Loading...
00-607ORIGlNAL Presented Referred To Council FIle # Op-LQ1 Green Sheet # 100421 Committee Date 1 BE I'P RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the June 20, 2000, 2 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals far the following addresses: 3 Property Ap en aled A nep llant 4 73 Leech Street (Laid over from 4-18-00) Laurie Colbecki, Women ofNations 5 Decision: Laid over to the July 20, 2000, Properry Code Enforcement meeting. 6 795 Sixth Street East (Laid over from 5-16-00) Ed Reyes for Pagasa L.L.P. 7 Decision: Laid over to the July 11, 2000, Properiy Code Enfarcement meeting. 8 9 1021 Hudson Road (Laid over from 5-16-00) Lynette Swaser 10 Decision: Appeal denied on the Order to Vacate dated May 4, 2000. 11 726 Lincoln Avenue Frank and Nancy Martin 12 Decision: Appeal denied, but an extension granted to July 1, 2001, to comply with the Rainleader Ordinance. 13 422 Pierce Street #1 Robert Dellmore 14 Decision: Appeal denied on deficiency/conection list dated June 2, 2000. 15 1913 Carroll Avenue Curtis M. Decker 16 Decision: Appeal denied on the deficiency/correction list dated May 31, 2000. 17 880 Wilson Avenue #4 Holly Kuhn 18 Decision: Appeal denied on Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated June 16, 2000. RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 0 19 693 Wilson Avenue Dartell Tutewohl 20 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 21 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 22 building must otherwise be in compliance. Crreen Sheet 100421 Do -�p7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yeas Na s Absent Blakey � Coleman �/ Harris � Benanav � Reiter � Bostrom ,/ Lantry ,/ `� D C� 8 9 10 Adopted by Council: Date: a a a o 11 12 Adoption Certified by Council Secretary 13 By: `o`� a . � , � 14 Approved by Ma or: 15 Date: .� u�'�� 5 Zld�� 16 By: 2 Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council : Council Offices Gerry Strathman, 266-8560 June 28, 2000 June 21, 2000 � TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET u.�u,�r aama oo- �o� No � ��-��'?1 qntax� ❑ an�nauar ❑ arve�au ❑qiur.f�u�sn� ❑wuw�vaaoea,xts ❑ wvoRtwiuesnwn ❑ (CLJP ALL IOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the 6-20-00 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals on the following addresses: 73 Leech Street, 795 Sixth Street East, 1021 Hudson Road, 726 Lincoln Avenue, 422 Pierce Street ��1, 1913 Carroll Avenue, 880 Wilson Avenue 114, and 693 Wilson Avenue. PLANNING CAMMISSION CIB COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION '��y_�a.:bPitld Flesmicce�sonlfirmeoerworlaeaunaeraaanha.ttamisaepanmema , YES MO Flas Mis DNeaJfirm e.er heen a d'�' dnPbY�? YES NO Dce6 this D�um G� a 516q nOt riwme�HP� M' anY wnent Cdy empbyce? YES NO la this pereoNfiim a tarpeted �n.v�doY7 YES NO dain all ves anawe�s on aeoarate sheet arM atlach in areen ahee[ Councs� Re��arc!? Cent�r �u� � i a000 TOTALAMOUNT OFTRANSACTION NNDINO SOURCE ' FlNFNCIN. INFORAV RION (EXP W f� cosrrt+EVaue euoeerso �areu.e oN� ncrnm rwn�sErt YEE NO c�c�- � o� q_ NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, June 20, 2000 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 1:31 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Pat Cahanes, Public Works-Sewer Utility; Pat Fist�, Fire Prevention; Mike Urmann, Fire Prevention 73 Leech Street (Laid over from 4-18-00) The following appeared: Laurie Colbeck, Women of Nafions, and Jerry Walsh, Project Manager for Diversified Construction. Ms. Colbeck stated three of the azeas are almost completed. The new shower azeas in the hallway and the residential azeas aze almost done. The new laundry area will have washers and dryers this week. Additional electrical work will be done. There will be a new bath and shower in the new bedroom. Mr. Walsh stated the new bedroom is close to completion and may be finished next week. The shower units are set and plumb. They are working on the sheetrock repairs and painting right now. A ceramic tile floor is going in. All the small items aze very attainable. Ms. Colbeck stated the final azea is the additional bathroom and shower that will be installed in the location of the old laundry room. Mr. Walsh stated this area could not be approached until the old laundry room got relocated into the new area. Mike Urmann reported he took a tour with the appellant this morning to see the project. They aze progressing very nicely and they are acting in good faith. Gerry Strathman asked when the building will be fmished. Mr. Walsh responded a realistic date would be three weeks. Gerry Strathman laid over to the July 20 Properry Code Enforcement meeting. 