crockarell stated cleaning ls now done six days a week. Gerry Strathman stated cleaning is a reoccurring event. It is not possible to know if the lack of cleanliness from July 14 is the same lack of cleanliness on August 25. All three items aze subject to appeal. Robert McClay stated the condition of the carpeting in the unit is the responsibility of the tenant. Pat Fish responded this refers to the carpeting in the hallway and was clearly explained to the maintenance people. Geny Strathman denied the appeal on 1424 Case Avenue. 1428 Case Avenue Pat Fish reported this unit is not vacant, but occupied as a workroom. It will have to be approved and inspected befare being occupied again. As long as it is not occupied as a residence, she will not pursue the matter. The certificate is not revoked on this building. Gerry Strathman granted the appeal on 1428 Case Avenue as long as Unit #1 remains vacant. 1430 Case Avenue James Crockarell stated the tenant in Units #1 and 4 are being evicted. It is best to fix those items when they leave. Mr. Crockarell went through the items as follows: Item 1- The hallways and stairwells are clean. The broken tile has been replaced. Item 2- The missing screens in Unit #4 have been replaced. Item 7- There is now a screen on the bedroom window in Unit #4. Item 8- The torn screens have been repaired. Pat Fish stated she talked to the tenants in Unit #4 who said the oven is still not working. The certificate was revoked because of the number of violarions and the condition of the building. James Crockazell stated these are not the same 8 items as on the previous inspection. The children teaz the screens on a regulaz basis. Ten screens have been torn since August 26. Gerry Strathman stated he believes the violations were there on August 26. It is justification to revoke the certificate of occupancy. Robert McClay stated on August 14 there were 28 items and �� i ► PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 9-15-98 Page 9 on the last inspection there were eight items. There are things that occur at these properties each day. Mr. Strathman stated the revocation is based on a growing sense of repeated failures to get the remedies maintained. These items by themselves may not normally constitute basis for revocation of certificate of occupancy. However, given the totality of the record, it consritutes sufficient basis for acrion. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on 1430 Case Avenue. 1432 Case Avenue Item i- James Crockarell stated tenants take down the certificate of occupancy nofice repeatedly. All six items on the list are done now. Pat Fish stated one of the windows is garden level. The plastic covering was fragile. Regarding the garbage in Item 6, when Pat Fish was at the complex, there were two dumpsters. There was gazbage and trash in front of the dumpsters so the tenants could not get close. On the west end of the complex is the previous dump site; it had mattresses and bags broken away and there were many flies around. James Crockazell stated trash is picked up three times a week, and they aze billed for three pick ups a week. Gerry Strathman suggested the owners check to make sure the trash is being picked up. Gerry Strathman stated there seems to be sufficient basis for revocation. It is a failure of the properry owner to resolve some matters such as broken bedroom windows. It is reasonable to fix a windows in 12 days. Robert McClay stated it was not easy to find tradespeople to do work this summer. 7ames Crockarell responded the windows are custom made because the windows opening are unique. Mr. Strathman stated he is not persuaded by the inabiliry to repair the windows. Geiry Strathman denied the appeal on 1432 Case Avenue. 1434 Case Avenue James Crockazell went over the items as follows: Item 1- A new certificate of occupancy has been placed. Item 2- The hallways were clean on the day of the inspection. Item 3- The kitchen cabinet doors have been fixed. Item 4- The cabinet doors are fixed. Item 6- Water damage is not on the previous list. Item 7- Cleaning the carpeting in Unit #4 is not the owner's job. Item 8- Replacing the carpeting is unreasonable. Item 11 - The screens have been installed again in Unit #4. Item 12 - Mr. McClay stated the door is not in such a state that it needs to be replaced. Mr. Strathman asked why it needed to be replaced. Pat Fish responded the doar has lost the security �' ��i PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEET`ING NOTES OF 9-15-98 Page 10 aspect. The maintenance people agreed with her. Mr. Strathman stated if it is based on someone else's judgement, it should read "repair or replace" the door. Regarding Item 5, Robert McClay stated Unit 2 is not rented, and the items will be repaired before it is rented again. Regarding Item 3, Pat Fish stated the repairs have not been done in a professional manner. Gerry Strathman asked why does the carpeung have to be replaced instead of cleaned or repaired. Pat Fish responded it is given as an alternative. The entire apartment was so severely stained that it was not cleanable. Item 3 dad not have the correct tunges. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on 1434 Case Avenue, but the DeficiencylCorrection list is amended as follows: the carpeting in Unit #4 is not the owner's responsibility; the entry door to Unit #4 can be repaired or replaced. 1436 Case Avenue James Crockazell and Robert McClay went over the items as follows: Item 1- Mr. Crockarell stated the certificate of occupancy was taken down. Item 3- Mr. McClay stated holes in the carpeting is the owner's responsibility. Item 5- Mr. Crockarell stated the patio door is not broken, but the screen needs to be fixed. Pat Fish agreed. Given the short list of deficiencies, Gerry Strathman asked why the certificate of occupancy was revoked. Ms. Fish responded if the certificate was revoked in June and with the lengthy appeals process extending the time, each time the owners were sent a letter, they were also sent a revocation letter becanse it is srill revoked. Robert McClay stated the City and his client entered into a consent agreement. This is contrary to the agreement that was approved by the court. There was a hearing on this following the City Council hearing. The owner was upheld at that hearing. A judicial officer deternuned that the owners did not violate that consent agreement. Given that, Bazb Cummings actions were an illegal aberration of her authority. She did things she did not have the authority to do. Gerry Strathman stated this letter is reiterating a decision made in June and asked do these things observed on August 25 and 26 constitute a basis far revocation. Pat Fish responded the certificate of occupancy was revoked because of non compliance with the property maintenance code and the agreement previously made. Just because the building is inspected on August 25 and the letter says the certificate is revoked, it may have been revoked six months ago. Mr. Strathman asked was it Ms. Fish's determination on August 25 that what she observed sufficient reason to revoke the certificate of occupancy. Ms. Fish responded yes. Regarding Item 3, Pat Fish stated if the owner wants to hold the tenants responsible, that is between the owner and the tenant. James Cockarell stated Secrion 8 inspected the unit and did not find the teaz before the tenant moved in. ♦ � 'f i � PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOT'ES OF 9-15-98 Page 11 Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on 1436 Case Avenue citing Pat Fish's conclusion is not unreasonabie, however he has some concems about whether these violarions aze sufficient for revoking a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Strathman will not substitute his judgement for the judgement of Ms. Fish who was on site and saw these violations. 1741 Sims Avenue James Cockarell stated Items 9 through 12 aze new. Items 2 and 9- Inspector Bazb Cummings is requiring them to replace air conditioners throughout the building. It is not the owner's responsibility under the lease or under Section 8 rules to provide an air conditioner. Items 3 and 4- Mr. Cockarell stated the carpering has been shampooed, therefore it does not need to be replaced. To satisfy Bazb Cummings, carpering was taken out of four units, and the floors were sanded. Gerry Strathman stated Item 3 menrions water damage. Mr. Cockarell stated it was dirty. Mr. Strathman suggested different language on this item and is concerned about ordering replacement of carpering. Pat Fish stated worn carpeting is not an issue unless it is a tripping hazard. In many units in the City, some managers go to tile or hardwood floors. Mr. Strathman asked would Ms. Fish be willing to amend anything on the list. Ms. Fish responded she would rather not. Mr. McClay stated the property passed Section 8 inspection. Ms. Fish stated Section 8's standards are a lot lower than the City's standards and have nothing to do with the certificate of occupancy inspection. Mr. Strathman stated it is the owner's responsibility to make sure the people who live there maintain the property in a safe manner. Item 5- James Cockarell stated the owners have spent over $1,000 replacing new cabinet drawers. Item 7- Mr. Cockazell stated a cazpenter took care of the cupboard doors. James Crockarell stated the owner should not be required to replace carpeting and sand floors while the tenants aze in the unit. Regarding the air conditioners, Robert McClay stated the code requires they be operating if they aze provided, but they do not have to be allowed. Pat Fish agreed with this. Mr. Cockarell stated he would like to meet with appropriate City representaYives to either put sheeuock, plywood, or whatever is appropriate to replace the air conditioners. NIr. McClay stated he has a proposal to bring before Ms. Fish for approval. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on 1741 Sims Avenue, however air conditioners do not need to be replaced if they aze removed. If air conditioners are present, they have to be in warking condition. 1751 Sims Avenue Unit 2- James Cockarell stated the carpeting has been shampooed and does not need to be replaced. Unit 3- Mr. Cockarell stated Unit 102 is not occupied, therefore the air conditioner does not need to be replaced. � � �i's PROPERTY COAE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 9-15-98 Page 12 Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on 1751 Sims Avenue, however air conditioners do not need to be repaired if they aze removed. If air conditioners aze present, they have to be in working condi6on. Mr. Strathman stated he is not in a posiuon to know if the carpeting needs replacement. 