The URL can be used to link to this page

00-560Council File # �� ORIGINAL RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Green Sheet # 100420 Presented Referred To Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the June 6, 2000, 2 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 3 Properl�ppealed Ap elp lant 4 1445 Ashland Avenue 1ef&ey J. Messerich 5 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 6 nonconfornung doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 7 building must otherwise be in compliance. 8 1411 Raymond Avenue Dorothy L. LofUerg 9 Decision: Variance granted on the back bedroom window in Apartment #2 on the following conditions: 10 1) only adults may occupy this unit, 2) a permanent ladder will be installed for better access to this window. 11 1115 Yoxk Avenue Kathleen O'Connor for Southem Minnesota 12 Decision: Appeal denied. Regional Lega1 Services representing several 13 tenants. 14 850 Sims Avenue 15 Decision: Appeal denied. 16 783 Sixth Street East 17 Decision: Appeal denied. 18 1213 Pigs Eve Lake Road 19 (This appeal will have to be heard at the State level; filing fee 20 to be refunded.) 21 653 York Avenue 22 Decision: Appeal denied. � Michael Ramstad Lyle Granlund Leif Thorson for TKDA & Associates representing Soo Line Railroad Suzanne Rowe and Bill Flis � Green Sheet 10049+J, Page 2 OU-�� 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yeas Na s Absent Blakey � Coleman ✓ Harris � Benanav � Reiter f Sostrom � Lantry f 5 O o� Requested by Department oE � Form Approved by City Attomey � 8 Adopted by Council: Date \ �o 0 o Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council 9 10 Adoption Certified by Councii ecretary B 11 By: "(�, c � � ,,,�— y e 12 Approved by Mayor• te �� 13 By: <C<� � 2 Council Offices Gerry Strathman, 266-8560 June 14, 2000 June 7, 2000 �� MOIIiBIW OROER TOTAL � OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET uumuor. � �Sbd No 1 �� 20 �n�� ❑ c,..,rw,av ❑ anmrt ❑ nuxew.mnccsne ❑ w�waumm.cno ❑ MYOR1��im�Yli) ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the .Tune 6, 2000, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 1445 Ashland Avenue, 1411 Raymond Avenue, 1115 York Avenue,_850 Sims Avenue, 783 Sixth Street East, 1213 Pigs Eye Lake Road, and 653 York Avenue. . PLANNING CAMMISSION CIB COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION • i: • tq. Cour�i Resea�ch Csn#er ��3�� _ . :m�ae�+.tn:. -_.. . , ..�""._.. _.,....�.1/ lTAGES IF NOT APPROVEC AOUNT OF TRANSACTION SOURCE INFORAaT1oN (IXPIMN) Hac tnic a�soMrm everwwiaea unaer a cono-aat tor niiis aepanmenn YES NO Fi� this D� ever heen 8 Cily empbyce9 - VES NO ooes inie pe�soNfiim o�aess a sla�� rat riormal�va�aesseE Dr am eurrent eitv emaloree? YES NO la Mi6 pefeauTilm a telpeted �endoYt YES NO CAiTRiEVQIUE BUDOETED (qRCLE ONk� ACTIVRYNUMBER �1`3�] �c� �munci6 �esearch Center �,;�i �� /�'�— � Q 6. 2000 �:�� s 7 �3 _ �. 6 �.� �` �`,j 6 �' ��oo � �� ;✓�'t�,�� z'lo� - 5t g-o ��I � �S�—�l �`7�-9� Y�' �•` ��, ,�� , �� , � �.��- � �� .� � ��..e �� U Below is an interpretation by Gerry Strathman of a handwritten letter by Mike Ramstad Gerry Strathman Director, Council Reseazch Center Legislative Hearing Officer Seeretary of the Council Dear Sir, I would like to thank you for hearing the appeal on June 6 at 1:30. It is my opnuon that your decision was wrong, and I would appreciate having this matter go to the City Council before we go to District Court about your ruling. 1) The matter was before District Court and the condemnation order was dismissed by the City of St. Paul and there was an agreement made. I kept my agreement. St. Paul didn't keep their agreement. 2) As I stated, the smoke detectors a11 wark and electrical problems have been straightened out and other things haue been repaired. 3) I appreciate your concern (about my 10 year old son); however, you could haue dropped the order to vacate the premise by asking me not to have my child live at the home until after the needed aze approved by the inspector, and I would have agreed to that. 4) The order that was given by your inspector is in direct violation of my agreement with the City of Saint Paul. 5) I would appreciate your decision. Sincerely yours, Mike Ramstad 850 Suns Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55106 , !' n �.L_. � �-.r-- r ) . t1C! PS@BPC�'1 (�+@ilt8f � e � r'_S �,a1"i �-e, ��r f � �,- — — �� a- � � �'!cs o o — Q /�� E �.7'.g a .� � _ �—' -- ��, � � L. , � �m�� -�_�_�-� -- OC�--S� c� _ �,_ `��I � y , 2 a� a� j�� /� o� G l�l F.,�7`� L° �.z v`� _ o`n � �'`z� �-' ��- =_�.—A-ll��.�n r �t �iT�cy �� ' �+' �P� '�....Ja_S 1� �`G 4�++. e>�'�' �� (_ Jtl �/ (A iL C- T `l° 'e� 4 cr - z/'1e�n`T ��1 L��yZ�' 1✓tu.ip _ / �{✓�-c�J � ° L�� L�.�u `C.� 00-��00 — — � , Q.s � � l 4.n L t° a.,� � t-1.a_ K-c� � /` � Q�i--cr � 4��1� � c.� � d �`��'�u'�d? —� a4, w4, g(' ',,, �.�c.9— 'Qen s �nQ.., w � �u� �-2� ce�� ¢,. �'�tP � - - a, r �r�S�t.� CJd ✓ r �/a✓ �� i �--- �i U0.G�;�7`^� � --% �ri �� 1•�c °�. � a7'__ rm- Li a...+. °` +^2 � ��^ !F� '�'�� h ^iT,Q__ C� �__ � !i! d h�t s` /1 �t�c.�� e.�.� � 'ln /� '�c�S'.�, `� P��/� �'� �� i.5 � 2 � /�. � �9 4� '� `jL e L� G�<¢/`E, �ED Zs.�cz�j C '�� /` ti` N� yJ d.� /' . �� I�/ � t P G e�� /��^1�,2sli� G� 2.� � ct_��s...� Z✓t�.e.� i't .�C..e_ �� C �� ,�Z � �� . �r U � 0 / � S / � �o�se.�� a �� NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, June 6, 2000 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 130 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Pat Fish, Fire Prevention; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement; Phillip Owens, Fire Prevention; Jim Prill, Code Enforcement; Meghan Riley, City Attorney's Office; Rich Singerhouse, Code Enforcement; Mike Urmann, Fire Prevention; Maynard Vinge, Code Enforcement 1445 Ashland Avenue (No one appeared to represent the property.) Gerry Strathman explained to Mike Urmann that this is a fire door variance request and asked if the Fire Department has any objections. Mr. Urmann responded there were no objections, that it would be a standard appeal. Mr. Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1411 Raymond Avenue Jeanette Esberg and Dorothy Lofberg appeared. Mr. Strathman noted that the appeal indicates the Fire Marshall is in agreement with the appeal. Mr. Urtnann responded they do have some reservations regarding the appeal with regard to the windows. Ms. Lofberg explained that the windows in question are in the bedroom on the main floor. They are about 10 inches from the ceiling and about five feet from the floor. There are nine feet between the main door to the aparhnent and the bedroom door so the only egress from the bedroom would be the high windows. When the Fire Marshall was at the property, they were advised to file for a variance. Mr. Urmann said the concerns from a fire prevenrion standpoint is that the main enhy into the unit is between 10 and 12 feet and it is in a higher hazard area of the kitchen. The tenant would have to ea�it through the kitchen to gain egress from the unit without �v-S (Q O Property Code Enforcement Notes, 6-6-00 Page 2 ha�ing escape windows. He said the only thing they can find to remedy the situation is to provide the egress windows. Mr. Strathman questioned the age of the building. Ms. Lofberg responded that it was built in 1917. At that time, it was built as an apartment and a restaurant. When her family bought it in 1950, it had akeady been converted to three aparnnents. Mr. Strathman questioned if there were children living in the build'mg. Ms. Lofberg responded that the owner only rents to students as the building is located on the U of M Campus. Mr. Strathman questioned how they would escape if there was a fire in the kitchen. Ms. Lofberg said they would go through the dining area directly to the door; they would not have to go through the kitchen. Mr. Urmann requested, if a variance is granted, that a platform or riser would be permanently fixed in place because the five foot windowsill height could be dangerous. Mr. Strathman granted the variance subject to the following conditions: 1) only adults may occupy this unit, 2) a permanent ladder will be installed for better access to this window, 3) if there is any major reconstruction of the bedroom windows, a proper egress window would have to be installed. 1115 York Avenne Perry deStefano, Southern Minnesota Legal Services appeared representing Stephanie Luckett, Betty Luckett, Da�is Gadly, Lisa LeFrooth, and Theresa Gaines, all tenants in this building. (Pat Fish ga�e Mr. Strathman a deficiency(correction list dated June 6, 2000.) Pat Fish said an agreement has been reached that the building was condemned for a number of reasons including lack of maintenance and the fact that this has gone on for several months going back to at least September 1999. Mr. Fawon Chau has recently taken over for his brother and is making the repairs. From the original list that was appealed, the life safety issues have been addressed and he now has a new list of repairs to be made on units as well as common azeas. He has agreed that the majority of those will be done by the next re-inspection which is June 13th. Ms. Fish said she has lifted the condemnation but the certificate remains revoked until the repairs are made. oo-� t�o Property Code Enforcement Notes, 6-6-00 Page 3 In response to Gerry Strathman's inquiry, Mr. deStefano said the information provided meets his clients' needs. He said if the repairs aze not made by June 13th, they will file a tenant remedy action. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. 850 Sims Avenue Michael Ramstad, properry owner, appeared. In 1992 he bought this house and an agreement was made with an inspector. The inspector reported the agreement to his supervisor and be said no to it. The matter was taken to court, a hearing was held and the judge ordered Mr. Ramstad and the city attorney to discuss the issue. One of the problems was that the back portion of the porch had receded about 1-1/2 feet. He said he was willing to fix the house but he was not sure what even needed to be done at that point. The city attorney asked him if he would follow the basic orders if the condemnation was dropped. Mr. Ramstad said he agreed to this but he also asked about other reports coming in as it would take some time to get the work completed and the city attorney said there would be no reports. The condemnation was dropped on the building and he and his family moved into the home in 1993. A housing inspector informed him he would ha�e to remove the concrete where the garage used to be or else build a gazage which is what he did. Later, an inspector came out and informed him he would have to install a fence to keep out people and litter that was being tossed on the property. He also followed those orders. Sometime in 1996, he was instructed via a letter to cease doing work on the property. At that time, Mr. Ramstad said he was not doing any work but was pulling permits to start working on the house. He maintained he was being charged double fees. An inspector came out to look at the house and told Mr. Ramstad he was unsure how he should proceed. Mr. Ramstad dug out the basement, raised it so it would be level, and completed the block work. He noted that he has not had much contact with the Housing Department because every time they come around it costs him money. One issue was that the bathroom could not be f�ed without raising the house and that has now been fixed. Mr. Ramstad said he has pulled permits on his property based upon his agreement with the city attorney. He acknowledged that most of the things Jim Prill has cited are fairly reasonable but it is all covered under the first agreement with the city attorney. In order far him to raise the house so it's level and fis it up, there will be breaking of sheet rock and othex th'sngs that have to be repaired. A condemnation order was written on the house again. From his viewpoint, Mr. Rainstad said it is in violation of the agreement he oc� � �o Property Code Enforcement Notes, 6-6-00 Page 4 made with the city attorney under the first condemnation order. The