795 Sixth Street East (Laid over from 5-16-00) Gerry Strathman laid this over to the July 11, 2000, Property Code Enforcement meeting per a note from Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, who will be inspecting the property at a later date. 1021 Hudson Road (Laid over from 5-16-00) No one appeared to represent the property. Gerry Strathman denied the appeai citing no one is here on behalf of the applicant. o�-�o� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JLTNE 20, 2000 Page 2 726 Lincoln Avenue Frank Ivlartin, owner, appeared and stated five yeazs ago, he was in this room and was granted relief from having to connect two down spouts. He understood the relief was permanent. There is no place to put the water on the east side of the house because of the topography. When he did unhook the downspouts, water drained into the basement. He understood there would a chazge on his sewer bill for the water. There aze siY downspouts on the house, four of which are disconnected and drain away from the house. The other two downspouts aze impossible. Gerry Strathxnan asked for a description of the house. (Mr. Martin showed Mr. Strathman a diagram he drew of the outside of the house.) For most City ordinances, stated Mr. Strathman, there is a provision to grant exceptions under certain circumstances. This one is different because it results from a settlement of a lawsuit between Saint Paul and the federal government having to do with the discharge of sewage into the Mississippi River. The ordinance accepted by the federal government and adopted by the City Council does not provide for any variances; however, the City may grant additional time. That is undoubtedly what happened when Mr. Martin was here five years ago. Pat Cahanes reported that on May 24, 1995, the properiy owner was granted a five year time extension. Mr. Cahanes sent him a letter that the time extension had expired and it was time to connect. He did an inspection of the property and feels there is adequate area to drain on the west side. It was explained to Mr. Cahanes that the owner was worried about downspouts crossing the sidewalk, but there are many properties in Saint Paul that have downspouts crossing their sidewalk. Mr. Strathman asked can those downspouts be closed off or are they essential to the roof drainage. Mr. Cahanes responded the gutter to the north that drains the front porch area could be rehung. Without changing all the gutters on the house, he is unsure about the other one. It could be moved to a corner of the house instead of the center. Any thoughts about the claim that water drains into the garden azea and migrates into the basement, asked Mr. Stratlunan. The previous inspector, responded Mr. Cahanes, noted that it needs an extension. There were no e�ensions done on the downspouts and it was draining next to the foundation rather than across the sidewalk and into the garden azea. Mr. Martin stated he does not agree with Mr. Cahanes. Water was draining across the sidewalk. In a heavy rain, that small azea, which must be porous, goes right through the foundation. The sidewalk is flush against the house. The vast majority of the water is iuvning across the sidewalk out into the gazden area and ponding there. Mr. Cahanes responded he believes there aze options with downspout relocation andlor installing an underground PVC pipe and draining it at the south end of the properry, which would not be next to the foundation of the house. �-�0 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF Jt7NE 20, 2000 Page 3 Mr. Martin stated he has an elm tree that is approxixuately three feet in diameter. Tree surgeons have told him that the tree is infected as all trees aze in the City, and if the root system is disturbed, it will kill the tree. It is surviving now because it has an excellent set of conditions. Mr. Strathman stated he cannot grant a variance and it does not matter whether he would like to or not. Neither can the City Council grant a variance without violating the ordinance which provides for no variances. There may be expenses involved; therefore, he is willing to grant an extension of one more year. Within that time, Mr. Martin will have to come up with a solution for drainage. Public Works believes there aze solutions available. Mr. Martin responded one solution is to hire a contractor to reset the house, but that is ridiculous. Mr. Martin stated he would like his $25 appeal fee returned because there is no point to the appeal; this is an unappealable issue. Mr. Strathman responded it is appealable with respect to getting an extension. I£ Mr. Martin filed the appeal under the misconception that he could get a variance, then the filing fee can be refunded. Mr. Strathman asked does he want a one year extension. Mr. Martin responded he had better take it. Mr. Strathman granted an extension to July 1, 2001, to comply with Rainleader Ordinance 41.03. 