1761 Sims Avenue James Crockazell went over the items as follows: Item 1- The chimney has been repaired adequately. Bazb Cummings may have added this as a mistake. Item 2- The metal duct has been properly sealed. Item 3- St. Paul Plumbing put in a new hot water heater, however Barb Cuzrunings said she could not find evidence of the pemut being granted. Item 9- The fire extinguisher has been repaired. Item 12 - Tenants have been told bicycles cannot be kept in the hallway. Ttem 13 - The strike plate for the fire door has been replaced. Items 4, 6, 7, 11 - He cannot sand the floors of 18 units while the tenants are there. The tenants have to be housed in hotels, furniture has to be moved into the hallway or vacant units. The owners are prepared to make the floors conform to City requirements when the tenants leave the unit. Robert McCiay asked about the compliance dates on some items. Pat Fish responded some of the items were cited on previous orders. Gerry Strathman asked is it usual pracfice to order carpets replaced. Pat Fish responded it depends on how bad it is; this carpeting was beyond cleaning. Mr. Strathman stated the code says that floors should be kept in a safe and clean fashion. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on 1761 Sims, however air conditioners do not need to be replaced if they aze removed. If air conditioners are present, they have to be in working condition. Also, the Deficiency/Cotrection list should be amended to read: "Maintain flooring in a safe and clean condition." Note: Regarding the appeals by Robert McClay, some appeals were denied on the basis of being previously acted upon by the City Council. Other appeals were denied because the actions of the Fire Department aze credible and reasonable. Only the appeal on 1428 Case Avenue was granted. With a few amendments, the appeals for 1424, 1430, 1432, 1434, 1436 Case Avenue, 1741, 1751, and 1761 Sims Avenue are denied. 79 Vir¢inia Street Gerry Strathman rescheduled this to the October 6 Property Code Enforcement meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 5:18 p.m. rrn Council File # �J�df ORIGINAL Presented RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Green Sheet # 62254 �L Referred To Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the September 15, 2 1998 decision of the L.egislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 address: 4 Propert�p ep aled 5 629 North Street # 1 6 Decision: Appeal denied. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Yeas Na s Absent Blakey ✓ Coleman � Harris � Benanav ✓ Reiter ✓ Bostrom � L�� ✓ 14 Adopted 6y Council: Date a� .� \� � 15 Adoption 16 sy: 1� Approved 18 By: Appellant Donald Callahan Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council 1 9�'- 9�� City Council ��,N�„ 10/1/98 GREEN SHEET No 62254 Rathy Lantry, 266-8670 October 7, 1998 � TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES u�� u��— ❑ pIYAiTOR1EY ❑ CRYCIiRK ❑ nurcu�aEaxc¢son. ❑ wuur,.taom�ccro ❑ WVORIORASVSr41n ❑ (CUP ALL LOCATfONS FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the decision of the Legislative Aearing OfEicer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the September 15, 1998 meeting on 629 North Street lll. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB CAMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION IFAPPROVED Has this persorJfirtn eoerv.nrked under a canfract for Nia tleparlmeM7 YES NO Has Mis PereoNfirm ever been a cdY emPbY�? YES NO Dces this persor�im possesa a sldll not normallypossessetl Dy arry curreM cdy emPioyee7 YES NO Is Nis persoNfirtn a targetetl vendoYl VES NO � rv:R .,L.",��f��rn'i�, �u*1'�'�$Y �. , '., ;. �. : -.± F . f AMOUNT OFTRANSACTION SOURCE (qRC�E ON� VES NO ACTNITY NUMBER (EJPWN) �Id'"q°� MINUTBS OF TI� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING September 15, 1998 Room 330, City Hall Gerry Strathman, L.egsiative Hearing Officer STAFF PRESENT: John Conway, License, Inspection, Environmental Protection (LIEP); Karl Johnson, Public Works; Tom LeClair, LSEP; Phillip Owens, Fire Prevenrion; James Prill, Code Enforcement; Paula Seeley, Code Enforcement; Maynard Vinge, Code Enforcement; Don Wagner, LIEP Gerry Strathman called the meeting to order at 1:31.m. 1285 Hamline Avenue North (Laid over from 8-4-98) Gerry Strathman laid over to the November 17, 1998 Property Code Enforcement meeung. Mr. Strathman spoke to the owner Robert Davis today who indicated he had filed a petition for an encroachment pemut from the City. This layover will give the owner time to get this pemut. 1148 Seventh Street West (Laid over from 8-18-98) (Note: the appeal on this properiy was originaily heard on 7-14-98. It had been laid over to 8-4-98, 8-18-98, and 9-15-98.) No one appeared representing the property. Phil Owens reported nothing has been done to proceed with this property, therefare, he requested the appeal be denied. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal citing the owner has had ample time to deal with the situation. 439 Portland Avenue (Rescheduled from 9-1-98) Louis Sudheimer, owner, appeared to request the ability to extend the sewer and water connecuon from the rear of the house to a new carriage house that he received pernussion to build from the Zoning Departrnent and the Heritage Preservation Commission. The garage will be torn down. The project will take about 45 feet of addifional length of sewer and water lines to connect from the house to this building. The Sewer Deparunent feels the new line violates the State building code, and the existing pipe will not be able to handle the load of the two units and might fail. The new building will be a two bedroom home with a four car garage. Mr. Sudheimer plans to convert his present duplex back to a single family home as it originaliy was and then move the second unit to the cairiage house. Mr. Sudheimer stated the State Building code does grant local governing authorifies the flexibility to grant variances when necessary. Regazding The Sewer DepartmenY s contenrion it will be an additionai load, there actually is not. The pipe as it exists now has been handling two units for decades. There does not seem to be anything wrong with the exisfing system. The present piping system is high quality, heavy duty cast iron. The system proposed by the Sewer Department will be . i . i �s PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 9-15-98 Page 2 light weight plastic. The same danger of failure exists for either system. In addition, the tunneling and trenching the City is requiring, will be disruptive to the home. Mr. Sudheimer showed a map of the house and explained in detail what the City's plans and his plans are for the system. Mr. Sudheimer says his plans do not include disrupting the City's plantings nor disrupfing the ornamental gazdens in his own yard. The City has also suggested he tie into his e7cisting line, which would allow him to avoid the extra costs of digging up Portland Avenue, but he would be exposed to different charges. In addirion, he would have to hire City workers to do the work. He then would have to pay contractors to repair the City's streets. Another alternarive is Arundel Street. He would have to pay for the costs of tearing up that street as well. Mr. Sudheimers solution is the least expensive. Louis Sudheimer showed pictures to Gerry Strathman of his property. Karl Johnson reported Public Warks usually handles from the City main to the building. LIEP handles it from there. The initial services was built in 1885. Waste from the new structure would be entering a system that is over 100 years old. A failure in that section would result in backup inside the main house. Construction of a manhole where the old and new service would be combined would not necessitate construction in the street. This would involve digging under the existing service in front of the house and constructing a manhole where the pipe from the existing structure and the new structure enter and continue out into the street. Thomas I.eClair distributed a copy of State Law 4715.0310, Use of Public Sewer and Water Systems Required, which reads in part "Every building must have iYs own independent connection with a public or private sewer, except that a group of buiidings may be connected to one or more manholes which are constructed on the premises, and connected to a public or private sewer. These manholes must conform to the standards set by the local sewer authority." Gerry Strathman asked about consequences if Louis Sudheimer's proposal for service should fail. Thomas I.eclair responded it would be a lazger expense for the homeowner to install the manhole then instead of now. Karl Johnson responded Mr. Sudheimer's basement would be the recepticle for sewage from both structures. Mr. Strathman asked when the service from the street to a residence fails and the residence suffers sewer damage, is that considered the homeowner's problem or does the City have some responsibiliry. Mr. Johnson responded it is considered the responsibility of the homeowner from the main to the building. Gerry Strathman asked I.ouis Sudheimer would he be willing to stipulate in writing to the City that should the proposed system fail, he would have no recourse to the City in regazds to any damages, injury, or losses that he would suffer. Mr. Sudheimer responded he would be willing to put that in writing and indemnify the City of Saint Paul. Thomas I.eClair stated any indemnity clause should be part of the deed when a house is sold to another person. Mr. Strathman agreed. Gerry Strathman granted the variance on condiuon that the owner provide a binding indemnification to the City whereby the owner would relieve the City of any responsibility for any damages that the present owner or any subsequent owners might experience as the result of this ► �� l j) ♦ PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NO'I`ES OF 9-15-98 Page 3 variance being granted. The determinations the City has made aze correct and in conformance with City ordinances and the building codes. However, the City does have the authority to grant variances under certain circumstances, and there needs to be some flexibility for this property. This is a historic dishict and what the owner plans to do is congruent with preserving that district. 2000 Seventh Street West #114 No one appeazed representing the property. Pat Fish reported this unit was condemned by the inspector for tenant sanitarion. The tenant was given time to remove excess combustibles. The inspector went there to meet with the attorney to explain what had to be removed from the apartment. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. 370-372 Fuller Avenue Terrance Luther, owner, appeared and stated he is getting unfair treatment. This properry was troubled with drugs and prostitution. Mr. Luther was not able to safely access the property until 7une 30 because he had filed an unlawful detainer against the people that lived there. Since then, over $5,000 has been spent on the property. Thirty yards of trash has been taken out. The basement was emptied. At that time, the inspector came by and took photographs. The garbage was cleaned up on Monday. Gerry Strathman stated the orders he has in front of him list seven violations and asked which are still outstanding. Terrance Luther responded only Violations 1 and 7 are left. Violation 1, Replace the bathroom electric outlet with a G.F.C.I. outlet, is not done. Regazding Violation 7, Mr. Luther has a letter from a company that will clean and inspect the furnace when their schedule allows. Mr. Strathman asked about long term plans for the G.F.C.I. in the bathroom. Mr. Luther responded he is willing to fix it, but it may take 6 months. Before fixing the G.F.C.I., he would like to do other things before winter comes. Maynard Vinge reported the G.F.C.I, needs to be done. An extension can be given for six months for a G.F.C.I. in the bathroom. Geny Strathman stated of the seven items here, five have been resolved, and there is a contract on the sixth. He asked when the electrical contractor will do the wark. Terrance Luther responded he has not picked one yet. Mr. Strathman asked was someone living there. Mr. Luther responded yes and the property has been thoroughly inspected. Gerry Strathman laid over to the October 20, 1998 Properry Code Enforcement meeting citing most items have been done and only one item is left. ��od �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOT`ES OF 9-15-98 Page 4 629 North Street # 1 Donald Caliahan, owner, appeazed and stated he is looking for a short extension to get his house refinanced. He needs the electricity turned back on. He started making payments in May. The payment in July was late and the electricity was tumed off. James Prill reported Code Enforcement received a routine nouce from Northem States Power that the electricity was off at this property. Code Enforcement sent a notice to the owner to restore the electricity. When it was not restored, Code Enforcement proceeded with the condemnarion. Gerry Strathman asked would the condemnation be lifted when the electricity is restored. Mr. Prill responded yes. Mr. Strathman asked how long it will be before the electriciry will be restored. Donald Callahan responded the bill will probably be paid in two weeks and the electricity will be turned on at that time. Gerry Strathman demed the appeal. His decision will not be effective unril September 23 when the City Council approves it. In the meantime, the enforcement of this arder is suspended. 960 Tuno Avenue Ronald Staeheli, owner, appeared. He provided a 3 ring binder with photographs and paperwork to Gerry Strathman and stated he is appealing most of the Code Compliance Inspecrion report. Every time he has to deal with anyone at the building depaztment, he is told the items deal with the maintenance code. The scope of the building code is it only applies to construction, alteration, moving demolition, or repair of any building or structure. Mare than half of the things on the code compliance report does not exist in Chapter 34. Ronald Staeheli went over the items on the Code Compliance report as follows: Building Item 1- There has been settlement of the structure. Chapter 34 says nothing about a settled shucture. Building Item 2- Replace badly broken and unlevel cellar floor. Chapter 34 does not mention anything about a cellar floor at all. Building Item 3- Provide permanent type support posts under main beam complete with adequate footings on approved soil. They aze permanent under the building code. If the threads are peened on the temporary type, they then become permanent and meet the code. Building Item 4- Evidence of water in the cellar at one time, raise grade on exterior...with gutters... Chapter 34 does not mention gutters, but they have to be kept up if they are there. Building Item 7- Rebuild rear entry steps and/or proper materials, etc. He would like this one rewritten so he can repair the stairs. Building Item 13 - Relevel structure. "Level" does not appeaz in the maintenance code. Electrical Item 1- Add ouflet in living room and rear bedroom. There are three outlets in the living room which is about 10' by 11' and there are two outlets in the bedroom, which is about 9' X 9'. Electrical Item 4- Install smoke detector to U.B.C. There is a hazd wired smoke detector with battery back up outside of the sleeping room, there are smoke detectors in each bedroom, and in the basement. Piumbing Basement Item 1- Water heater-no union between gas shutoff valve and appliance. i� '♦, PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEET`ING NOTES OF 9-15-98 Page 5 T'here is an extra union further up the line that still isolates the water heater that was missed. It is flared copper so that works as a union. Chapter 34 does not bring anything up to plumbing code except for saying it cannot leak. Plumbing Basement Item 3- First Floor bathtub waste ann is backpitched. It is not backpitched. First Floor Item i- No water shutoff on water closet. This is not required under the maintenance code. Ronald Staeheli stated every foundation settles. He has a letter from a neighbor who says that the exterior of the foundation has remained unchanged for the ten years he has been there. Donald Wagner stated he handles the vacant buiiding program. The housing code does not address specifics, such as how much settling. The housing code says all exterior surfaces will be maintained in a professional state of maintenance and repair. Gerry Strathman asked why he believes it is settling. Mr. Wagner responded that on the east and west walls there was a major crack that was closed up. The window above is as much as 1'h inches out of wack. There is about a 5 to 6 inch difference from the center of the basement floor to the outside wall. It was heaved in the center and cracked wide open. Mr. Staeheli was given an option to seek an engineer; an engineer's evaluation is acceptable. A little dirt around the foundarion may have helped. Mr. Strathman asked do many houses settle. Mr. Wagner responded this property has the most extreme foundafion condition he has ever seen and is creating a risk to the integrity of the structure. Geiry Strathman asked about the other issues. Donald Wagner responded the water shutoff item is not necessary and that variance could be granted. There is a new law for smoke detectors. If more than $1,000 of work is done on a property, a smoke detector is required on each level. Gerry Strathman asked would there be any value in fufther discussion with Ronald Staeheli on site to see if a mutual understanding can be met. Donald Wagner responded he would be glad to go over items besides the foundaUon. Mr. 5taeheli responded he would be willing to make repairs to anything that is a specific violation in the maintenance code. He does not want to tear out a foundation and drill to bedrock just because the code says general maintenance. If it is done the way Mr. Wagner suggests, then the building will be condemned. If a new foundation is built, then Mr. Staeheli has to meet new codes because that is specifically in the law. A structural engineer is not going to sign off on it. Gerry Strathman stated if something cannot be worked out, the appeal will be denied, then Ronald Staeheli can pursue this with the City CounciL Mr. Staehefi responded he wouid like to frame this in such a way so that Don Wagner understands the only code he has is the maintenance code. Mr. Strathman stated if Mr. Staeheli only wants to pursue the principle of the matter, the appeal will be denied. Don Wagner stated Mr. Staeheli has stated a number of untruths, therefore Mr. Wagner cannot wark with him any longer. He suggested John Conway work with Mr. Staeheli. Gerry Strathman asked John Conway would he be willing to work with Ronald Staeheli. Mr. Conway responded he would. Gerry Strathman laid this over to the November 17, 1998 Property Code Enforcement meeting. �;��i PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOT`ES OF 9-15-98 Page 6 80 West Lawson Avenue No one appeazed representing the property. Paula Seeley from Code Enforcement appeared. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. 1424.1428,1430,1432,1434,1436 Case Avenue; and 1741,1751,1761 Sims Avenue Robert McClay for Gazden Acquisition Limited Partnership appeazed. Gerry Strathman stated the best starting point would be the orders that have been annotated by Pat Fish. Robert McClay stated he did not have the annotated copy. Mr. Strathman explained Ms. Fish noted if each item was appealed previously or if the item was new. It is Mr. Suathman's view that anything on the orders that the City Council decided on aze not appealable a second time to the City, however there aze other avenues of appeal after that. The other items are appealable and can be discussed here. Robert McClay stated the properties on Sims were converted from two bedroom to four bedroom units in approximately 1990. By design the units provide housing for lazge families with many children. The Case properties were constructed in 1983 and also are designed far larger families. They are tt�ree bedroom units and there aze 24 units in the particular complex. The properties were foreclosed and operated by Fannie Mae for a number of years. Mr. McClay's client purchased the properties in 1995, a little less than three years ago. The scope of managing the properties was far more involved than they anticipated. In 1948, they expended over $50,000 in efforts to get the properties in a suitable condition. Additionally, they have evicted or failed to renew leases on perceived problem tenants. Of the 24 units on Case, five of them continue to be vacant for this reason. Addifionally, three of the properties that are presently under lease are subject to unlawful detainer actions which will have hearings this Thursday. Of the 18 units on Sims, four of them are vacant far the same basis. Over the past three months, the owners have committed additional resources, money, and people to the maintenance of the two complexes and have made great progress. Mr. McClay requests that Mr. Strathman determine the following issues: whether the deficiencies noted aze sustained, what deficiencies remain,and does the present conditions warrant revocation of the