repair work that has been outlined in the report will be done, but he said he wants to get the basement done, do the wa11s, stainvay, etc. first. He has to complete the first agreement and Mr. Prill should not have written an order, he said. Ramstad said he expects to have the house completed in three to four months. He requested the condemnation order lifted so he can finish the house. Under the condemnation order, he does not need any permits. However, he needs one permit for sheet rock and one permit for the water heater. Most of the citations can be fixed, but Pri11 wants him to do everything all at one tune. Gerry Strathman noted that Mr. Ramstad said in 1992 he and his family moved into this house but later he indicated two women were living there. Mr. Ramstad explained that 16 months ago he had a job opportunity in Iliinois. He did not want to leave the house empty and he did not want to rent it so he had two friends move in. He said he will now be at home permanently until the work is completed. Jim Prill reported that on May 15, 2000 he went to this properiy to inspect the eaterior as there were pending orders. At that time, Unit 2 was unoccupied. The tenants in Unit 1 indicated there were problems that he should look at. He was not awaze of the inside condition at that time and he found a lengkhy list of violations. The problem is that a lot of the violations are life safety issues such as electric conductors that aze energized and exposed, open plumbing, holes in the walls, stairways where landings are missing, missing sheet rock, etc. There wasn't anything unusual except the large numbers of violations and the severity of them so a decision was made to condemn the building. Meghan Riley noted that Mr. Ramstad cited a case number in his appeal papers. It was her understanding that this case involved a legal petition and the disposition on it was that the judge refused to sign any orders because the City Attorney's Office was never served with the paperwork. At this point, the City is unaware of any previous agreement from 1992. Mr. Ramstad responded that he had a copy of all the paperwork and there defmitely is an agreement. Mr. Strathman said the issue everyone is interested in is how to get the house repaired so it is up to code. Mr. Ramstad said he would like to meet with Mr. Prill to go over the concerns. Mr. Prill said, because of the e�ctent of the violations, it is Code Enforcement's position that it is unsafe to live there. Ramstad again said he can do the repair work but he needs someone from the City working with him cooperatively. �0'�� Properiy Code Bnforcement Notes, 6-6-00 Page 5 Maynazd Vinge said it is his contention that no one should be living in this building because of the condition it is in. However, he told Ramstad that Code Enforcement wants him to repair the building and they want to work with him. Gerry Sh�athman told Mr. Ramstad the issue he had to decide was whether the action City officials ha�e taken in ordering the building vacated until it is repaired is a reasonable action in light of the facts. The items listed such as electrical problems, plumbing problems, broken smoke detectors, broken windows and evidence of rodent and cocia�oach infestation are potentially dangerous. Mr. Ramstad disputed some of the citations and said that others have already been conected. Under the circumstances, Mr. Strathman said he could not overrule the findings of the officers who were at the property. They believe there are life safety issues involved and Strathman said he had concerns about the young child living in those conditions. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. He told Mr. Ramstad if he wants to pursue the matter further, he has a right to pursue it with the City Council and he explained the procedure for doing that. 783 6th Street East Lyle Granlund, property owner, appeared. Pat Fish presented the original certificate of occupancy inspection list with the final alterations that were made after the second inspection. She noted that the second floor is illegally occupied without a second exit, the fire alarm system was inoperable and there is some evidence that the electrical meter for Unit 1 was also serving the third floor. Mr. Granlund said he was not aware of this and he was not prepared to address it at this time. Gerry Strathman explained that Ms. Fish did a certificate of occupancy inspection and ardered corrections and Mr. Granlund is now appealing parts of the order. Mr. Granlund said he has made e�ensive repairs to the building since he has owned it but he cannot afford to make all the repairs at this time. The order included replacing rotting trim which he said was just a small amount. The south side of the building needs paint; however it is not peeling but the affected area is due to storm damage where he had to do electrical work. He did not feel it absolutely had to be painted. He agreed that one of the upper plastic shutters did require replacement. With regard to the citation to provide screens, he said he has air conditioning units in two of the windows so there would not be screens on those windows. � �� Property Code Enforcement Notes, 6-6-00 Page 6 Mr. Granlund said he encounters problems with his tenants ripping through the screens. The screen in Unit 1 has been replaced twice already this yeaz. He said he has installed two ceiling fans, new stoves, refrigerators, and air condition in each unit. Carpet was replaced in eight rooms between last fall and this spring. The ahnninum frames for the windows are gone due to tenant damage. The citaxion included a deadbolt lock that did not open properly in Unit 1. He found this was a result of the door being kicked in when the tenants locked themselves out. There are steel fire & security door entrances on both ends of the building which are to be kept locked at all times and have been kicked in, said Mr. Granlund. Mr. Granlund said he had just completed painting the hallways and the stairs were painted about 1-1/2 years ago. He felt this was satisfactory. He has people hired who clean the hallways every week and, again, he did not see this as an issue. With regard to the carpet, since 1992 he has had rivo large rug shampooers stolen. He now has a third one and he thought the carpet has been cleaned. Mr. Granlund reported he has re-done a gas valve that was painted, repaired the e�aust fan, and replaced a cracked toilet seat in Unit 2. In Unit 3, a leak under the sink was fixed. Mr. Strathman responded to Mr. Granlund's comments regarding the damage to the trim and roof saying that it will only get bigger if it is not fixed. Mr. Granlund said he has made a ca11 to someone to have it looked at but has not received a response yet. He lives in a high crime area and does not receive the amount of rent he could in other areas of the City. Therefore, he does not take in a lot of money but he is hying to renovate the apartments the best he can. Pat Fish said her perspective is completely different from the one presented by Mr. Granlund. She said he told her he lived in the top unit of the building but that is not the case and he does not even live in the neighborhood. There is a tenant who occupies the third floor and that unit needs to be vacated because the third floor does not have a second e�t. She said the building needs a lot of work and she would disagree that there aze minnnum areas of the outside of the building that need work. There are large areas of rotted trim that need repair and replacing. She agreed that it will be a difficult task because of the height. There are other parts of the building that are also in poor shape. The back hallway had storage in the e�t way and it was in a very unclean condition when she was there. She said she did not believe any of the repairs on this building are unreasonable. She said four pieces of used wood were used to nail the screen down on the south side of the building and this would not be an acceptable repair. �o �t�o Properry Code Enforcement Notes, 6-6-00 Page 7 Mr. Granlund responded to the comments Ms. Fish made and said many of the repairs on the list have already been done. Mr. Strathman explained his role as the Legislative Hearing Officer to Mr. Granlund. He said he feels the orders issued by Ms. Fish are reasonable, correct and appropriate. He said he understands that the tenants cause a lot of damage to the properly, iYs expensive to repair it, and he may not ha�e the resources to repair it right now. However, that does not make her orders wrong. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal saying he felt the orders were reasonable and appropriate. He further suggested that Granlund could possibly work out an agreement with Ms. Fish about doing some of the repairs in an orderly fashion. He advised him that if he disagrees with the decision, he can submit a letter to the City Council to have his matter considered. 1213 Pigs Eye Lake Road Gerry Strathman said his last recollection of this issue is that the City Fire Mazshall and the railroad representative agreed that it would be forwarded to the State Fire Marshall for a determination. Leif Thorson, TKDA & Associates representing Soo Line Railroad, said he was not sure that's entirely how it happened and that he thinks the State sent a letter to the Canadian Pacific Railway outlining their concerns and some of their issues with it. They ultimately got a letter from the City of Saint Paul referencing 16 different codes but which were not necessarily out of violation. Mr. Strathman said he thought that Canadian Pacific, or whomever was representing them, was going to file an appeal with the State Fire Marshall and the City had agreed to accept the State Fire Marshall's interpretation of the ordinance. Lou Bolwahnn, representing Canadian Pacific, said he thought the State gave it back to the City without a decision. Phillip Owens said the issue with the tank having been installed without plan review, approvals, permits, etc. did come to appeal in this jurisdiction. It was deferred to the State Fire Marshall's office. The State Fire Marshall's Board of Code Appeals did meet on at least three occasions, rendered a decision, issued orders pursuant to that decision, conducted an inspection on the premises, and issued additional orders based upon that inspection. These orders that CP Rail and their representatives are appealing at this time are the orders that were issued by the State Fire Marshall's Division as an alternate �� Property Code Enforcement Notes, 6-6-00 method of compliance predicated upon the tank not complying with the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code in its size and its location as well as some other issues. •._- : In addition, the State Fire Marshall had representatives on the premises at the CP Rail properly and conducted an actual inspection of the tank and its installation. The Staxe Fire Mazshall's Office reviewed those issues in their appellant process and the City of Saint Paul's Fire Marshall provided a written brief in support of CP Rail's hypothesis that their facility was quite unusual and did not fall specifically into a given section of the code. It is neither a bulk facility nor is it a dispensing facility as the code defines them, and there was even some lengthy discussion as to whether or not a train is a vehicle. He said he was not sure if that was ever resolved. The State Fire Marshall issued orders based upon their inspection of the site as well as issued orders as an alternate method of compliance in order to leave the tank in its location and in its size. They did that with the advice, consent and support of the City of Saint Paul Fire Marshall. It's the City's position at this time to object to this appeal and to stress that they don't feel they have a right to an appeal to a decision rendered during an appeal process. Gerry Strathman noted that the orders CP Rail received came from the City Fire Marshall. He asked if the City Fire Mazshall is simply conveying the decision of the State Fire Marshall. Mr. Owens responded that, in essence, was correct. The orders that are issued are