422 Pierce Street #1 Robert Dellmore, tenant, appeared and stated ten days to bring his apartment into compliance is harsh. He has no car, no money, and needs time off of work. He admits he is not a great housekeeper, but is doing what he can to bring the apartment into compliance. (Mike Urmann gave Gerry Strathman photographs of the apartment.) Mr. Strathman stated the orders were issued June 2 and asked has progress been made. Mr. Dellmore responded he believes so. He has a few things more to do. He does not know what is really expected of him. Mr. Strathman stated this situation has to be resoived. It is clearly a health hazard and cannot be allowed to continue. He asked can this apartment be cleaned up in a week. Mr. Dellmore responded he thinks he can. Mr. Strathman stated he will deny the appeal, but the City Council will not approve his decision until June 28�', and then the inspectors can deal with this more aggessively. Robert Pilz, owner, 15801 Pilar Road North, appeared and stated Mr. Dellmore is a good tenant, but the sanitary condition has to be conected. c�o--�o PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JLINE 20, 2000 Page 4 Mr. Stratlunan asked are there any resources. Mr. Pilz responded the tenant upstairs is a friend of Mr. Dellmore's. If this is not remedied, asked Mr. Strathman, what will happen. Mr. Urmann responded he will wait until after June 28 to hear the City CounciPs decision on this matter. If the Council denies the appeal, Fire wiil condemn the unit for non compliance, and issue a vacate date. Due to the length of time it has already taken, the vacate date may be five days. Within that time, the unit should be vacated or completely in compliance. Mr. Dellmore asked will he be notified of a reinspection date and time so he can take time off work and could the reinspection be done early in the morning. Mr. Urmann responded he will give Mr. Dellmore a card and they will work something out. (Mr. Dellmore viewed the photographs and he was given them.) Gerry Slrathman denied the appeal. It is cleaz from the photographs that this is an unsanitary condition that needs to be remedied. 1913 Carroll Avenue Curtis M. Decker, owner, appeared and stated he had a certificate of occupancy inspection and there were some items that needed to be corrected. He does not dispute the work needing to be done; however, there is so much to do, there is no way he can complete the work in any reasonable tune frame. Gerry Strathman stated the list has four items. From the appeal letter, Items 3 and 4 aze not a problem. The front entry stairs and the siding are the problem. Mr. Decker responded his plans for this siuiuner are to repair the front entry stairs, which entails rebuilding the front porch. Fire also wants him to stucco the addition. When he built the addition, it was to get rid of the safety issue of what happens in the winter when water on the flat roof freezes and melts on the stairway. Mr. Strathman asked did the permit call far siding. When he pulled the permit, responded Mr. Decker, he was told he had an unlimited time to complete the project. The siding issue is strictly cosmetic. He put some vinyl siding on the east side to protect it, the north side is under ihe eaves and has 30 pound felt over the walls. It is weather tight and not leaking water into the house. It is too much for him to tackle at once. Mr. Strathman asked about the front steps and the porch and is it a hazard. Mr. Decker responded no one has been hurt yet. Mr. Strathman asked will the front porch be done by the end of the suinmer. Mr. Decker responded that is the plan. oc�--�c�� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JUNE 20, 2000 Page 5 Mike Urmann reported the inspector told him that this building is not problematic. The inspector asked for the appellant to provide a letter with a date specific as to when the project will be completed and the e�ension would be granted. At this point, Fire has not received a letter regazding time. Mr. Strathman asked about the siding. Mr. Decker responded he does not have a time frame for it. Next stumner, he will move the garage. He wants to stucco it so it matches the rest of the house. This involves heavy labor. As far as the appeal is concerned, Mr. Strathman stated, there is no quesfion as to whether these things need to be done and no question