certificate of occupancy. First, it should be determined whether an item is on a prior list and on this list. Second, deternune whether the deficiency noted is within the scope of the building maintenance code, Chapter 33, or the property maintenance code, Chapter 34. Mr. McClay stated he is here with Jim Crockarell who is associated with the management group and is knowledgeable as to each of the units. He will advise to the particular deficiencies noted, and whether the item has been corrected. After Mr. Strathman hears the evidence, Mr. McClay believes � ��; PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 9-15-98 Page 7 it will show the present condition of the units does not warrant revoking the certificate of occupancy, the appeal should be granted, and the proposed action by the City denied. Pat Fash stated the City and the Fire Department have spent an exorbitant amount of time on these properties. Ms. Fish presented a booklet of photographs to Gerry Strathman of the properties taken over time. Some photog�aphs were taken today. Ms. Fish does not feel the appeilants should be granted this appeal simply on technicaliries and resents having to argue these technicalities again. It should not be the resgonsibility of the Fire Department to have to tell a management company to cleanup the gazbage and replace the tile in the entry. Over a period of a yeaz, ongoing orders have been issued on this property. None of the items listed here aze unreasonable. Most are common sense maintenance items. The arguments presented here are unreasonable and petty. Gerry Strathman asked was a copy of the annotated version supplied to Robert McClay. Pat Fish responded it was not. Mr. Strathman stated there will be a recess in order to provide Mr. McClay a copy of the annotated document and to review them plus the photographs. (Recess 3:04 to 3:18 p.m.) Robert McClay suggested each item be gone through to deternune if it has been corrected. Geny Strathman stated he does not have the authoriry to take testimony on matters the Council akeady has ruled on. Robert McClay responded some of the items were remedied and then reoccuired. Therefore, it would be subject to a new appeal. Mr. Strathman stated he operates under Chapter 8 and it does not put him in the position of second guessing City officials. Rather, his authority is whether the City officiais have given proper notification to the owner, whether an opportunity to correct has been provided, and whether the actions are reasonable. This is a legislative review of an administrative process. For example, Mr. Strathman cannot decide whether or not the floors are dirry because he is not a tryer of fact. Robert McClay stated if Mr. Strathman's role is to determine whether the action is reasonable, he cannot deternune that without considering the condition of the property today. Pat Fish stated she made an appointment, the management and the owner knew what time she would be there, and they had copies of the deficiency list. At least for the inspection, the condition should have been corrected. Geny Strathman stated it is appropriate for him to make a decision as to whether he finds Pat Fish's findings credible. He will hear from her as to what she saw on August 28� and he will hear from Robert McClay as to what he saw on the 28`". What the condition is today or some other day, Mr. Strathman has no way of knowing. Mr. McClay stated he disageed. Mr. Strathman responded the record will show his arguments. 1424 Case Avenue James Crockarell went through the items as follows: � �ii PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 9-IS-98 Page 8 Item 1- The haliways and stairwells were cleaned the morning of the inspection. There is now a contract with an outside firm to clean. Residents will clean also. Itam 2- The carpeting does not need to be replaced. It has been shampooed, dyed, and it would pass Section 8 certification. Item 3- The broken tile in the entry has been replaced. Pat Fish stated Item 2 was put on at the request of maintenance because she made a comment about the carpeting being in bad condition. The cieaning of the hallways and stairwells was not sufficient. Ms. Fish has no objection to appealing the tile. She was not told by maintenance people they had been cleaned. James Crockarell stated cleaning ls now done six days a week. Gerry Strathman stated cleaning is a reoccurring event. It is not possible to know if the lack of cleanliness from July 14 is the same lack of cleanliness on August 25. All three items aze subject to appeal. Robert McClay stated the condition of the carpeting in the unit is the responsibility of the tenant. Pat Fish responded this refers to the carpeting in the hallway and was clearly explained to the maintenance people. Geny Strathman denied the appeal on 1424 Case Avenue. 1428 Case Avenue Pat Fish reported this unit is not vacant, but occupied as a workroom. It will have to be approved and inspected befare being occupied again. As long as it is not occupied as a residence, she will not pursue the matter. The certificate is not revoked on this building. Gerry Strathman granted the appeal on 1428 Case Avenue as long as Unit #1 remains vacant. 1430 Case Avenue James Crockarell stated the tenant in Units #1 and 4 are being evicted. It is best to fix those items when they leave. Mr. Crockarell went through the items as follows: Item 1- The hallways and stairwells are clean. The broken tile has been replaced. Item 2- The missing screens in Unit #4 have been replaced. Item 7- There is now a screen on the bedroom window in Unit #4. Item 8- The torn screens have been repaired. Pat Fish stated she talked to the tenants in Unit #4 who said the oven is still not working. The certificate was revoked because of the number of violarions and the condition of the building. James Crockazell stated these are not the same 8 items as on the previous inspection. The children teaz the screens on a regulaz basis. Ten screens have been torn since August 26. Gerry Strathman stated he believes the violations were there on August 26. It is justification to revoke the certificate of occupancy. Robert McClay stated on August 14 there were 28 items and �� i ► PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 9-15-98 Page 9 on the last inspection there were eight items. There are things that occur at these properties each day. Mr. Strathman stated the revocation is based on a growing sense of repeated failures to get the remedies maintained. These items by themselves may not normally constitute basis for revocation of certificate of occupancy. However, given the totality of the record, it consritutes sufficient basis for acrion. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on 1430 Case Avenue. 1432 Case Avenue Item i- James Crockarell stated tenants take down the certificate of occupancy nofice repeatedly. All six items on the list are done now. Pat Fish stated one of the windows is garden level. The plastic covering was fragile. Regarding the garbage in Item 6, when Pat Fish was at the complex, there were two dumpsters. There was gazbage and trash in front of the dumpsters so the tenants could not get close. On the west end of the complex is the previous dump site; it had mattresses and bags broken away and there were many flies around. James Crockazell stated trash is picked up three times a week, and they aze billed for three pick ups a week. Gerry Strathman suggested the owners check to make sure the trash is being picked up. Gerry Strathman stated there seems to be sufficient basis for revocation. It is a failure of the properry owner to resolve some matters such as broken bedroom windows. It is reasonable to fix a windows in 12 days. Robert McClay stated it was not easy to find tradespeople to do work this summer. 7ames Crockarell responded the windows are custom made because the windows opening are unique. Mr. Strathman stated he is not persuaded by the inabiliry to repair the windows. Geiry Strathman denied the appeal on 1432 Case Avenue. 1434 Case Avenue James Crockazell went over the items as follows: Item 1- A new certificate of occupancy has been placed. Item 2- The hallways were clean on the day of the inspection. Item 3- The kitchen cabinet doors have been fixed. Item 4- The cabinet doors are fixed. Item 6- Water damage is not on the previous list. Item 7- Cleaning the carpeting in Unit #4 is not the owner's job. Item 8- Replacing the carpeting is unreasonable. Item 11 - The screens have been installed again in Unit #4. Item 12 - Mr. McClay stated the door is not in such a state that it needs to be replaced. Mr. Strathman asked why it needed to be replaced. Pat Fish responded the doar has lost the security �' ��i PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEET`ING NOTES OF 9-15-98 Page 10 aspect. The maintenance people agreed with her. Mr. Strathman stated if it is based on someone else's judgement, it should read "repair or replace" the door. Regarding Item 5, Robert McClay stated Unit 2 is not rented, and the items will be repaired before it is rented again. Regarding Item 3, Pat Fish stated the repairs have not been done in a professional manner. Gerry Strathman asked why does the carpeung have to be replaced instead of cleaned or repaired. Pat Fish responded it is given as an alternative. The entire apartment was so severely stained that it was not cleanable. Item 3 dad not have the correct tunges. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on 1434 Case Avenue, but the DeficiencylCorrection list is amended as follows: the carpeting in Unit #4 is not the owner's responsibility; the entry door to Unit #4 can be repaired or replaced. 