the orders directed by the State Fire Mazshall as an alternate method of compliance. The tank is too large to comply with the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code and it is in an inappropriate location with regard to other struciures on the premises and other tanks to comply with the fire code. In arder to a11ow the tank to remain there, they require additional safety factors. Mr. Strathman said the decision-making authority with respect to these orders is the 5tate Fire Marshall and the City Fire Mazshall is conveying these orders to Canadian Pacific in his role as the enforcement agent. Mr. Owens concurred. To the extent that there might be error in these orders, that would be a matter to be taken up with the State Fire Marshall or whatever the appellant authority is for the State Fire Marshall and not the City, Strathman said. This order is being conveyed by City officials but it is actually State orders. Kelly Yorke, TDKA, appeared. He said he contacted Kevin Kelly with the State Fire Mazshall's Office to discuss some of these items and Mr. Kelly told him to work with the City to resolve these issues. Mr. Strathman said he was not hearing the same perspective from all parties. Mr. Owens seems to be under the belief that the State Fire Marshall made these decisions and they ��-SC�C� Properry Code Enforcement Notes, 6-6-00 Page 9 are being conveyed by the City as the local enforcement agency. He asked Mr. Yorke if it was his understanding that the State Fire Marshall considers this decision to be the City`s and, if so, he asked why it would have even gone to kum. Mr. Yorke responded that the conversation was to work with the City to resolve these issues. Mr. Slrathman asked Mr. Owens if he could explain why the 5tate Fire Marshall would say to work with the City to resolve these issues. Mr. Owens said the State Fire Marshall, through their appellant process with CP Rail issued an"alternate method of compliance." Again, the tank cannot be there and in order to ha�e it remain, additional safety precautions were thought necessary by the State Fire Marshall and his appeals board. They rendered that decision and correspondence went to the City Fire Mazshall and to CP Rail. In addition, the State Fire Marshall's inspectors conducted an on-site inspection of the facility at the CP Rail site. They transmitted the findings of that inspection to the City Fire Marshall. In an agreement between the State Fire Marshall and the City Fire Marshall, the State has deferred compliance, inspection, and enforcement to the City. Mr. Strathman said the reason he was trying to get the point clear is that he was trying to think in terms of his jurisdiction. He has authority to review and make recommendations with respect to decisions made by City agencies. He said he has no authority or jurisdiction to make recommendations with respect to actions of the State Fire Marshall. Mr. Owens has indicated that these are in fact decisions made by the State Fire Marshall and not the City Fire Marshall. Therefare, he said he does not feel he has the jurisdiction to be reviewing decisions made by a State agency. Mr. Strathman said he was going to conclude that this is in effect a decision of the State Fire Marshall and that neither he or the City Council has any review authority over the decisions of the State Fire Marshall. He will neither grant or deny the appeal. Mr. Owens pointed out that, in essence, they have a transmittal from the City directing them to appeal to this body. (This appeal will have to be heard at the State level; filing fee to be refunded.) 653 York Avenue Bill Flis, property owner, and Suzanne Rowe appeared. Mr. Flis said this building is a duplex and he evicted the two tenants from the properiy. The property also has a sma11 house on it. Mike Kalis sent him a notice saying that work needed to be done on the property and he asked him what his plans for the building were. Mr. Flis said his plans C�C�-� CoC7 Property Code Enforcement Notes, 6-6-00 Page 10 were to sell the building "as is" to someone who would fix it up. He then received notice to clean up the properiy. Rich Singerhouse responded that was from him. Mr. Flis staxed he also received notice that it was marked as a vacant building. Inspectars came and told him what needed to be done to bring the building up to code. Duxing the process, Mr. Flis said had he known he had to bring it up to code he would have had tenants in the building until the problem was solved. Mr. Flis said the real problem is the cost involved, the 6me it will take, and no rental income at this time. His plans are to sell the property to Suzanne Rowe. He has the truth-in housing but not the code compliance inspection, but they are similaz. The problem is he cannot sell the property because no one will fmance it with it being a registered vacant building and with the orders on it. Ms. Rowe would like to get people into the duplex for the rental income and in the meantime work with the East Side Neighborhood Development Corporation. Steve Magner stated that on April 5, 2000, a correction notice was issued to both David L. Koleber and William Flis. Mr. Flis is the contract buyer and Mr. Koleber is the fee owner. Mr. Magner asked ifthe contract has been fulfilled. Mr. Flis responded in the affirmative. Mr. Magner said he sees an extensive list with some serious life safety issues including heating, electrical, and basic maintenance items requiring a number of things to be done. There were a number of complaints and calls to the Vacant Building Unit and to Code Enforcement. They generally give the owner time to make the necessary repairs and if the owner fails to make the repairs and the building becomes vacant, it is referred to the Vacant Building Unit. A file was opened and a letter was sent to Mr. Flis. Mr. Flis contacted an inspector and he was advised to obtain a code compliance inspection because if he were to sell the property, the new owner would need that to identify the violations that would need to be corrected to bring the building up to minimum standazds so the building could be re-occupied. Mr. Magner stated the code compliance inspection has been fulfilled. Mr. Flis is not required to do any of the items to sell the property and could sell it as is but the new owner would have to obtain the necessary permits and contractors and fulfill the items on the code compliance. Once the code compliance has been identified and the violations have been duly noted, the violations need to be corrected. If someone was allowed to occupy the building in this situation, the City would open itself up to liability. Mr. Magner said it was a concern ta him that they have a building that needs some attention, they ha�e had extensive complaints on it and they would like to see it repaired. Mr. Strathman said the bottom line is that the house will have to be brought up to code before it is occupied and Mr. Flis can either do it or he can sell it and the new owner �O-�(�O Property Code Enforcement Notes, 6-6-00 Page 11 would be responsible for it. Mr. Flis expressed frustration with the situation, the technique that it took in declaring it a vacant building, and the expense involved with bringing the property up to code. It is a registered vacant building, Strathman said, and consequently the vacant building fee needs to be paid as required by ordinance and, again, the properry needs to be brought up to code before it can be re-occupied. Mr. F1is asked if the details could be broken out so he knows what has to be done. Mr. Strathman said the code compliance inspection he has is the standard one that is done by a City building inspector. If more details are needed, he suggested Mr. Flis have a contractor look at it. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal citing he could not fuad any basis for the appeal. The meeting was adjourned at 3:11 p.m. mce/rrn � . �� S � � 1d : t�i.s �z' j � �� is� � ►� r � � • if Oo - Sc,o t�11 �O- SGo � id � + � �� .� livi y C�0 - S60 � - --�\��-� • ---- � � � 0 11 � � � ! �S11117/_�__ ;s �c�11 u /,v��v�f �� 7 � �OTD�O �a �p- s�o �� Z'i0 - S �� Council File # �� ORIGINAL RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Green Sheet # 100420 Presented Referred To Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the June 6, 2000, 2 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 3 Properl�ppealed Ap elp lant 4 1445 Ashland Avenue 1ef&ey J. Messerich 5 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 6 nonconfornung doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 7 building must otherwise be in compliance. 8 1411 Raymond Avenue Dorothy L. LofUerg 9 Decision: Variance granted on the back bedroom window in Apartment #2 on the following conditions: 10 1) only adults may occupy this unit, 2) a permanent ladder will be installed for better access to this window. 11 1115 Yoxk Avenue Kathleen O'Connor for Southem Minnesota 12 Decision: Appeal denied. Regional Lega1 Services representing several 13 tenants. 14 850 Sims Avenue 15 Decision: Appeal denied. 16 783 Sixth Street East 17 Decision: Appeal denied. 18 1213 Pigs Eve Lake Road 19 (This appeal will have to be heard at the State level; filing fee 20 to be refunded.) 21 653 York Avenue 22 Decision: Appeal denied. � Michael Ramstad Lyle Granlund Leif Thorson for TKDA & Associates representing Soo Line Railroad Suzanne Rowe and Bill Flis � Green Sheet 10049+J, Page 2 OU-�� 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yeas Na s Absent Blakey � Coleman ✓ Harris � Benanav � Reiter f Sostrom � Lantry f 5 O o� Requested by Department oE � Form Approved by City Attomey � 8 Adopted by Council: Date \ �o 0 o Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council 9 10 Adoption Certified by Councii ecretary B 11 By: "(�, c � � ,,,�— y e 12 Approved by Mayor• te �� 13 By: <C<� � 2 Council Offices Gerry Strathman, 266-8560 June 14, 2000 June 7, 2000 �� MOIIiBIW OROER TOTAL � OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET uumuor. � �Sbd No 1 �� 20 �n�� ❑ c,..,rw,av ❑ anmrt ❑ nuxew.mnccsne ❑ w�waumm.cno ❑ MYOR1��im�Yli) ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the .Tune 6, 2000, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 1445 Ashland Avenue, 1411 Raymond Avenue, 1115 York Avenue,_850 Sims Avenue, 783 Sixth Street East, 1213 Pigs Eye Lake Road, and 653 York Avenue. . PLANNING CAMMISSION CIB COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION • i: • tq. Cour�i Resea�ch Csn#er ��3�� _ . :m�ae�+.tn:. -_.. . , ..�""._.. _.,....�.1/ lTAGES IF NOT APPROVEC AOUNT OF TRANSACTION SOURCE INFORAaT1oN (IXPIMN) Hac tnic a�soMrm everwwiaea unaer a cono-aat tor niiis aepanmenn YES NO Fi� this D� ever heen 8 Cily empbyce9 - VES NO ooes inie pe�soNfiim o�aess a sla�� rat riormal�va�aesseE Dr am eurrent eitv emaloree? YES NO la Mi6 pefeauTilm a telpeted �endoYt YES NO CAiTRiEVQIUE BUDOETED (qRCLE ONk� ACTIVRYNUMBER �1`3�] �c� �munci6 �esearch Center �,;�i �� /�'�— � Q 6. 2000 �:�� s 7 �3 _ �. 6 �.� �` �`,j 6 �' ��oo � �� ;✓�'t�,�� z'lo� - 5t g-o ��I � �S�—�l �`7�-9� Y�' �•` ��, ,�� , �� , � �.��- � �� .� � ��..e �� U Below is an interpretation by Gerry Strathman of a handwritten letter by Mike Ramstad Gerry Strathman Director, Council Reseazch Center Legislative Hearing Officer Seeretary of the Council Dear Sir, I would like to thank you for hearing the appeal on June 6 at 1:30. It is my opnuon that your decision was wrong, and I would appreciate having this matter go to the City Council before we go to District Court about your ruling. 1) The matter was before District Court and the condemnation order was dismissed by the City of St. Paul and there was an agreement made. I kept my agreement. St. Paul didn't keep their agreement. 2) As I stated, the smoke detectors a11 wark and electrical problems have been straightened out and other things haue been repaired. 