as to whether the owner is informed. The orders aze correct. What Mr. Strathman was trying to do is get a specific time line to include in his decision. The proper thing to do is to deny the appeal and Mr. Urmann has indicated the inspectors are willing to work with the owner for a extended period of tune. Mr. Decker stated Mr. Urmann said they were expecting a letter from him and Mr. Decker did not understand the process to work that way. Mr. Strathman stated there are two bases for him granting an appeal: 1) the owner was not properly notified, 2) the orders aze unreasonable and improper. Mr. Decker responded they aze unreasonable from the standpoint that he does not have the time and resources to do the work they aze demanding he do. Mr. Strathman responded Mr. Urmann has said they are willing to work with the owner. They are just not prepared to let it be indefinite. He encouraged Mr. Decker to work with the inspector. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. (Mr. Urmann gave Mr. Decker his card and told Mr. Decker to ca11 him so they could work something out.) 880 Wilson Avenue #4 Holly Kuhn appeared and stated she had a small fire in her kitchen approximately three weeks ago. She has not had electricity since the end of May. Now the electricity has been paid and it is on in her apartment. (Ms. Kuhn showed Gerry Strathman and Pat Fish a receipt showing the electricity has been paid.) Gerry Strathman asked was that the only basis for the condemnation. Pat Fish responded she does not lrnow the balance on the account. She needs to verify the electricity. It was on short notice because it originated from a firefighter that had been in the unit because of a fire. The smoke detector was not working. Ms. Fish attempted to reach the tenant and contact the owner and was unable to do either. She would like to check the smoke detector. Mr. Strathxnan asked can she arrange to have the smoke detector checked. Ms. Kuhn responded in the affirmative. �-�c�� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JLTNE 20, 2000 Page 6 Gerry Stratliman denied the appeal because the order was correct. Because the problem has been taken care of, the order is of no importance. The owner should let Ms. Fish verify electrical service and make sure the smoke detector is working. 693 Wilson Avenue Pat Fish stated the owner of the building was not planuiug to attend the meeting today. Ms. Fish does not haue any objections to a variance on the fire doors. Gerry 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. The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m. rrn ORIGlNAL Presented Referred To Council FIle # Op-LQ1 Green Sheet # 100421 Committee Date 1 BE I'P RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the June 20, 2000, 2 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals far the following addresses: 3 Property Ap en aled A nep llant 4 73 Leech Street (Laid over from 4-18-00) Laurie Colbecki, Women ofNations 5 Decision: Laid over to the July 20, 2000, Properry Code Enforcement meeting. 6 795 Sixth Street East (Laid over from 5-16-00) Ed Reyes for Pagasa L.L.P. 7 Decision: Laid over to the July 11, 2000, Properiy Code Enfarcement meeting. 8 9 1021 Hudson Road (Laid over from 5-16-00) Lynette Swaser 10 Decision: Appeal denied on the Order to Vacate dated May 4, 2000. 11 726 Lincoln Avenue Frank and Nancy Martin 12 Decision: Appeal denied, but an extension granted to July 1, 2001, to comply with the Rainleader Ordinance. 13 422 Pierce Street #1 Robert Dellmore 14 Decision: Appeal denied on deficiency/conection list dated June 2, 2000. 15 1913 Carroll Avenue Curtis M. Decker 16 Decision: Appeal denied on the deficiency/correction list dated May 31, 2000. 17 880 Wilson Avenue #4 Holly Kuhn 18 Decision: Appeal denied on Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated June 16, 2000. RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 0 19 693 Wilson Avenue Dartell Tutewohl 20 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 21 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 22 building must otherwise be in compliance. Crreen Sheet 100421 Do -�p7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yeas Na s Absent Blakey � Coleman �/ Harris � Benanav � Reiter � Bostrom ,/ Lantry ,/ `� D C� 8 9 10 Adopted by Council: Date: a a a o 11 12 Adoption Certified by Council Secretary 13 By: `o`� a . � , � 14 Approved by Ma or: 15 Date: .� u�'�� 5 Zld�� 16 By: 2 Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council : Council Offices Gerry Strathman, 266-8560 June 28, 2000 June 21, 2000 � TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET u.