1436 Case Avenue James Crockazell and Robert McClay went over the items as follows: Item 1- Mr. Crockarell stated the certificate of occupancy was taken down. Item 3- Mr. McClay stated holes in the carpeting is the owner's responsibility. Item 5- Mr. Crockarell stated the patio door is not broken, but the screen needs to be fixed. Pat Fish agreed. Given the short list of deficiencies, Gerry Strathman asked why the certificate of occupancy was revoked. Ms. Fish responded if the certificate was revoked in June and with the lengthy appeals process extending the time, each time the owners were sent a letter, they were also sent a revocation letter becanse it is srill revoked. Robert McClay stated the City and his client entered into a consent agreement. This is contrary to the agreement that was approved by the court. There was a hearing on this following the City Council hearing. The owner was upheld at that hearing. A judicial officer deternuned that the owners did not violate that consent agreement. Given that, Bazb Cummings actions were an illegal aberration of her authority. She did things she did not have the authority to do. Gerry Strathman stated this letter is reiterating a decision made in June and asked do these things observed on August 25 and 26 constitute a basis far revocation. Pat Fish responded the certificate of occupancy was revoked because of non compliance with the property maintenance code and the agreement previously made. Just because the building is inspected on August 25 and the letter says the certificate is revoked, it may have been revoked six months ago. Mr. Strathman asked was it Ms. Fish's determination on August 25 that what she observed sufficient reason to revoke the certificate of occupancy. Ms. Fish responded yes. Regarding Item 3, Pat Fish stated if the owner wants to hold the tenants responsible, that is between the owner and the tenant. James Cockarell stated Secrion 8 inspected the unit and did not find the teaz before the tenant moved in. ♦ � 'f i � PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOT'ES OF 9-15-98 Page 11 Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on 1436 Case Avenue citing Pat Fish's conclusion is not unreasonabie, however he has some concems about whether these violarions aze sufficient for revoking a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Strathman will not substitute his judgement for the judgement of Ms. Fish who was on site and saw these violations. 1741 Sims Avenue James Cockarell stated Items 9 through 12 aze new. Items 2 and 9- Inspector Bazb Cummings is requiring them to replace air conditioners throughout the building. It is not the owner's responsibility under the lease or under Section 8 rules to provide an air conditioner. Items 3 and 4- Mr. Cockarell stated the carpering has been shampooed, therefore it does not need to be replaced. To satisfy Bazb Cummings, carpering was taken out of four units, and the floors were sanded. Gerry Strathman stated Item 3 menrions water damage. Mr. Cockarell stated it was dirty. Mr. Strathman suggested different language on this item and is concerned about ordering replacement of carpering. Pat Fish stated worn carpeting is not an issue unless it is a tripping hazard. In many units in the City, some managers go to tile or hardwood floors. Mr. Strathman asked would Ms. Fish be willing to amend anything on the list. Ms. Fish responded she would rather not. Mr. McClay stated the property passed Section 8 inspection. Ms. Fish stated Section 8's standards are a lot lower than the City's standards and have nothing to do with the certificate of occupancy inspection. Mr. Strathman stated it is the owner's responsibility to make sure the people who live there maintain the property in a safe manner. Item 5- James Cockarell stated the owners have spent over $1,000 replacing new cabinet drawers. Item 7- Mr. Cockazell stated a cazpenter took care of the cupboard doors. James Crockarell stated the owner should not be required to replace carpeting and sand floors while the tenants aze in the unit. Regarding the air conditioners, Robert McClay stated the code requires they be operating if they aze provided, but they do not have to be allowed. Pat Fish agreed with this. Mr. Cockarell stated he would like to meet with appropriate City representaYives to either put sheeuock, plywood, or whatever is appropriate to replace the air conditioners. NIr. McClay stated he has a proposal to bring before Ms. Fish for approval. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on 1741 Sims Avenue, however air conditioners do not need to be replaced if they aze removed. If air conditioners are present, they have to be in warking condition. 1751 Sims Avenue Unit 2- James Cockarell stated the carpeting has been shampooed and does not need to be replaced. Unit 3- Mr. Cockarell stated Unit 102 is not occupied, therefore the air conditioner does not need to be replaced. � � �i's PROPERTY COAE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 9-15-98 Page 12 Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on 1751 Sims Avenue, however air conditioners do not need to be repaired if they aze removed. If air conditioners aze present, they have to be in working condi6on. Mr. Strathman stated he is not in a posiuon to know if the carpeting needs replacement. 1761 Sims Avenue James Crockazell went over the items as follows: Item 1- The chimney has been repaired adequately. Bazb Cummings may have added this as a mistake. Item 2- The metal duct has been properly sealed. Item 3- St. Paul Plumbing put in a new hot water heater, however Barb Cuzrunings said she could not find evidence of the pemut being granted. Item 9- The fire extinguisher has been repaired. Item 12 - Tenants have been told bicycles cannot be kept in the hallway. Ttem 13 - The strike plate for the fire door has been replaced. Items 4, 6, 7, 11 - He cannot sand the floors of 18 units while the tenants are there. The tenants have to be housed in hotels, furniture has to be moved into the hallway or vacant units. The owners are prepared to make the floors conform to City requirements when the tenants leave the unit. Robert McCiay asked about the compliance dates on some items. Pat Fish responded some of the items were cited on previous orders. Gerry Strathman asked is it usual pracfice to order carpets replaced. Pat Fish responded it depends on how bad it is; this carpeting was beyond cleaning. Mr. Strathman stated the code says that floors should be kept in a safe and clean fashion. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on 1761 Sims, however air conditioners do not need to be replaced if they aze removed. If air conditioners are present, they have to be in working condition. Also, the Deficiency/Cotrection list should be amended to read: "Maintain flooring in a safe and clean condition." Note: Regarding the appeals by Robert McClay, some appeals were denied on the basis of being previously acted upon by the City Council. Other appeals were denied because the actions of the Fire Department aze credible and reasonable. Only the appeal on 1428 Case Avenue was granted. With a few amendments, the appeals for 1424, 1430, 1432, 1434, 1436 Case Avenue, 1741, 1751, and 1761 Sims Avenue are denied. 79 Vir¢inia Street Gerry Strathman rescheduled this to the October 6 Property Code Enforcement meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 5:18 p.m. rrn Council File # �J�df ORIGINAL Presented RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Green Sheet # 62254 �L Referred To Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the September 15, 2 1998 decision of the L.egislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 address: 4 Propert�p ep aled 5 629 North Street # 1 6 Decision: Appeal denied. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Yeas Na s Absent Blakey ✓ Coleman � Harris � Benanav ✓ Reiter ✓ Bostrom � L�� ✓ 14 Adopted 6y Council: Date a� .� \� � 15 Adoption 16 sy: 1� Approved 18 By: Appellant Donald Callahan Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council 1 9�'- 9�� City Council ��,N�„ 10/1/98 GREEN SHEET No 62254 Rathy Lantry, 266-8670 October 7, 1998 � TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES u�� u��— ❑ pIYAiTOR1EY ❑ CRYCIiRK ❑ nurcu�aEaxc¢son. ❑ wuur,.taom�ccro ❑ WVORIORASVSr41n ❑ (CUP ALL LOCATfONS FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the decision of the Legislative Aearing OfEicer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the September 15, 1998 meeting on 629 North Street lll. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB CAMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION IFAPPROVED Has this persorJfirtn eoerv.nrked under a canfract for Nia tleparlmeM7 YES NO Has Mis PereoNfirm ever been a cdY emPbY�? YES NO Dces this persor�im possesa a sldll not normallypossessetl Dy arry curreM cdy emPioyee7 YES NO Is Nis persoNfirtn a targetetl vendoYl VES NO � rv:R .,L.",��f��rn'i�, �u*1'�'�$Y �. , '., ;. �. : -.± F . f AMOUNT OFTRANSACTION SOURCE (qRC�E ON� VES NO ACTNITY NUMBER (EJPWN) �Id'"q°� MINUTBS OF TI� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING September 15, 1998 Room 330, City Hall Gerry Strathman, L.egsiative Hearing Officer STAFF PRESENT: John Conway, License, Inspection, Environmental Protection (LIEP); Karl Johnson, Public Works; Tom LeClair, LSEP; Phillip Owens, Fire Prevenrion; James Prill, Code Enforcement; Paula Seeley, Code Enforcement; Maynard Vinge, Code Enforcement; Don Wagner, LIEP Gerry Strathman called the meeting to order at 1:31.m. 1285 Hamline Avenue North (Laid over from 8-4-98) Gerry Strathman laid over to the November 17, 1998 Property Code Enforcement meeung. Mr. Strathman spoke to the owner Robert Davis today who indicated he had filed a petition for an encroachment pemut from the City. This layover will give the owner time to get this pemut. 1148 Seventh Street West (Laid over from 8-18-98) (Note: the appeal on this properiy was originaily heard on 7-14-98. It had been laid over to 8-4-98, 8-18-98, and 9-15-98.) No one appeared representing the property. Phil Owens reported nothing has been done to proceed with this property, therefare, he requested the appeal be denied. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal citing the owner has had ample time to deal with the situation. 