3) I appreciate your concern (about my 10 year old son); however, you could haue dropped the order to vacate the premise by asking me not to have my child live at the home until after the needed aze approved by the inspector, and I would have agreed to that. 4) The order that was given by your inspector is in direct violation of my agreement with the City of Saint Paul. 5) I would appreciate your decision. Sincerely yours, Mike Ramstad 850 Suns Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55106 , !' n �.L_. � �-.r-- r ) . t1C! PS@BPC�'1 (�+@ilt8f � e � r'_S �,a1"i �-e, ��r f � �,- — — �� a- � � �'!cs o o — Q /�� E �.7'.g a .� � _ �—' -- ��, � � L. , � �m�� -�_�_�-� -- OC�--S� c� _ �,_ `��I � y , 2 a� a� j�� /� o� G l�l F.,�7`� L° �.z v`� _ o`n � �'`z� �-' ��- =_�.—A-ll��.�n r �t �iT�cy �� ' �+' �P� '�....Ja_S 1� �`G 4�++. e>�'�' �� (_ Jtl �/ (A iL C- T `l° 'e� 4 cr - z/'1e�n`T ��1 L��yZ�' 1✓tu.ip _ / �{✓�-c�J � ° L�� L�.�u `C.� 00-��00 — — � , Q.s � � l 4.n L t° a.,� � t-1.a_ K-c� � /` � Q�i--cr � 4��1� � c.� � d �`��'�u'�d? —� a4, w4, g(' ',,, �.�c.9— 'Qen s �nQ.., w � �u� �-2� ce�� ¢,. �'�tP � - - a, r �r�S�t.� CJd ✓ r �/a✓ �� i �--- �i U0.G�;�7`^� � --% �ri �� 1•�c °�. � a7'__ rm- Li a...+. °` +^2 � ��^ !F� '�'�� h ^iT,Q__ C� �__ � !i! d h�t s` /1 �t�c.�� e.�.� � 'ln /� '�c�S'.�, `� P��/� �'� �� i.5 � 2 � /�. � �9 4� '� `jL e L� G�<¢/`E, �ED Zs.�cz�j C '�� /` ti` N� yJ d.� /' . �� I�/ � t P G e�� /��^1�,2sli� G� 2.� � ct_��s...� Z✓t�.e.� i't .�C..e_ �� C �� ,�Z � �� . �r U � 0 / � S / � �o�se.�� a �� NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, June 6, 2000 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 130 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Pat Fish, Fire Prevention; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement; Phillip Owens, Fire Prevention; Jim Prill, Code Enforcement; Meghan Riley, City Attorney's Office; Rich Singerhouse, Code Enforcement; Mike Urmann, Fire Prevention; Maynard Vinge, Code Enforcement 1445 Ashland Avenue (No one appeared to represent the property.) Gerry Strathman explained to Mike Urmann that this is a fire door variance request and asked if the Fire Department has any objections. Mr. Urmann responded there were no objections, that it would be a standard appeal. Mr. Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1411 Raymond Avenue Jeanette Esberg and Dorothy Lofberg appeared. Mr. Strathman noted that the appeal indicates the Fire Marshall is in agreement with the appeal. Mr. Urtnann responded they do have some reservations regarding the appeal with regard to the windows. Ms. Lofberg explained that the windows in question are in the bedroom on the main floor. They are about 10 inches from the ceiling and about five feet from the floor. There are nine feet between the main door to the aparhnent and the bedroom door so the only egress from the bedroom would be the high windows. When the Fire Marshall was at the property, they were advised to file for a variance. Mr. Urmann said the concerns from a fire prevenrion standpoint is that the main enhy into the unit is between 10 and 12 feet and it is in a higher hazard area of the kitchen. The tenant would have to ea�it through the kitchen to gain egress from the unit without �v-S (Q O Property Code Enforcement Notes, 6-6-00 Page 2 ha�ing escape windows. He said the only thing they can find to remedy the situation is to provide the egress windows. Mr. Strathman questioned the age of the building. Ms. Lofberg responded that it was built in 1917. At that time, it was built as an apartment and a restaurant. When her family bought it in 1950, it had akeady been converted to three aparnnents. Mr. Strathman questioned if there were children living in the build'mg. Ms. Lofberg responded that the owner only rents to students as the building is located on the U of M Campus. Mr. Strathman questioned how they would escape if there was a fire in the kitchen. Ms. Lofberg said they would go through the dining area directly to the door; they would not have to go through the kitchen. Mr. Urmann requested, if a variance is granted, that a platform or riser would be permanently fixed in place because the five foot windowsill height could be dangerous. Mr. Strathman granted the variance subject to the following conditions: 1) only adults may occupy this unit, 2) a permanent ladder will be installed for better access to this window, 3) if there is any major reconstruction of the bedroom windows, a proper egress window would have to be installed. 1115 York Avenne Perry deStefano, Southern Minnesota Legal Services appeared representing Stephanie Luckett, Betty Luckett, Da�is Gadly, Lisa LeFrooth, and Theresa Gaines, all tenants in this building. (Pat Fish ga�e Mr. Strathman a deficiency(correction list dated June 6, 2000.) Pat Fish said an agreement has been reached that the building was condemned for a number of reasons including lack of maintenance and the fact that this has gone on for several months going back to at least September 1999. Mr. Fawon Chau has recently taken over for his brother and is making the repairs. From the original list that was appealed, the life safety issues have been addressed and he now has a new list of repairs to be made on units as well as common azeas. He has agreed that the majority of those will be done by the next re-inspection which is June 13th. Ms. Fish said she has lifted the condemnation but the certificate remains revoked until the repairs are made. oo-� t�o Property Code Enforcement Notes, 6-6-00 Page 3 In response to Gerry Strathman's inquiry, Mr. deStefano said the information provided meets his clients' needs. He said if the repairs aze not made by June 13th, they will file a tenant remedy action. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. 850 Sims Avenue Michael Ramstad, properry owner, appeared. In 1992 he bought this house and an agreement was made with an inspector. The inspector reported the agreement to his supervisor and be said no to it. The matter was taken to court, a hearing was held and the judge ordered Mr. Ramstad and the city attorney to discuss the issue. One of the problems was that the back portion of the porch had receded about 1-1/2 feet. He said he was willing to fix the house but he was not sure what even needed to be done at that point. The city attorney asked him if he would follow the basic orders if the condemnation was dropped. Mr. Ramstad said he agreed to this but he also asked about other reports coming in as it would take some time to get the work completed and the city attorney said there would be no reports. The condemnation was dropped on the building and he and his family moved into the home in 1993. A housing inspector informed him he would ha�e to remove the concrete where the garage used to be or else build a gazage which is what he did. Later, an inspector came out and informed him he would have to install a fence to keep out people and litter that was being tossed on the property. He also followed those orders. Sometime in 1996, he was instructed via a letter to cease doing work on the property. At that time, Mr. Ramstad said he was not doing any work but was pulling permits to start working on the house. He maintained he was being charged double fees. An inspector came out to look at the house and told Mr. Ramstad he was unsure how he should proceed. Mr. Ramstad dug out the basement, raised it so it would be level, and completed the block work. He noted that he has not had much contact with the Housing Department because every time they come around it costs him money. One issue was that the bathroom could not be f�ed without raising the house and that has now been fixed. Mr. Ramstad said he has pulled permits on his property based upon his agreement with the city attorney. He acknowledged that most of the things Jim Prill has cited are fairly reasonable but it is all covered under the first agreement with the city attorney. In order far him to raise the house so it's level and fis it up, there will be breaking of sheet rock and othex th'sngs that have to be repaired. A condemnation order was written on the house again. From his viewpoint, Mr. Rainstad said it is in violation of the agreement he oc� � �o Property Code Enforcement Notes, 6-6-00 Page 4 made with the city attorney under the first condemnation order. The repair work that has been outlined in the report will be done, but he said he wants to get the basement done, do the wa11s, stainvay, etc. first. He has to complete the first agreement and Mr. Prill should not have written an order, he said. Ramstad said he expects to have the house completed in three to four months. He requested the condemnation order lifted so he can finish the house. Under the condemnation order, he does not need any permits. However, he needs one permit for sheet rock and one permit for the water heater. Most of the citations can be fixed, but Pri11 wants him to do everything all at one tune. Gerry Strathman noted that Mr. Ramstad said in 1992 he and his family moved into this house but later he indicated two women were living there. Mr. Ramstad explained that 16 months ago he had a job opportunity in Iliinois. He did not want to leave the house empty and he did not want to rent it so he had two friends move in. He said he will now be at home permanently until the work is completed. Jim Prill reported that on May 15, 2000 he went to this properiy to inspect the eaterior as there were pending orders. At that time, Unit 2 was unoccupied. The tenants in Unit 1 indicated there were problems that he should look at. He was not awaze of the inside condition at that time and he found a lengkhy list of violations. The problem is that a lot of the violations are life safety issues such as electric conductors that aze energized and exposed, open plumbing, holes in the walls, stairways where landings are missing, missing sheet rock, etc. There wasn't anything unusual except the large numbers of violations and the severity of them so a decision was made to condemn the building. Meghan Riley noted that Mr. Ramstad cited a case number in his appeal papers. It was her understanding that this case involved a legal petition and the disposition on it was that the judge refused to sign any orders because the City Attorney's Office was never served with the paperwork. At this point, the City is unaware of any previous agreement from 1992. Mr. Ramstad responded that he had a copy of all the paperwork and there defmitely is an agreement. Mr. Strathman said the issue everyone is interested in is how to get the house repaired so it is up to code. Mr. Ramstad said he would like to meet with Mr. Prill to go over the concerns. Mr. Prill said, because of the e�ctent of the violations, it is Code Enforcement's position that it is unsafe to live there. Ramstad again said he can do the repair work but he needs someone from the City working with him cooperatively. �0'�� Properiy Code Bnforcement Notes, 6-6-00 Page 5 Maynazd Vinge said it is his contention that no one should be living in this building because of the condition it is in. However, he told Ramstad that Code Enforcement wants him to repair the building and they want to work with him. Gerry Sh�athman told Mr. Ramstad the issue he had to decide was whether the action City officials ha�e taken in ordering the building vacated until it is repaired is a reasonable action in light of the facts. The items listed such as electrical problems, plumbing problems, broken smoke detectors, broken windows and evidence of rodent and cocia�oach infestation are potentially dangerous. Mr. Ramstad disputed some of the citations and said that others have already been conected. Under the circumstances, Mr. Strathman said he could not overrule the findings of the officers who were at the property. They believe there are life safety issues involved and Strathman said he had concerns about the young child living in those conditions. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. He told Mr. Ramstad if he wants to pursue the matter further, he has a right to pursue it with the City Council and he explained the procedure for doing that. 783 6th Street East Lyle Granlund, property owner, appeared. Pat Fish presented the original certificate of occupancy inspection list with the final alterations that were made after the second inspection. She noted that the second floor is illegally occupied without a second exit, the fire alarm system was inoperable and there is some evidence that the electrical meter for Unit 1 was also serving the third floor. Mr. Granlund said he was not aware of this and he was not prepared to address it at this time. Gerry Strathman explained that Ms. Fish did a certificate of occupancy inspection and ardered corrections and Mr. Granlund is now appealing parts of the order. Mr. Granlund said he has made e�ensive repairs to the building since he has owned it but he cannot afford to make all the repairs at this time. The order included replacing rotting trim which he said was just a small amount. The south side of the building needs paint; however it is not peeling but the affected area is due to storm damage where he had to do electrical work. He did not feel it absolutely had to be painted. He agreed that one of the upper plastic shutters did require replacement. With regard to the citation to provide screens, he said he has air conditioning units in two of the windows so there would not be screens on those windows. � �� Property Code Enforcement Notes, 6-6-00 Page 6 Mr. Granlund said he encounters problems with his tenants ripping through the screens. The screen in Unit 1 has been replaced twice already this yeaz. He said he has installed two ceiling fans, new stoves, refrigerators, and air condition in each unit. Carpet was replaced in eight rooms between last fall and this spring. The ahnninum frames for the windows are gone due to tenant damage. The citaxion included a deadbolt lock that did not open properly in Unit 1. He found this was a result of the door being kicked in when the tenants locked themselves out. There are steel fire & security door entrances on both ends of the building which are to be kept locked at all times and have been kicked in, said Mr. Granlund. Mr. Granlund said he had just completed painting the hallways and the stairs were painted about 1-1/2 years ago. He felt this was satisfactory. He has people hired who clean the hallways every week and, again, he did not see this as an issue. With regard to the carpet, since 1992 he has had rivo large rug shampooers stolen. He now has a third one and he thought the carpet has been cleaned. Mr. Granlund reported he has re-done a gas valve that was painted, repaired the e�aust fan, and replaced a cracked toilet seat in Unit 2. In Unit 3, a leak under the sink was fixed. Mr. Strathman responded to Mr. Granlund's comments regarding the damage to the trim and roof saying that it will only get bigger if it is not fixed. Mr. Granlund said he has made a ca11 to someone to have it looked at but has not received a response yet. He lives in a high crime area and does not receive the amount of rent he could in other areas of the City. Therefore, he does not take in a lot of money but he is hying to renovate the apartments the best he can. Pat Fish said her perspective is completely different from the one presented by Mr. Granlund. She said he told her he lived in the top unit of the building but that is not the case and he does not even live in the neighborhood. There is a tenant who occupies the third floor and that unit needs to be vacated because the third floor does not have a second e�t. She said the building needs a lot of work and she would disagree that there aze minnnum areas of the outside of the building that need work. There are large areas of rotted trim that need repair and replacing. She agreed that it will be a difficult task because of the height. There are other parts of the building that are also in poor shape. The back hallway had storage in the e�t way and it was in a very unclean condition when she was there. She said she did not believe any of the repairs on this building are unreasonable. She said four pieces of used wood were used to nail the screen down on the south side of the building and this would not be an acceptable repair. �o �t�o Properry Code Enforcement Notes, 6-6-00 Page 7 Mr. Granlund responded to the comments Ms. Fish made and said many of the repairs on the list have already been done. Mr. Strathman explained his role as the Legislative Hearing Officer to Mr. Granlund. He said he feels the orders issued by Ms. Fish are reasonable, correct and appropriate. He said he understands that the tenants cause a lot of damage to the properly, iYs expensive to repair it, and he may not ha�e the resources to repair it right now. However, that does not make her orders wrong. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal saying he felt the orders were reasonable and appropriate. He further suggested that Granlund could possibly work out an agreement with Ms. Fish about doing some of the repairs in an orderly fashion. He advised him that if he disagrees with the decision, he can submit a letter to the City Council to have his matter considered. 1213 Pigs Eye Lake Road Gerry Strathman said his last recollection of this issue is that the City Fire Mazshall and the railroad representative agreed that it would be forwarded to the State Fire Marshall for a determination. Leif Thorson, TKDA & Associates representing Soo Line Railroad, said he was not sure that's entirely how it happened and that he thinks the State sent a letter to the Canadian Pacific Railway outlining their concerns and some of their issues with it. They ultimately got a letter from the City of Saint Paul referencing 16 different codes but which were not necessarily out of violation. Mr. Strathman said he thought that Canadian Pacific, or whomever was representing them, was going to file an appeal with the State Fire Marshall and the City had agreed to accept the State Fire Marshall's interpretation of the ordinance. Lou Bolwahnn, representing Canadian Pacific, said he thought the State gave it back to the City without a decision. Phillip Owens said the issue with the tank having been installed without plan review, approvals, permits, etc. did come to appeal in this jurisdiction. It was deferred to the State Fire Marshall's office. The State Fire Marshall's Board of Code Appeals did meet on at least three occasions, rendered a decision, issued orders pursuant to that decision, conducted an inspection on the premises, and issued additional orders based upon that inspection. These orders that CP Rail and their representatives are appealing at this time are the orders that were issued by the State Fire Marshall's Division as an alternate �� Property Code Enforcement Notes, 6-6-00 method of compliance predicated upon the tank not complying with the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code in its size and its location as well as some other issues. •._- : In addition, the State Fire Marshall had representatives on the premises at the CP Rail properly and conducted an actual inspection of the tank and its installation. The Staxe Fire Mazshall's Office reviewed those issues in their appellant process and the City of Saint Paul's Fire Marshall provided a written brief in support of CP Rail's hypothesis that their facility was quite unusual and did not fall specifically into a given section of the code. It is neither a bulk facility nor is it a dispensing facility as the code defines them, and there was even some lengthy discussion as to whether or not a train is a vehicle. He said he was not sure if that was ever resolved. The State Fire Marshall issued orders based upon their inspection of the site as well as issued orders as an alternate method of compliance in order to leave the tank in its location and in its size. They did that with the advice, consent and support of the City of Saint Paul Fire Marshall. It's the City's position at this time to object to this appeal and to stress that they don't feel they have a right to an appeal to a decision rendered during an appeal process. Gerry Strathman noted that the orders CP Rail received came from the City Fire Marshall. He asked if the City Fire Mazshall is simply conveying the decision of the State Fire Marshall. Mr. Owens responded that, in essence, was correct. The orders that are issued are the orders directed by the State Fire Mazshall as an alternate method of compliance. The tank is too large to comply with the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code and it is in an inappropriate location with regard to other struciures on the premises and other tanks to comply with the fire code. In arder to a11ow the tank to remain there, they require additional safety factors. Mr. Strathman said the decision-making authority with respect to these orders is the 5tate Fire Marshall and the City Fire Mazshall is conveying these orders to Canadian Pacific in his role as the enforcement agent. Mr. Owens concurred. To the extent that there might be error in these orders, that would be a matter to be taken up with the State Fire Marshall or whatever the appellant authority is for the State Fire Marshall and not the City, Strathman said. This order is being conveyed by City officials but it is actually State orders. Kelly Yorke, TDKA, appeared. He said he contacted Kevin Kelly with the State Fire Mazshall's Office to discuss some of these items and Mr. Kelly told him to work with the City to resolve these issues. Mr. Strathman said he was not hearing the same perspective from all parties. Mr. Owens seems to be under the belief that the State Fire Marshall made these decisions and they ��-SC�C� Properry Code Enforcement Notes, 6-6-00 Page 9 are being conveyed by the City as the local enforcement agency. He asked Mr. Yorke if it was his understanding that the State Fire Marshall considers this decision to be the City`s and, if so, he asked why it would have even gone to kum. Mr. Yorke responded that the conversation was to work with the City to resolve these issues. Mr. Slrathman asked Mr. Owens if he could explain why the 5tate Fire Marshall would say to work with the City to resolve these issues. Mr. Owens said the State Fire Marshall, through their appellant process with CP Rail issued an"alternate method of compliance." Again, the tank cannot be there and in order to ha�e it remain, additional safety precautions were thought necessary by the State Fire Marshall and his appeals board. They rendered that decision and correspondence went to the City Fire Mazshall and to CP Rail. In addition, the State Fire Marshall's inspectors conducted an on-site inspection of the facility at the CP Rail site. They transmitted the findings of that inspection to the City Fire Marshall. In an agreement between the State Fire Marshall and the City Fire Marshall, the State has deferred compliance, inspection, and enforcement to the City. Mr. Strathman said the reason he was trying to get the point clear is that he was trying to think in terms of his jurisdiction. He has authority to review and make recommendations with respect to decisions made by City agencies. He said he has no authority or jurisdiction to make recommendations with respect to actions of the State Fire Marshall. Mr. Owens has indicated that these are in fact decisions made by the State Fire Marshall and not the City Fire Marshall. Therefare, he said he does not feel he has the jurisdiction to be reviewing decisions made by a State agency. Mr. Strathman said he was going to conclude that this is in effect a decision of the State Fire Marshall and that neither he or the City Council has any review authority over the decisions of the State Fire Marshall. He will neither grant or deny the appeal. Mr. Owens pointed out that, in essence, they have a transmittal from the City directing them to appeal to this body. (This appeal will have to be heard at the State level; filing fee to be refunded.) 