�u,�r aama oo- �o� No � ��-��'?1 qntax� ❑ an�nauar ❑ arve�au ❑qiur.f�u�sn� ❑wuw�vaaoea,xts ❑ wvoRtwiuesnwn ❑ (CLJP ALL IOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the 6-20-00 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals on the following addresses: 73 Leech Street, 795 Sixth Street East, 1021 Hudson Road, 726 Lincoln Avenue, 422 Pierce Street ��1, 1913 Carroll Avenue, 880 Wilson Avenue 114, and 693 Wilson Avenue. PLANNING CAMMISSION CIB COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION '��y_�a.:bPitld Flesmicce�sonlfirmeoerworlaeaunaeraaanha.ttamisaepanmema , YES MO Flas Mis DNeaJfirm e.er heen a d'�' dnPbY�? YES NO Dce6 this D�um G� a 516q nOt riwme�HP� M' anY wnent Cdy empbyce? YES NO la this pereoNfiim a tarpeted �n.v�doY7 YES NO dain all ves anawe�s on aeoarate sheet arM atlach in areen ahee[ Councs� Re��arc!? Cent�r �u� � i a000 TOTALAMOUNT OFTRANSACTION NNDINO SOURCE ' FlNFNCIN. INFORAV RION (EXP W f� cosrrt+EVaue euoeerso �areu.e oN� ncrnm rwn�sErt YEE NO c�c�- � o� q_ NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, June 20, 2000 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 1:31 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Pat Cahanes, Public Works-Sewer Utility; Pat Fist�, Fire Prevention; Mike Urmann, Fire Prevention 73 Leech Street (Laid over from 4-18-00) The following appeared: Laurie Colbeck, Women of Nafions, and Jerry Walsh, Project Manager for Diversified Construction. Ms. Colbeck stated three of the azeas are almost completed. The new shower azeas in the hallway and the residential azeas aze almost done. The new laundry area will have washers and dryers this week. Additional electrical work will be done. There will be a new bath and shower in the new bedroom. Mr. Walsh stated the new bedroom is close to completion and may be finished next week. The shower units are set and plumb. They are working on the sheetrock repairs and painting right now. A ceramic tile floor is going in. All the small items aze very attainable. Ms. Colbeck stated the final azea is the additional bathroom and shower that will be installed in the location of the old laundry room. Mr. Walsh stated this area could not be approached until the old laundry room got relocated into the new area. Mike Urmann reported he took a tour with the appellant this morning to see the project. They aze progressing very nicely and they are acting in good faith. Gerry Strathman asked when the building will be fmished. Mr. Walsh responded a realistic date would be three weeks. Gerry Strathman laid over to the July 20 Properry Code Enforcement meeting. 795 Sixth Street East (Laid over from 5-16-00) Gerry Strathman laid this over to the July 11, 2000, Property Code Enforcement meeting per a note from Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, who will be inspecting the property at a later date. 1021 Hudson Road (Laid over from 5-16-00) No one appeared to represent the property. Gerry Strathman denied the appeai citing no one is here on behalf of the applicant. o�-�o� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JLTNE 20, 2000 Page 2 726 Lincoln Avenue Frank Ivlartin, owner, appeared and stated five yeazs ago, he was in this room and was granted relief from having to connect two down spouts. He understood the relief was permanent. There is no place to put the water on the east side of the house because of the topography. When he did unhook the downspouts, water drained into the basement. He understood there would a chazge on his sewer bill for the water. There aze siY downspouts on the house, four of which are disconnected and drain away from the house. The other two downspouts aze impossible. Gerry Strathxnan asked for a description of the house. (Mr. Martin showed Mr. Strathman a diagram he drew of the outside of the house.) For most City ordinances, stated Mr. Strathman, there is a provision to grant exceptions under certain circumstances. This one is different because it results from a settlement of a lawsuit between Saint Paul and the federal government having to do with the discharge of sewage into the Mississippi River. The ordinance accepted by the federal government and adopted by the City Council does not provide for any variances; however, the City may grant additional time. That is undoubtedly what happened when Mr. Martin was here five years ago. Pat Cahanes reported that on May 24, 1995, the properiy owner was granted a five year time extension. Mr. Cahanes sent him a letter that the time extension had expired and it was time to connect. He did an inspection of the property and feels there is adequate area to drain on the west side. It