439 Portland Avenue (Rescheduled from 9-1-98) Louis Sudheimer, owner, appeared to request the ability to extend the sewer and water connecuon from the rear of the house to a new carriage house that he received pernussion to build from the Zoning Departrnent and the Heritage Preservation Commission. The garage will be torn down. The project will take about 45 feet of addifional length of sewer and water lines to connect from the house to this building. The Sewer Deparunent feels the new line violates the State building code, and the existing pipe will not be able to handle the load of the two units and might fail. The new building will be a two bedroom home with a four car garage. Mr. Sudheimer plans to convert his present duplex back to a single family home as it originaliy was and then move the second unit to the cairiage house. Mr. Sudheimer stated the State Building code does grant local governing authorifies the flexibility to grant variances when necessary. Regazding The Sewer DepartmenY s contenrion it will be an additionai load, there actually is not. The pipe as it exists now has been handling two units for decades. There does not seem to be anything wrong with the exisfing system. The present piping system is high quality, heavy duty cast iron. The system proposed by the Sewer Department will be . i . i �s PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 9-15-98 Page 2 light weight plastic. The same danger of failure exists for either system. In addition, the tunneling and trenching the City is requiring, will be disruptive to the home. Mr. Sudheimer showed a map of the house and explained in detail what the City's plans and his plans are for the system. Mr. Sudheimer says his plans do not include disrupting the City's plantings nor disrupfing the ornamental gazdens in his own yard. The City has also suggested he tie into his e7cisting line, which would allow him to avoid the extra costs of digging up Portland Avenue, but he would be exposed to different charges. In addirion, he would have to hire City workers to do the work. He then would have to pay contractors to repair the City's streets. Another alternarive is Arundel Street. He would have to pay for the costs of tearing up that street as well. Mr. Sudheimers solution is the least expensive. Louis Sudheimer showed pictures to Gerry Strathman of his property. Karl Johnson reported Public Warks usually handles from the City main to the building. LIEP handles it from there. The initial services was built in 1885. Waste from the new structure would be entering a system that is over 100 years old. A failure in that section would result in backup inside the main house. Construction of a manhole where the old and new service would be combined would not necessitate construction in the street. This would involve digging under the existing service in front of the house and constructing a manhole where the pipe from the existing structure and the new structure enter and continue out into the street. Thomas I.eClair distributed a copy of State Law 4715.0310, Use of Public Sewer and Water Systems Required, which reads in part "Every building must have iYs own independent connection with a public or private sewer, except that a group of buiidings may be connected to one or more manholes which are constructed on the premises, and connected to a public or private sewer. These manholes must conform to the standards set by the local sewer authority." Gerry Strathman asked about consequences if Louis Sudheimer's proposal for service should fail. Thomas I.eclair responded it would be a lazger expense for the homeowner to install the manhole then instead of now. Karl Johnson responded Mr. Sudheimer's basement would be the recepticle for sewage from both structures. Mr. Strathman asked when the service from the street to a residence fails and the residence suffers sewer damage, is that considered the homeowner's problem or does the City have some responsibiliry. Mr. Johnson responded it is considered the responsibility of the homeowner from the main to the building. Gerry Strathman asked I.ouis Sudheimer would he be willing to stipulate in writing to the City that should the proposed system fail, he would have no recourse to the City in regazds to any damages, injury, or losses that he would suffer. Mr. Sudheimer responded he would be willing to put that in writing and indemnify the City of Saint Paul. Thomas I.eClair stated any indemnity clause should be part of the deed when a house is sold to another person. Mr. Strathman agreed. Gerry Strathman granted the variance on condiuon that the owner provide a binding indemnification to the City whereby the owner would relieve the City of any responsibility for any damages that the present owner or any subsequent owners might experience as the result of this ► �� l j) ♦ PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NO'I`ES OF 9-15-98 Page 3 variance being granted. The determinations the City has made aze correct and in conformance with City ordinances and the building codes. However, the City does have the authority to grant variances under certain circumstances, and there needs to be some flexibility for this property. This is a historic dishict and what the owner plans to do is congruent with preserving that district. 2000 Seventh Street West #114 No one appeazed representing the property. Pat Fish reported this unit was condemned by the inspector for tenant sanitarion. The tenant was given time to remove excess combustibles. The inspector went there to meet with the attorney to explain what had to be removed from the apartment. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. 370-372 Fuller Avenue Terrance Luther, owner, appeared and stated he is getting unfair treatment. This properry was troubled with drugs and prostitution. Mr. Luther was not able to safely access the property until 7une 30 because he had filed an unlawful detainer against the people that lived there. Since then, over $5,000 has been spent on the property. Thirty yards of trash has been taken out. The basement was emptied. At that time, the inspector came by and took photographs. The garbage was cleaned up on Monday. Gerry Strathman stated the orders he has in front of him list seven violations and asked which are still outstanding. Terrance Luther responded only Violations 1 and 7 are left. Violation 1, Replace the bathroom electric outlet with a G.F.C.I. outlet, is not done. Regazding Violation 7, Mr. Luther has a letter from a company that will clean and inspect the furnace when their schedule allows. Mr. Strathman asked about long term plans for the G.F.C.I. in the bathroom. Mr. Luther responded he is willing to fix it, but it may take 6 months. Before fixing the G.F.C.I., he would like to do other things before winter comes. Maynard Vinge reported the G.F.C.I, needs to be done. An extension can be given for six months for a G.F.C.I. in the bathroom. Geny Strathman stated of the seven items here, five have been resolved, and there is a contract on the sixth. He asked when the electrical contractor will do the wark. Terrance Luther responded he has not picked one yet. Mr. Strathman asked was someone living there. Mr. Luther responded yes and the property has been thoroughly inspected. Gerry Strathman laid over to the October 20, 1998 Properry Code Enforcement meeting citing most items have been done and only one item is left. ��od �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOT`ES OF 9-15-98 Page 4 629 North Street # 1 Donald Caliahan, owner, appeazed and stated he is looking for a short extension to get his house refinanced. He needs the electricity turned back on. He started making payments in May. The payment in July was late and the electricity was tumed off. James Prill reported Code Enforcement received a routine nouce from Northem States Power that the electricity was off at this property. Code Enforcement sent a notice to the owner to restore the electricity. When it was not restored, Code Enforcement proceeded with the condemnarion. Gerry Strathman asked would the condemnation be lifted when the electricity is restored. Mr. Prill responded yes. Mr. Strathman asked how long it will be before the electriciry will be restored. Donald Callahan responded the bill will probably be paid in two weeks and the electricity will be turned on at that time. Gerry Strathman demed the appeal. His decision will not be effective unril September 23 when the City Council approves it. In the meantime, the enforcement of this arder is suspended. 960 Tuno Avenue Ronald Staeheli, owner, appeared. He provided a 3 ring binder with photographs and paperwork to Gerry Strathman and stated he is appealing most of the Code Compliance Inspecrion report. Every time he has to deal with anyone at the building depaztment, he is told the items deal with the maintenance code. The scope of the building code is it only applies to construction, alteration, moving demolition, or repair of any building or structure. Mare than half of the things on the code compliance report does not exist in Chapter 34. Ronald Staeheli went over the items on the Code Compliance report as follows: Building Item 1- There has been settlement of the structure. Chapter 34 says nothing about a settled shucture. Building Item 2- Replace badly broken and unlevel cellar floor. Chapter 34 does not mention anything about a cellar floor at all. Building Item 3- Provide permanent type support posts under main beam complete with adequate footings on approved soil. They aze permanent under the building code. If the threads are peened on the temporary type, they then become permanent and meet the code. Building Item 4- Evidence of water in the cellar at one time, raise grade on exterior...with gutters... Chapter 34 does not mention gutters, but they have to be kept up if they are there. Building Item 7- Rebuild rear entry steps and/or proper materials, etc. He would like this one rewritten so he can repair the stairs. Building Item 13 - Relevel structure. "Level" does not appeaz in the maintenance code. Electrical Item 1- Add ouflet in living room and rear bedroom. There are three outlets in the living room which is about 10' by 11' and there are two outlets in the bedroom, which is about 9' X 9'. Electrical Item 4- Install smoke detector to U.B.C. There is a hazd wired smoke detector with battery back up outside of the sleeping room, there are smoke detectors in each bedroom, and in the basement. Piumbing Basement Item 1- Water heater-no union between gas shutoff valve and appliance. i� '♦, PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEET`ING NOTES OF 9-15-98 Page 5 T'here is an extra union further up the line that still isolates the water heater that was missed. It is flared copper so that works as a union. Chapter 34 does not bring anything up to plumbing code except for saying it cannot leak. Plumbing Basement Item 3- First Floor bathtub waste ann is backpitched. It is not backpitched. First Floor Item i- No water shutoff on water closet. This is not required under the maintenance code. Ronald Staeheli stated every foundation settles. He has a letter from a neighbor who says that the exterior of the foundation has remained unchanged for the ten years he has been there. Donald Wagner stated he handles the vacant buiiding program. The housing code does not address specifics, such as how much settling. The housing code says all exterior surfaces will be maintained in a professional state of maintenance and repair. Gerry Strathman asked why he believes it is settling. Mr. Wagner responded that on the east and west walls there was a major crack that was closed up. The window above is as much as 1'h inches out of wack. There is about a 5 to 6 inch difference from the center of the basement floor to the outside wall. It was heaved in the center and cracked wide open. Mr. Staeheli was given an option to seek an engineer; an engineer's evaluation is acceptable. A little dirt around the foundarion may have