653 York Avenue Bill Flis, property owner, and Suzanne Rowe appeared. Mr. Flis said this building is a duplex and he evicted the two tenants from the properiy. The property also has a sma11 house on it. Mike Kalis sent him a notice saying that work needed to be done on the property and he asked him what his plans for the building were. Mr. Flis said his plans C�C�-� CoC7 Property Code Enforcement Notes, 6-6-00 Page 10 were to sell the building "as is" to someone who would fix it up. He then received notice to clean up the properiy. Rich Singerhouse responded that was from him. Mr. Flis staxed he also received notice that it was marked as a vacant building. Inspectars came and told him what needed to be done to bring the building up to code. Duxing the process, Mr. Flis said had he known he had to bring it up to code he would have had tenants in the building until the problem was solved. Mr. Flis said the real problem is the cost involved, the 6me it will take, and no rental income at this time. His plans are to sell the property to Suzanne Rowe. He has the truth-in housing but not the code compliance inspection, but they are similaz. The problem is he cannot sell the property because no one will fmance it with it being a registered vacant building and with the orders on it. Ms. Rowe would like to get people into the duplex for the rental income and in the meantime work with the East Side Neighborhood Development Corporation. Steve Magner stated that on April 5, 2000, a correction notice was issued to both David L. Koleber and William Flis. Mr. Flis is the contract buyer and Mr. Koleber is the fee owner. Mr. Magner asked ifthe contract has been fulfilled. Mr. Flis responded in the affirmative. Mr. Magner said he sees an extensive list with some serious life safety issues including heating, electrical, and basic maintenance items requiring a number of things to be done. There were a number of complaints and calls to the Vacant Building Unit and to Code Enforcement. They generally give the owner time to make the necessary repairs and if the owner fails to make the repairs and the building becomes vacant, it is referred to the Vacant Building Unit. A file was opened and a letter was sent to Mr. Flis. Mr. Flis contacted an inspector and he was advised to obtain a code compliance inspection because if he were to sell the property, the new owner would need that to identify the violations that would need to be corrected to bring the building up to minimum standazds so the building could be re-occupied. Mr. Magner stated the code compliance inspection has been fulfilled. Mr. Flis is not required to do any of the items to sell the property and could sell it as is but the new owner would have to obtain the necessary permits and contractors and fulfill the items on the code compliance. Once the code compliance has been identified and the violations have been duly noted, the violations need to be corrected. If someone was allowed to occupy the building in this situation, the City would open itself up to liability. Mr. Magner said it was a concern ta him that they have a building that needs some attention, they ha�e had extensive complaints on it and they would like to see it repaired. Mr. Strathman said the bottom line is that the house will have to be brought up to code before it is occupied and Mr. Flis can either do it or he can sell it and the new owner �O-�(�O Property Code Enforcement Notes, 6-6-00 Page 11 would be responsible for it. Mr. Flis expressed frustration with the situation, the technique that it took in declaring it a vacant building, and the expense involved with bringing the property up to code. It is a registered vacant building, Strathman said, and consequently the vacant building fee needs to be paid as required by ordinance and, again, the properry needs to be brought up to code before it can be re-occupied. Mr. F1is asked if the details could be broken out so he knows what has to be done. Mr. Strathman said the code compliance inspection he has is the standard one that is done by a City building inspector. If more details are needed, he suggested Mr. Flis have a contractor look at it. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal citing he could not fuad any basis for the appeal. The meeting was adjourned at 3:11 p.m. mce/rrn � . �� S � � 1d : t�i.s �z' j � �� is� � ►� r � � • if Oo - Sc,o t�11 �O- SGo � id � + � �� .� livi y C�0 - S60 � - --�\��-� • ---- � � � 0 11 � � � ! �S11117/_�__ ;s �c�11 u /,v��v�f �� 7 � �OTD�O �a �p- s�o �� Z'i0 - S �� Council File # �� ORIGINAL RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Green Sheet # 100420 Presented Referred To Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the June 6, 2000, 2 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 3 Properl�ppealed Ap elp lant 4 1445 Ashland Avenue 1ef&ey J. Messerich 5 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 6 nonconfornung doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 7 building must otherwise be in compliance. 8 1411 Raymond Avenue Dorothy L. LofUerg 9 Decision: Variance granted on the back bedroom window in Apartment #2 on the following conditions: 10 1) only adults may occupy this unit, 2) a permanent ladder will be installed for better access to this window. 11 1115 Yoxk Avenue Kathleen O'Connor for Southem Minnesota 12 Decision: Appeal denied. Regional Lega1 Services representing several 13 tenants. 14 850 Sims Avenue 15 Decision: Appeal denied. 16 783 Sixth Street East 17 Decision: Appeal denied. 18 1213 Pigs Eve Lake Road 19 (This appeal will have to be heard at the State level; filing fee 20 to be refunded.) 21 653 York Avenue 22 Decision: Appeal denied. � Michael Ramstad Lyle Granlund Leif Thorson for TKDA & Associates representing Soo Line Railroad Suzanne Rowe and Bill Flis � Green Sheet 10049+J, Page 2 OU-�� 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yeas Na s Absent Blakey � Coleman ✓ Harris � Benanav � Reiter f Sostrom � Lantry f 5 O o� Requested by Department oE � Form Approved by City Attomey � 8 Adopted by Council: Date \ �o 0 o Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council 9 10 Adoption Certified by Councii ecretary B 11 By: "(�, c � � ,,,�— y e 12 Approved by Mayor• te �� 13 By: <C<� � 2 Council Offices Gerry Strathman, 266-8560 June 14, 2000 June 7, 2000 �� MOIIiBIW OROER TOTAL � OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET uumuor. � �Sbd No 1 �� 20 �n�� ❑ c,..,rw,av ❑ anmrt ❑ nuxew.mnccsne ❑ w�waumm.cno ❑ MYOR1��im�Yli) ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the .Tune 6, 2000, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 1445 Ashland Avenue, 1411 Raymond Avenue, 1115 York Avenue,_850 Sims Avenue, 783 Sixth Street East, 1213 Pigs Eye Lake Road, and 653 York Avenue. . PLANNING CAMMISSION CIB COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION • i: • tq. Cour�i Resea�ch Csn#er ��3�� _ . :m�ae�+.tn:. -_.. . , ..�""._.. _.,....�.1/ lTAGES IF NOT APPROVEC AOUNT OF TRANSACTION SOURCE INFORAaT1oN (IXPIMN) Hac tnic a�soMrm everwwiaea unaer a cono-aat tor niiis aepanmenn YES NO Fi� this D� ever heen 8 Cily empbyce9 - VES NO ooes inie pe�soNfiim o�aess a sla�� rat riormal�va�aesseE Dr am eurrent eitv emaloree? YES NO la Mi6 pefeauTilm a telpeted �endoYt YES NO CAiTRiEVQIUE BUDOETED (qRCLE ONk� ACTIVRYNUMBER �1`3�] �c� �munci6 �esearch Center �,;�i �� /�'�— � Q 6. 2000 �:�� s 7 �3 _ �. 6 �.� �` �`,j 6 �' ��oo � �� ;✓�'t�,�� z'lo� - 5t g-o ��I � �S�—�l �`7�-9� Y�' �•` ��, ,�� , �� , � �.��- � �� .� � ��..e �� U Below is an interpretation by Gerry Strathman of a handwritten letter by Mike Ramstad Gerry Strathman Director, Council Reseazch Center Legislative Hearing Officer Seeretary of the Council Dear Sir, I would like to thank you for hearing the appeal on June 6 at 1:30. It is my opnuon that your decision was wrong, and I would appreciate having this matter go to the City Council before we go to District Court about your ruling. 1) The matter was before District Court and the condemnation order was dismissed by the City of St. Paul and there was an agreement made. I kept my agreement. St. Paul didn't keep their agreement. 2) As I stated, the smoke detectors a11 wark and electrical problems have been straightened out and other things haue been repaired. 3) I appreciate your concern (about my 10 year old son); however, you could haue dropped the order to vacate the premise by asking me not to have my child live at the home until after the needed aze approved by the inspector, and I would have agreed to that. 4) The order that was given by your inspector is in direct violation of my agreement with the City of Saint Paul. 5) I would appreciate your decision. Sincerely yours, Mike Ramstad 850 Suns Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55106 , !' n �.L_. � �-.r-- r ) . t1C! PS@BPC�'1 (�+@ilt8f � e � r'_S �,a1"i �-e, ��r f � �,- — — �� a- � � �'!cs o o — Q /�� E �.7'.g a .� � _ �—' -- ��, � � L. , � �m�� -�_�_�-� -- OC�--S� c� _ �,_ `��I � y , 2 a� a� j�� /� o� G l�l F.,�7`� L° �.z v`� _ o`n � �'`z� �-' ��- =_�.—A-ll��.�n r �t �iT�cy �� ' �+' �P� '�....Ja_S 1� �`G 4�++. e>�'�' �� (_ Jtl �/ (A iL C- T `l° 'e� 4 cr - z/'1e�n`T ��1 L��yZ�' 1✓tu.ip _ / �{✓�-c�J � ° L�� L�.�u `C.� 00-��00 — — � , Q.s � � l 4.n L t° a.,� � t-1.a_ K-c� � /` � Q�i--cr � 4��1� � c.� � d �`��'�u'�d? —� a4, w4, g(' ',,, �.�c.9— 'Qen s �nQ.., w � �u� �-2� ce�� ¢,. �'�tP � - - a, r �r�S�t.� CJd ✓ r �/a✓ �� i �--- �i U0.G�;�7`^� � --% �ri �� 1•�c °�. � a7'__ rm- Li a...+. °` +^2 � ��^ !F� '�'�� h ^iT,Q__ C� �__ � !i! d h�t s` /1 �t�c.�� e.�.� � 'ln /� '�c�S'.�, `� P��/� �'� �� i.5 � 2 � /�. � �9 4� '� `jL e L� G�<¢/`E, �ED Zs.�cz�j C '�� /` ti` N� yJ d.� /' . �� I�/ � t P G e�� /��^1�,2sli� G� 2.� � ct_��s...� Z✓t�.e.� i't .�C..e_ �� C �� ,�Z � �� . �r U � 0 / � S / � �o�se.�� a �� NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, June 6, 2000 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 130 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Pat Fish, Fire Prevention; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement; Phillip Owens, Fire Prevention; Jim Prill, Code Enforcement; Meghan Riley, City Attorney's Office; Rich Singerhouse, Code Enforcement; Mike Urmann, Fire Prevention; Maynard Vinge, Code Enforcement 1445 Ashland Avenue (No one appeared to represent the property.) Gerry Strathman explained to Mike Urmann that this is a fire door variance request and asked if the Fire Department has any objections. Mr. Urmann responded there were no objections, that it would be a standard appeal. Mr. Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1411 Raymond Avenue Jeanette Esberg and Dorothy Lofberg appeared. Mr. Strathman noted that the appeal indicates the Fire Marshall is in agreement with the appeal. Mr. Urtnann responded they do have some reservations regarding the appeal with regard to the windows. Ms. Lofberg explained that the windows in question are in the bedroom on the main floor. They are about 10 inches from the ceiling and about five feet from the floor. There are nine feet between the main door to the aparhnent and the bedroom door so the only egress from the bedroom would be the high windows. When the Fire Marshall was at the property, they were advised to file for a variance. Mr. Urmann said the concerns from a fire prevenrion standpoint is that the main enhy into the unit is between 10 and 12 feet and it is in a higher hazard area of the kitchen. The tenant would have to ea�it through the kitchen to gain egress from the unit without �v-S (Q O Property Code Enforcement Notes, 6-6-00 Page 2 ha�ing escape windows. He said the only thing they can find to remedy the situation is to provide the egress windows. Mr. Strathman questioned the age of the building. Ms. Lofberg responded that it was built in 1917. At that time, it was built as an apartment and a restaurant. When her family bought it in 1950, it had akeady been converted to three aparnnents. Mr. Strathman questioned if there were children living in the build'mg. Ms. Lofberg responded that the owner only rents to students as the building is located on the U of M Campus. Mr. Strathman questioned how they would escape if there was a fire in the kitchen. Ms. Lofberg said they would go through the dining area directly to the door; they would not have to go through the kitchen. Mr. Urmann requested, if a variance is granted, that a platform or riser would be permanently fixed in place because the five foot windowsill height could be dangerous. Mr. Strathman granted the variance subject to the following conditions: 1) only adults may occupy this unit, 2) a permanent ladder will be installed for better access to this window, 3) if there is any major reconstruction of the bedroom windows, a proper egress window would have to be installed. 