was explained to Mr. Cahanes that the owner was worried about downspouts crossing the sidewalk, but there are many properties in Saint Paul that have downspouts crossing their sidewalk. Mr. Strathman asked can those downspouts be closed off or are they essential to the roof drainage. Mr. Cahanes responded the gutter to the north that drains the front porch area could be rehung. Without changing all the gutters on the house, he is unsure about the other one. It could be moved to a corner of the house instead of the center. Any thoughts about the claim that water drains into the garden azea and migrates into the basement, asked Mr. Stratlunan. The previous inspector, responded Mr. Cahanes, noted that it needs an extension. There were no e�ensions done on the downspouts and it was draining next to the foundation rather than across the sidewalk and into the garden azea. Mr. Martin stated he does not agree with Mr. Cahanes. Water was draining across the sidewalk. In a heavy rain, that small azea, which must be porous, goes right through the foundation. The sidewalk is flush against the house. The vast majority of the water is iuvning across the sidewalk out into the gazden area and ponding there. Mr. Cahanes responded he believes there aze options with downspout relocation andlor installing an underground PVC pipe and draining it at the south end of the properry, which would not be next to the foundation of the house. �-�0 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF Jt7NE 20, 2000 Page 3 Mr. Martin stated he has an elm tree that is approxixuately three feet in diameter. Tree surgeons have told him that the tree is infected as all trees aze in the City, and if the root system is disturbed, it will kill the tree. It is surviving now because it has an excellent set of conditions. Mr. Strathman stated he cannot grant a variance and it does not matter whether he would like to or not. Neither can the City Council grant a variance without violating the ordinance which provides for no variances. There may be expenses involved; therefore, he is willing to grant an extension of one more year. Within that time, Mr. Martin will have to come up with a solution for drainage. Public Works believes there aze solutions available. Mr. Martin responded one solution is to hire a contractor to reset the house, but that is ridiculous. Mr. Martin stated he would like his $25 appeal fee returned because there is no point to the appeal; this is an unappealable issue. Mr. Strathman responded it is appealable with respect to getting an extension. I£ Mr. Martin filed the appeal under the misconception that he could get a variance, then the filing fee can be refunded. Mr. Strathman asked does he want a one year extension. Mr. Martin responded he had better take it. Mr. Strathman granted an extension to July 1, 2001, to comply with Rainleader Ordinance 41.03. 422 Pierce Street #1 Robert Dellmore, tenant, appeared and stated ten days to bring his apartment into compliance is harsh. He has no car, no money, and needs time off of work. He admits he is not a great housekeeper, but is doing what he can to bring the apartment into compliance. (Mike Urmann gave Gerry Strathman photographs of the apartment.) Mr. Strathman stated the orders were issued June 2 and asked has progress been made. Mr. Dellmore responded he believes so. He has a few things more to do. He does not know what is really expected of him. Mr. Strathman stated this situation has to be resoived. It is clearly a health hazard and cannot be allowed to continue. He asked can this apartment be cleaned up in a week. Mr. Dellmore responded he thinks he can. Mr. Strathman stated he will deny the appeal, but the City Council will not approve his decision until June 28�', and then the inspectors can deal with this more aggessively. Robert Pilz, owner, 15801 Pilar Road North, appeared and stated Mr. Dellmore is a good tenant, but the sanitary condition has to be conected. c�o--�o PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JLINE 20, 2000 Page 4 Mr. Stratlunan asked are there any resources. Mr. Pilz responded the tenant upstairs is a friend of Mr. Dellmore's. If this is not remedied, asked Mr. Strathman, what will happen. Mr. Urmann responded he will wait until after June 28 to hear the City CounciPs decision on this matter. If the Council denies the appeal, Fire wiil condemn the unit for non compliance, and issue a vacate date. Due to the length of time it has already taken, the vacate date may be five days. Within that time, the unit should be vacated or completely in compliance. Mr. Dellmore asked will he be notified of a reinspection date and time so he can take time off work and could the reinspection be done early in the morning. Mr. Urmann responded he will give Mr. Dellmore a card and they will work something out. (Mr. Dellmore viewed the photographs and he was given them.) Gerry Slrathman denied the appeal. It is cleaz from the photographs that this is an unsanitary condition that needs to be remedied. 