helped. Mr. Strathman asked do many houses settle. Mr. Wagner responded this property has the most extreme foundafion condition he has ever seen and is creating a risk to the integrity of the structure. Geiry Strathman asked about the other issues. Donald Wagner responded the water shutoff item is not necessary and that variance could be granted. There is a new law for smoke detectors. If more than $1,000 of work is done on a property, a smoke detector is required on each level. Gerry Strathman asked would there be any value in fufther discussion with Ronald Staeheli on site to see if a mutual understanding can be met. Donald Wagner responded he would be glad to go over items besides the foundaUon. Mr. 5taeheli responded he would be willing to make repairs to anything that is a specific violation in the maintenance code. He does not want to tear out a foundation and drill to bedrock just because the code says general maintenance. If it is done the way Mr. Wagner suggests, then the building will be condemned. If a new foundation is built, then Mr. Staeheli has to meet new codes because that is specifically in the law. A structural engineer is not going to sign off on it. Gerry Strathman stated if something cannot be worked out, the appeal will be denied, then Ronald Staeheli can pursue this with the City CounciL Mr. Staehefi responded he wouid like to frame this in such a way so that Don Wagner understands the only code he has is the maintenance code. Mr. Strathman stated if Mr. Staeheli only wants to pursue the principle of the matter, the appeal will be denied. Don Wagner stated Mr. Staeheli has stated a number of untruths, therefore Mr. Wagner cannot wark with him any longer. He suggested John Conway work with Mr. Staeheli. Gerry Strathman asked John Conway would he be willing to work with Ronald Staeheli. Mr. Conway responded he would. Gerry Strathman laid this over to the November 17, 1998 Property Code Enforcement meeting. �;��i PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOT`ES OF 9-15-98 Page 6 80 West Lawson Avenue No one appeazed representing the property. Paula Seeley from Code Enforcement appeared. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. 1424.1428,1430,1432,1434,1436 Case Avenue; and 1741,1751,1761 Sims Avenue Robert McClay for Gazden Acquisition Limited Partnership appeazed. Gerry Strathman stated the best starting point would be the orders that have been annotated by Pat Fish. Robert McClay stated he did not have the annotated copy. Mr. Strathman explained Ms. Fish noted if each item was appealed previously or if the item was new. It is Mr. Suathman's view that anything on the orders that the City Council decided on aze not appealable a second time to the City, however there aze other avenues of appeal after that. The other items are appealable and can be discussed here. Robert McClay stated the properties on Sims were converted from two bedroom to four bedroom units in approximately 1990. By design the units provide housing for lazge families with many children. The Case properties were constructed in 1983 and also are designed far larger families. They are tt�ree bedroom units and there aze 24 units in the particular complex. The properties were foreclosed and operated by Fannie Mae for a number of years. Mr. McClay's client purchased the properties in 1995, a little less than three years ago. The scope of managing the properties was far more involved than they anticipated. In 1948, they expended over $50,000 in efforts to get the properties in a suitable condition. Additionally, they have evicted or failed to renew leases on perceived problem tenants. Of the 24 units on Case, five of them continue to be vacant for this reason. Addifionally, three of the properties that are presently under lease are subject to unlawful detainer actions which will have hearings this Thursday. Of the 18 units on Sims, four of them are vacant far the same basis. Over the past three months, the owners have committed additional resources, money, and people to the maintenance of the two complexes and have made great progress. Mr. McClay requests that Mr. Strathman determine the following issues: whether the deficiencies noted aze sustained, what deficiencies remain,and does the present conditions warrant revocation of the certificate of occupancy. First, it should be determined whether an item is on a prior list and on this list. Second, deternune whether the deficiency noted is within the scope of the building maintenance code, Chapter 33, or the property maintenance code, Chapter 34. Mr. McClay stated he is here with Jim Crockarell who is associated with the management group and is knowledgeable as to each of the units. He will advise to the particular deficiencies noted, and whether the item has been corrected. After Mr. Strathman hears the evidence, Mr. McClay believes � ��; PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 9-15-98 Page 7 it will show the present condition of the units does not warrant revoking the certificate of occupancy, the appeal should be granted, and the proposed action by the City denied. Pat Fash stated the City and the Fire Department have spent an exorbitant amount of time on these properties. Ms. Fish presented a booklet of photographs to Gerry Strathman of the properties taken over time. Some photog�aphs were taken today. Ms. Fish does not feel the appeilants should be granted this appeal simply on technicaliries and resents having to argue these technicalities again. It should not be the resgonsibility of the Fire Department to have to tell a management company to cleanup the gazbage and replace the tile in the entry. Over a period of a yeaz, ongoing orders have been issued on this property. None of the items listed here aze unreasonable. Most are common sense maintenance items. The arguments presented here are unreasonable and petty. Gerry Strathman asked was a copy of the annotated version supplied to Robert McClay. Pat Fish responded it was not. Mr. Strathman stated there will be a recess in order to provide Mr. McClay a copy of the annotated document and to review them plus the photographs. (Recess 3:04 to 3:18 p.m.) Robert McClay suggested each item be gone through to deternune if it has been corrected. Geny Strathman stated he does not have the authoriry to take testimony on matters the Council akeady has ruled on. Robert McClay responded some of the items were remedied and then reoccuired. Therefore, it would be subject to a new appeal. Mr. Strathman stated he operates under Chapter 8 and it does not put him in the position of second guessing City officials. Rather, his authority is whether the City officiais have given proper notification to the owner, whether an opportunity to correct has been provided, and whether the actions are reasonable. This is a legislative review of an administrative process. For example, Mr. Strathman cannot decide whether or not the floors are dirry because he is not a tryer of fact. Robert McClay stated if Mr. Strathman's role is to determine whether the action is reasonable, he cannot deternune that without considering the condition of the property today. Pat Fish stated she made an appointment, the management and the owner knew what time she would be there, and they had copies of the deficiency list. At least for the inspection, the condition should have been corrected. Geny Strathman stated it is appropriate for him to make a decision as to whether he finds Pat Fish's findings credible. He will hear from her as to what she saw on August 28� and he will hear from Robert McClay as to what he saw on the 28`". What the condition is today or some other day, Mr. Strathman has no way of knowing. Mr. McClay stated he disageed. Mr. Strathman responded the record will show his arguments. 1424 Case Avenue James Crockarell went through the items as follows: � �ii PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 9-IS-98 Page 8 Item 1- The haliways and stairwells were cleaned the morning of the inspection. There is now a contract with an outside firm to clean. Residents will clean also. Itam 2- The carpeting does not need to be replaced. It has been shampooed, dyed, and it would pass Section 8 certification. Item 3- The broken tile in the entry has been replaced. Pat Fish stated Item 2 was put on at the request of maintenance because she made a comment about the carpeting being in bad condition. The cieaning of the hallways and stairwells was not sufficient. Ms. Fish has no objection to appealing the tile. She was not told by maintenance people they had been cleaned. James Crockarell stated cleaning ls now done six days a week. Gerry Strathman stated cleaning is a reoccurring event. It is not possible to know if the lack of cleanliness from July 14 is the same lack of cleanliness on August 25. All three items aze subject to appeal. Robert McClay stated the condition of the carpeting in the unit is the responsibility of the tenant. Pat Fish responded this refers to the carpeting in the hallway and was clearly explained to the maintenance people. Geny Strathman denied the appeal on 1424 Case Avenue. 1428 Case Avenue Pat Fish reported this unit is not vacant, but occupied as a workroom. It will have to be approved and inspected befare being occupied again. As long as it is not occupied as a residence, she will not pursue the matter. The certificate is not revoked on this building. Gerry Strathman granted the appeal on 1428 Case Avenue as long as Unit #1 remains vacant. 1430 Case Avenue James Crockarell stated the tenant in Units #1 and 4 are being evicted. It is best to fix those items when they leave. Mr. Crockarell went through the items as follows: Item 1- The hallways and stairwells are clean. The broken tile has been replaced. Item 2- The missing screens in Unit #4 have been replaced. Item 7- There is now a screen on the bedroom window in Unit #4. Item 8- The torn screens have been repaired. Pat Fish stated she talked to the tenants in Unit #4 who said the oven is still not working. The certificate was revoked because of the number of violarions and the condition of the building. James Crockazell stated these are not the same 8 items as on the previous inspection. The children teaz the screens on a regulaz basis. Ten screens have been torn since August 26. Gerry Strathman stated he believes the violations were there on August 26. It is justification to revoke the certificate of occupancy. Robert McClay stated on August 14 there were 28 items and �� i ► PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 9-15-98 Page 9 on the last inspection there were eight items. There are things that occur at these properties each day. Mr. Strathman stated the revocation is based on a growing sense of repeated failures to get the remedies maintained. These items by themselves may not normally constitute basis for revocation of certificate of occupancy. However, given the totality of the record, it consritutes sufficient basis for acrion. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on 1430 Case Avenue. 1432 Case Avenue Item i- James Crockarell stated tenants take down the certificate of occupancy nofice repeatedly. All six items on the list are done now. Pat Fish stated one of the windows is garden level. The plastic covering was fragile. Regarding the garbage in Item 6, when Pat Fish was at the complex, there were two dumpsters. There was gazbage and trash in front of the dumpsters so the tenants could not get close. On the west end of the complex is the previous dump site; it had mattresses and bags broken away and there were many flies around. James Crockazell stated trash is picked up three times a week, and they aze billed for three pick ups a week. Gerry Strathman suggested the owners check to make sure the trash is being picked up. Gerry Strathman stated there seems to be sufficient basis for revocation. It is a failure of the properry owner to resolve some matters such as broken bedroom windows. It is reasonable to fix a windows in 12 days. Robert McClay stated it was not easy to find tradespeople to do work this summer. 7ames Crockarell responded the windows are custom made because the windows opening are unique. Mr. Strathman stated he is not persuaded by the inabiliry to repair the windows. Geiry Strathman denied the appeal on 1432 Case Avenue. 1434 Case Avenue James Crockazell went over the items as follows: Item 1- A new certificate of occupancy has been placed. Item 2- The hallways were clean on the day of the inspection. Item 3- The kitchen cabinet doors have been fixed. Item 4- The cabinet doors are fixed. Item 6- Water damage is not on the previous list. Item 7- Cleaning the carpeting in Unit #4 is not the owner's job. Item 8- Replacing the carpeting is unreasonable. Item 11 - The screens have been installed again in Unit #4. Item 12 - Mr. McClay stated the door is not in such a state that it needs to be replaced. Mr. Strathman asked why it needed to be replaced. Pat Fish responded the doar has lost the security �' ��i PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEET`ING NOTES OF 9-15-98 Page 10 aspect. The maintenance people agreed with her. Mr. Strathman stated if it is based on someone else's judgement, it should read "repair or replace" the door. Regarding Item 5, Robert McClay stated Unit 2 is not rented, and the items will be repaired before it is rented again. Regarding Item 3, Pat Fish stated the repairs have not been done in a professional manner. Gerry Strathman asked why does the carpeung have to be replaced instead of cleaned or repaired. Pat Fish responded it is given as an alternative. The entire apartment was so severely stained that it was not cleanable. Item 3 dad not have the correct tunges. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on 1434 Case Avenue, but the DeficiencylCorrection list is amended as follows: the carpeting in Unit #4 is not the owner's responsibility; the entry door to Unit #4 can be repaired or replaced. 1436 Case Avenue James Crockazell and Robert McClay went over the items as follows: Item 1- Mr. Crockarell stated the certificate of occupancy was taken down. Item 3- Mr. McClay stated holes in the carpeting is the owner's responsibility. Item 5- Mr. Crockarell stated the patio door is not broken, but the screen needs to be fixed. Pat Fish agreed. Given the short list of deficiencies, Gerry Strathman asked why the certificate of occupancy was revoked. Ms. Fish responded if the certificate was revoked in June and with the lengthy appeals process extending the time, each time the owners were sent a letter, they were also sent a revocation letter becanse it is srill revoked. Robert McClay stated the City and his client entered into a consent agreement. This is contrary to the agreement that was approved by the court. There was a hearing on this following the City Council hearing. The owner was upheld at that hearing. A judicial officer deternuned that the owners did not violate that consent agreement. Given that, Bazb Cummings actions were an illegal aberration of her authority. She did things she did not have the authority to do. Gerry Strathman stated this letter is reiterating a decision made in June and asked do these things observed on August 25 and 26 constitute a basis far revocation. Pat Fish responded the certificate of occupancy was revoked because of non compliance with the property maintenance code and the agreement previously made. Just because the building is inspected on August 25 and the letter says the certificate is revoked, it may have been revoked six months ago. Mr. Strathman asked was it Ms. Fish's determination on August 25 that what she observed sufficient reason to revoke the certificate of occupancy. Ms. Fish responded yes. Regarding Item 3, Pat Fish stated if the owner wants to hold the tenants responsible, that is between the owner and the tenant. James Cockarell stated Secrion 8 inspected the unit and did not find the teaz before the tenant moved in. ♦ � 'f i � PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOT'ES OF 9-15-98 Page 11 Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on 1436 Case Avenue citing Pat Fish's conclusion is not unreasonabie, however he has some concems about whether these violarions aze sufficient for revoking a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Strathman will not substitute his judgement for the judgement of Ms. Fish who was on site and saw these violations. 1741 Sims Avenue James Cockarell stated Items 9 through 12 aze new. Items 2 and 9- Inspector Bazb Cummings is requiring them to replace air conditioners throughout the building. It is not the owner's responsibility under the lease or under Section 8 rules to provide an air conditioner. Items 3 and 4- Mr. Cockarell stated the carpering has been shampooed, therefore it does not need to be replaced. To satisfy Bazb Cummings, carpering was taken out of four units, and the floors were sanded. Gerry Strathman stated Item 3 menrions water damage. Mr. Cockarell stated it was dirty. Mr. Strathman suggested different language on this item and is concerned about ordering replacement of carpering. Pat Fish stated worn carpeting is not an issue unless it is a tripping hazard. In many units in the City, some managers go to tile or hardwood floors. Mr. Strathman asked would Ms. Fish be willing to amend anything on the list. Ms. Fish responded she would rather not. Mr. McClay stated the property passed Section 8 inspection. Ms. Fish stated Section 8's standards are a lot lower than the City's standards and have nothing to do with the certificate of occupancy inspection. Mr. Strathman stated it is the owner's responsibility to make sure the people who live there maintain the property in a safe manner. Item 5- James Cockarell stated the owners have spent over $1,000 replacing new cabinet drawers. Item 7- Mr. Cockazell stated a cazpenter took care of the cupboard doors. James Crockarell stated the owner should not be required to replace carpeting and sand floors while the tenants aze in the unit. Regarding the air conditioners, Robert McClay stated the code requires they be operating if they aze provided, but they do not have to be allowed. Pat Fish agreed with this. Mr. Cockarell stated he would like to meet with appropriate City representaYives to either put sheeuock, plywood, or whatever is appropriate to replace the air conditioners. NIr. McClay stated he has a proposal to bring before Ms. Fish for approval. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on 1741 Sims Avenue, however air conditioners do not need to be replaced if they aze removed. If air conditioners are present, they have to be in warking condition. 1751 Sims Avenue Unit 2- James Cockarell stated the carpeting has been shampooed and does not need to be replaced. Unit 3- Mr. Cockarell stated Unit 102 is not occupied, therefore the air conditioner does not need to be replaced. � � �i's PROPERTY COAE ENFORCEMENT MEETING NOTES OF 9-15-98 Page 12 Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on 1751 Sims Avenue, however air conditioners do not need to be repaired if they aze removed. If air conditioners aze present, they have to be in working condi6on. Mr. Strathman stated he is not in a posiuon to know if the carpeting needs replacement. 1761 Sims Avenue James Crockazell went over the items as follows: Item 1- The chimney has been repaired adequately. Bazb Cummings may have added this as a mistake. Item 2- The metal duct has been properly sealed. Item 3- St. Paul Plumbing put in a new hot water heater, however Barb Cuzrunings said she could not find evidence of the pemut being granted. Item 9- The fire extinguisher has been repaired. Item 12 - Tenants have been told bicycles cannot be kept in the hallway. Ttem 13 - The strike plate for the fire door has been replaced. Items 4, 6, 7, 11 - He cannot sand the floors of 18 units while the tenants are there. The tenants have to be housed in hotels, furniture has to be moved into the hallway or vacant units. The owners are prepared to make the floors conform to City requirements when the tenants leave the unit. Robert McCiay asked about the compliance dates on some items. Pat Fish responded some of the items were cited on previous orders. Gerry Strathman asked is it usual pracfice to order carpets replaced. Pat Fish responded it depends on how bad it is; this carpeting was beyond cleaning. Mr. Strathman stated the code says that floors should be kept in a safe and clean fashion. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on 1761 Sims, however air conditioners do not need to be replaced if they aze removed. If air conditioners are present, they have to be in working condition. Also, the Deficiency/Cotrection list should be amended to read: "Maintain flooring in a safe and clean condition." Note: Regarding the appeals by Robert McClay, some appeals were denied on the basis of being previously acted upon by the City Council. Other appeals were denied because the actions of the Fire Department aze credible and reasonable. Only the appeal on 1428 Case Avenue was granted. With a few amendments, the appeals for 1424, 1430, 1432, 1434, 1436 Case Avenue, 1741, 1751, and 1761 Sims Avenue are denied. 79 Vir¢inia Street Gerry Strathman rescheduled this to the October 6 Property Code Enforcement meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 5:18 p.m. rrn