1115 York Avenne Perry deStefano, Southern Minnesota Legal Services appeared representing Stephanie Luckett, Betty Luckett, Da�is Gadly, Lisa LeFrooth, and Theresa Gaines, all tenants in this building. (Pat Fish ga�e Mr. Strathman a deficiency(correction list dated June 6, 2000.) Pat Fish said an agreement has been reached that the building was condemned for a number of reasons including lack of maintenance and the fact that this has gone on for several months going back to at least September 1999. Mr. Fawon Chau has recently taken over for his brother and is making the repairs. From the original list that was appealed, the life safety issues have been addressed and he now has a new list of repairs to be made on units as well as common azeas. He has agreed that the majority of those will be done by the next re-inspection which is June 13th. Ms. Fish said she has lifted the condemnation but the certificate remains revoked until the repairs are made. oo-� t�o Property Code Enforcement Notes, 6-6-00 Page 3 In response to Gerry Strathman's inquiry, Mr. deStefano said the information provided meets his clients' needs. He said if the repairs aze not made by June 13th, they will file a tenant remedy action. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. 850 Sims Avenue Michael Ramstad, properry owner, appeared. In 1992 he bought this house and an agreement was made with an inspector. The inspector reported the agreement to his supervisor and be said no to it. The matter was taken to court, a hearing was held and the judge ordered Mr. Ramstad and the city attorney to discuss the issue. One of the problems was that the back portion of the porch had receded about 1-1/2 feet. He said he was willing to fix the house but he was not sure what even needed to be done at that point. The city attorney asked him if he would follow the basic orders if the condemnation was dropped. Mr. Ramstad said he agreed to this but he also asked about other reports coming in as it would take some time to get the work completed and the city attorney said there would be no reports. The condemnation was dropped on the building and he and his family moved into the home in 1993. A housing inspector informed him he would ha�e to remove the concrete where the garage used to be or else build a gazage which is what he did. Later, an inspector came out and informed him he would have to install a fence to keep out people and litter that was being tossed on the property. He also followed those orders. Sometime in 1996, he was instructed via a letter to cease doing work on the property. At that time, Mr. Ramstad said he was not doing any work but was pulling permits to start working on the house. He maintained he was being charged double fees. An inspector came out to look at the house and told Mr. Ramstad he was unsure how he should proceed. Mr. Ramstad dug out the basement, raised it so it would be level, and completed the block work. He noted that he has not had much contact with the Housing Department because every time they come around it costs him money. One issue was that the bathroom could not be f�ed without raising the house and that has now been fixed. Mr. Ramstad said he has pulled permits on his property based upon his agreement with the city attorney. He acknowledged that most of the things Jim Prill has cited are fairly reasonable but it is all covered under the first agreement with the city attorney. In order far him to raise the house so it's level and fis it up, there will be breaking of sheet rock and othex th'sngs that have to be repaired. A condemnation order was written on the house again. From his viewpoint, Mr. Rainstad said it is in violation of the agreement he oc� � �o Property Code Enforcement Notes, 6-6-00 Page 4 made with the city attorney under the first condemnation order. The repair work that has been outlined in the report will be done, but he said he wants to get the basement done, do the wa11s, stainvay, etc. first. He has to complete the first agreement and Mr. Prill should not have written an order, he said. Ramstad said he expects to have the house completed in three to four months. He requested the condemnation order lifted so he can finish the house. Under the condemnation order, he does not need any permits. However, he needs one permit for sheet rock and one permit for the water heater. Most of the citations can be fixed, but Pri11 wants him to do everything all at one tune. Gerry Strathman noted that Mr. Ramstad said in 1992 he and his family moved into this house but later he indicated two women were living there. Mr. Ramstad explained that 16 months ago he had a job opportunity in Iliinois. He did not want to leave the house empty and he did not want to rent it so he had two friends move in. He said he will now be at home permanently until the work is completed. Jim Prill reported that on May 15, 2000 he went to this properiy to inspect the eaterior as there were pending orders. At that time, Unit 2 was unoccupied. The tenants in Unit 1 indicated there were problems that he should look at. He was not awaze of the inside condition at that time and he found a lengkhy list of violations. The problem is that a lot of the violations are life safety issues such as electric conductors that aze energized and exposed, open plumbing, holes in the walls, stairways where landings are missing, missing sheet rock, etc. There wasn't anything unusual except the large numbers of violations and the severity of them so a decision was made to condemn the building. Meghan Riley noted that Mr. Ramstad cited a case number in his appeal papers. It was her understanding that this case involved a legal petition and the disposition on it was that the judge refused to sign any orders because the City Attorney's Office was never served with the paperwork. At this point, the City is unaware of any previous agreement from 1992. Mr. Ramstad responded that he had a copy of all the paperwork and there defmitely is an agreement. Mr. Strathman said the issue everyone is interested in is how to get the house repaired so it is up to code. Mr. Ramstad said he would like to meet with Mr. Prill to go over the concerns. Mr. Prill said, because of the e�ctent of the violations, it is Code Enforcement's position that it is unsafe to live there. Ramstad again said he can do the repair work but he needs someone from the City working with him cooperatively. �0'�� Properiy Code Bnforcement Notes, 6-6-00 Page 5 Maynazd Vinge said it is his contention that no one should be living in this building because of the condition it is in. However, he told Ramstad that Code Enforcement wants him to repair the building and they want to work with him. Gerry Sh�athman told Mr. Ramstad the issue he had to decide was whether the action City officials ha�e taken in ordering the building vacated until it is repaired is a reasonable action in light of the facts. The items listed such as electrical problems, plumbing problems, broken smoke detectors, broken windows and evidence of rodent and cocia�oach infestation are potentially dangerous. Mr. Ramstad disputed some of the citations and said that others have already been conected. Under the circumstances, Mr. Strathman said he could not overrule the findings of the officers who were at the property. They believe there are life safety issues involved and Strathman said he had concerns about the young child living in those conditions. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. He told Mr. Ramstad if he wants to pursue the matter further, he has a right to pursue it with the City Council and he explained the procedure for doing that. 783 6th Street East Lyle Granlund, property owner, appeared. Pat Fish presented the original certificate of occupancy inspection list with the final alterations that were made after the second inspection. She noted that the second floor is illegally occupied without a second exit, the fire alarm system was inoperable and there is some evidence that the electrical meter for Unit 1 was also serving the third floor. Mr. Granlund said he was not aware of this and he was not prepared to address it at this time. Gerry Strathman explained that Ms. Fish did a certificate of occupancy inspection and ardered corrections and Mr. Granlund is now appealing parts of the order. Mr. Granlund said he has made e�ensive repairs to the building since he has owned it but he cannot afford to make all the repairs at this time. The order included replacing rotting trim which he said was just a small amount. The south side of the building needs paint; however it is not peeling but the affected area is due to storm damage where he had to do electrical work. He did not feel it absolutely had to be painted. He agreed that one of the upper plastic shutters did require replacement. With regard to the citation to provide screens, he said he has air conditioning units in two of the windows so there would not be screens on those windows. � �� Property Code Enforcement Notes, 6-6-00 Page 6 Mr. Granlund said he encounters problems with his tenants ripping through the screens. The screen in Unit 1 has been replaced twice already this yeaz. He said he has installed two ceiling fans, new stoves, refrigerators, and air condition in each unit. Carpet was replaced in eight rooms between last fall and this spring. The ahnninum frames for the windows are gone due to tenant damage. The citaxion included a deadbolt lock that did not open properly in Unit 1. He found this was a result of the door being kicked in when the tenants locked themselves out. There are steel fire & security door entrances on both ends of the building which are to be kept locked at all times and have been kicked in, said Mr. Granlund. Mr. Granlund said he had just completed painting the hallways and the stairs were painted about 1-1/2 years ago. He felt this was satisfactory. He has people hired who clean the hallways every week and, again, he did not see this as an issue. With regard to the carpet, since 1992 he has had rivo large rug shampooers stolen. He now has a third one and he thought the carpet has been cleaned. Mr. Granlund reported he has re-done a gas valve that was painted, repaired the e�aust fan, and replaced a cracked toilet seat in Unit 2. In Unit 3, a leak under the sink was fixed. Mr. Strathman responded to Mr. Granlund's comments regarding the damage to the trim and roof saying that it will only get bigger if it is not fixed. Mr. Granlund said he has made a ca11 to someone to have it looked at but has not received a response yet. He lives in a high crime area and does not receive the amount of rent he could in other areas of the City. Therefore, he does not take in a lot of money but he is hying to renovate the apartments the best he can. Pat Fish said her perspective is completely different from the one presented by Mr. Granlund. She said he told her he lived in the top unit of the building but that is not the case and he does not even live in the neighborhood. There is a tenant who occupies the third floor and that unit needs to be vacated because the third floor does not have a second e�t. She said the building needs a lot of work and she would disagree that there aze minnnum areas of the outside of the building that need work. There are large areas of rotted trim that need repair and replacing. She agreed that it will be a difficult task because of the height. There are other parts of the building that are also in poor shape. The back hallway had storage in the e�t way and it was in a very unclean condition when she was there. She said she did not believe any of the repairs on this building are unreasonable. She said four pieces of used wood were used to nail the screen down on the south side of the building and this would not be an acceptable repair. �o �t�o Properry Code Enforcement Notes, 6-6-00 Page 7 Mr. Granlund responded to the comments Ms. Fish made and said many of the repairs on the list have already been done. Mr. Strathman explained his role as the Legislative Hearing Officer to Mr. Granlund. He said he feels the orders issued by Ms. Fish are reasonable, correct and appropriate. He said he understands that the tenants cause a lot of damage to the properly, iYs expensive to repair it, and he may not ha�e the resources to repair it right now. However, that does not make her orders wrong. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal saying he felt the orders were reasonable and appropriate. He further suggested that Granlund could possibly work out an agreement with Ms. Fish about doing some of the repairs in an orderly fashion. He advised him that if he disagrees with the decision, he can submit a letter to the City Council to have his matter considered. 1213 Pigs Eye Lake Road Gerry Strathman said his last recollection of this issue is that the City Fire Mazshall and the railroad representative agreed that it would be forwarded to the State Fire Marshall for a determination. Leif Thorson, TKDA & Associates representing Soo Line Railroad, said he was not sure that's entirely how it happened and that he thinks the State sent a letter to the Canadian Pacific Railway outlining their concerns and some of their issues with it. They ultimately got a letter from the City of Saint Paul referencing 16 different codes but which were not necessarily out of violation. Mr. Strathman said he thought that Canadian Pacific, or whomever was representing them, was going to file an appeal with the State Fire Marshall and the City had agreed to accept the State Fire Marshall's interpretation of the ordinance. Lou Bolwahnn, representing Canadian Pacific, said he thought the State gave it back to the City without a decision. Phillip Owens said the issue with the tank having been installed without plan review, approvals, permits, etc. did come to appeal in this jurisdiction. It was deferred to the State Fire Marshall's office. The State Fire Marshall's Board of Code Appeals did meet on at least three occasions, rendered a decision, issued orders pursuant to that decision, conducted an inspection on the premises, and issued additional orders based upon that inspection. These orders that CP Rail and their representatives are appealing at this time are the orders that were issued by the State Fire Marshall's Division as an alternate �� Property Code Enforcement Notes, 6-6-00 method of compliance predicated upon the tank not complying with the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code in its size and its location as well as some other issues. •._- : In addition, the State Fire Marshall had representatives on the premises at the CP Rail properly and conducted an actual inspection of the tank and its installation. The Staxe Fire Mazshall's Office reviewed those issues in their appellant process and the City of Saint Paul's Fire Marshall provided a written brief in support of CP Rail's hypothesis that their facility was quite unusual and did not fall specifically into a given section of the code. It is neither a bulk facility nor is it a dispensing facility as the code defines them, and there was even some lengthy discussion as to whether or not a train is a vehicle. He said he was not sure if that was ever resolved. The State Fire Marshall issued orders based upon their inspection of the site as well as issued orders as an alternate method of compliance in order to leave the tank in its location and in its size. They did that with the advice, consent and support of the City of Saint Paul Fire Marshall. It's the City's position at this time to object to this appeal and to stress that they don't feel they have a right to an appeal to a decision rendered during an appeal process. Gerry Strathman noted that the orders CP Rail received came from the City Fire Marshall. He asked if the City Fire Mazshall is simply conveying the decision of the State Fire Marshall. Mr. Owens responded that, in essence, was correct. The orders that are issued are the orders directed by the State Fire Mazshall as an alternate method of compliance. The tank is too large to comply with the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code and it is in an inappropriate location with regard to other struciures on the premises and other tanks to comply with the fire code. In arder to a11ow the tank to remain there, they require additional safety factors. Mr. Strathman said the decision-making authority with respect to these orders is the 5tate Fire Marshall and the City Fire Mazshall is conveying these orders to Canadian Pacific in his role as the enforcement agent. Mr. Owens concurred. To the extent that there might be error in these orders, that would be a matter to be taken up with the State Fire Marshall or whatever the appellant authority is for the State Fire Marshall and not the City, Strathman said. This order is being conveyed by City officials but it is actually State orders. Kelly Yorke, TDKA, appeared. He said he contacted Kevin Kelly with the State Fire Mazshall's Office to discuss some of these items and Mr. Kelly told him to work with the City to resolve these issues. Mr. Strathman said he was not hearing the same perspective from all parties. Mr. Owens seems to be under the belief that the State Fire Marshall made these decisions and they ��-SC�C� Properry Code Enforcement Notes, 6-6-00 Page 9 are being conveyed by the City as the local enforcement agency. He asked Mr. Yorke if it was his understanding that the State Fire Marshall considers this decision to be the City`s and, if so, he asked why it would have even gone to kum. Mr. Yorke responded that the conversation was to work with the City to resolve these issues. Mr. Slrathman asked Mr. Owens if he could explain why the 5tate Fire Marshall would say to work with the City to resolve these issues. Mr. Owens said the State Fire Marshall, through their appellant process with CP Rail issued an"alternate method of compliance." Again, the tank cannot be there and in order to ha�e it remain, additional safety precautions were thought necessary by the State Fire Marshall and his appeals board. They rendered that decision and correspondence went to the City Fire Mazshall and to CP Rail. In addition, the State Fire Marshall's inspectors conducted an on-site inspection of the facility at the CP Rail site. They transmitted the findings of that inspection to the City Fire Marshall. In an agreement between the State Fire Marshall and the City Fire Marshall, the State has deferred compliance, inspection, and enforcement to the City. Mr. Strathman said the reason he was trying to get the point clear is that he was trying to think in terms of his jurisdiction. He has authority to review and make recommendations with respect to decisions made by City agencies. He said he has no authority or jurisdiction to make recommendations with respect to actions of the State Fire Marshall. Mr. Owens has indicated that these are in fact decisions made by the State Fire Marshall and not the City Fire Marshall. Therefare, he said he does not feel he has the jurisdiction to be reviewing decisions made by a State agency. Mr. Strathman said he was going to conclude that this is in effect a decision of the State Fire Marshall and that neither he or the City Council has any review authority over the decisions of the State Fire Marshall. He will neither grant or deny the appeal. Mr. Owens pointed out that, in essence, they have a transmittal from the City directing them to appeal to this body. (This appeal will have to be heard at the State level; filing fee to be refunded.) 653 York Avenue Bill Flis, property owner, and Suzanne Rowe appeared. Mr. Flis said this building is a duplex and he evicted the two tenants from the properiy. The property also has a sma11 house on it. Mike Kalis sent him a notice saying that work needed to be done on the property and he asked him what his plans for the building were. Mr. Flis said his plans C�C�-� CoC7 Property Code Enforcement Notes, 6-6-00 Page 10 were to sell the building "as is" to someone who would fix it up. He then received notice to clean up the properiy. Rich Singerhouse responded that was from him. Mr. Flis staxed he also received notice that it was marked as a vacant building. Inspectars came and told him what needed to be done to bring the building up to code. Duxing the process, Mr. Flis said had he known he had to bring it up to code he would have had tenants in the building until the problem was solved. Mr. Flis said the real problem is the cost involved, the 6me it will take, and no rental income at this time. His plans are to sell the property to Suzanne Rowe. He has the truth-in housing but not the code compliance inspection, but they are similaz. The problem is he cannot sell the property because no one will fmance it with it being a registered vacant building and with the orders on it. Ms. Rowe would like to get people into the duplex for the rental income and in the meantime work with the East Side Neighborhood Development Corporation. Steve Magner stated that on April 5, 2000, a correction notice was issued to both David L. Koleber and William Flis. Mr. Flis is the contract buyer and Mr. Koleber is the fee owner. Mr. Magner asked ifthe contract has been fulfilled. Mr. Flis responded in the affirmative. Mr. Magner said he sees an extensive list with some serious life safety issues including heating, electrical, and basic maintenance items requiring a number of things to be done. There were a number of complaints and calls to the Vacant Building Unit and to Code Enforcement. They generally give the owner time to make the necessary repairs and if the owner fails to make the repairs and the building becomes vacant, it is referred to the Vacant Building Unit. A file was opened and a letter was sent to Mr. Flis. Mr. Flis contacted an inspector and he was advised to obtain a code compliance inspection because if he were to sell the property, the new owner would need that to identify the violations that would need to be corrected to bring the building up to minimum standazds so the building could be re-occupied. Mr. Magner stated the code compliance inspection has been fulfilled. Mr. Flis is not required to do any of the items to sell the property and could sell it as is but the new owner would have to obtain the necessary permits and contractors and fulfill the items on the code compliance. Once the code compliance has been identified and the violations have been duly noted, the violations need to be corrected. If someone was allowed to occupy the building in this situation, the City would open itself up to liability. Mr. Magner said it was a concern ta him that they have a building that needs some attention, they ha�e had extensive complaints on it and they would like to see it repaired. Mr. Strathman said the bottom line is that the house will have to be brought up to code before it is occupied and Mr. Flis can either do it or he can sell it and the new owner �O-�(�O Property Code Enforcement Notes, 6-6-00 Page 11 would be responsible for it. Mr. Flis expressed frustration with the situation, the technique that it took in declaring it a vacant building, and the expense involved with bringing the property up to code. It is a registered vacant building, Strathman said, and consequently the vacant building fee needs to be paid as required by ordinance and, again, the properry needs to be brought up to code before it can be re-occupied. Mr. F1is asked if the details could be broken out so he knows what has to be done. Mr. Strathman said the code compliance inspection he has is the standard one that is done by a City building inspector. If more details are needed, he suggested Mr. Flis have a contractor look at it. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal citing he could not fuad any basis for the appeal. The meeting was adjourned at 3:11 p.m. mce/rrn � . �� S � � 1d : t�i.s �z' j � �� is� � ►� r � � • if Oo - Sc,o t�11 �O- SGo � id � + � �� .� livi y C�0 - S60 � - --�\��-� • ---- � � � 0 11 � � � ! �S11117/_�__ ;s �c�11 u /,v��v�f �� 7 � �OTD�O �a �p- s�o �� Z'i0 - S ��