1913 Carroll Avenue Curtis M. Decker, owner, appeared and stated he had a certificate of occupancy inspection and there were some items that needed to be corrected. He does not dispute the work needing to be done; however, there is so much to do, there is no way he can complete the work in any reasonable tune frame. Gerry Strathman stated the list has four items. From the appeal letter, Items 3 and 4 aze not a problem. The front entry stairs and the siding are the problem. Mr. Decker responded his plans for this siuiuner are to repair the front entry stairs, which entails rebuilding the front porch. Fire also wants him to stucco the addition. When he built the addition, it was to get rid of the safety issue of what happens in the winter when water on the flat roof freezes and melts on the stairway. Mr. Strathman asked did the permit call far siding. When he pulled the permit, responded Mr. Decker, he was told he had an unlimited time to complete the project. The siding issue is strictly cosmetic. He put some vinyl siding on the east side to protect it, the north side is under ihe eaves and has 30 pound felt over the walls. It is weather tight and not leaking water into the house. It is too much for him to tackle at once. Mr. Strathman asked about the front steps and the porch and is it a hazard. Mr. Decker responded no one has been hurt yet. Mr. Strathman asked will the front porch be done by the end of the suinmer. Mr. Decker responded that is the plan. oc�--�c�� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JUNE 20, 2000 Page 5 Mike Urmann reported the inspector told him that this building is not problematic. The inspector asked for the appellant to provide a letter with a date specific as to when the project will be completed and the e�ension would be granted. At this point, Fire has not received a letter regazding time. Mr. Strathman asked about the siding. Mr. Decker responded he does not have a time frame for it. Next stumner, he will move the garage. He wants to stucco it so it matches the rest of the house. This involves heavy labor. As far as the appeal is concerned, Mr. Strathman stated, there is no quesfion as to whether these things need to be done and no question as to whether the owner is informed. The orders aze correct. What Mr. Strathman was trying to do is get a specific time line to include in his decision. The proper thing to do is to deny the appeal and Mr. Urmann has indicated the inspectors are willing to work with the owner for a extended period of tune. Mr. Decker stated Mr. Urmann said they were expecting a letter from him and Mr. Decker did not understand the process to work that way. Mr. Strathman stated there are two bases for him granting an appeal: 1) the owner was not properly notified, 2) the orders aze unreasonable and improper. Mr. Decker responded they aze unreasonable from the standpoint that he does not have the time and resources to do the work they aze demanding he do. Mr. Strathman responded Mr. Urmann has said they are willing to work with the owner. They are just not prepared to let it be indefinite. He encouraged Mr. Decker to work with the inspector. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. (Mr. Urmann gave Mr. Decker his card and told Mr. Decker to ca11 him so they could work something out.) 880 Wilson Avenue #4 Holly Kuhn appeared and stated she had a small fire in her kitchen approximately three weeks ago. She has not had electricity since the end of May. Now the electricity has been paid and it is on in her apartment. (Ms. Kuhn showed Gerry Strathman and Pat Fish a receipt showing the electricity has been paid.) Gerry Strathman asked was that the only basis for the condemnation. Pat Fish responded she does not lrnow the balance on the account. She needs to verify the electricity. It was on short notice because it originated from a firefighter that had been in the unit because of a fire. The smoke detector was not working. Ms. Fish attempted to reach the tenant and contact the owner and was unable to do either. She would like to check the smoke detector. Mr. Strathxnan asked can she arrange to have the smoke detector checked. Ms. Kuhn responded in the affirmative. �-�c�� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JLTNE 20, 2000 Page 6 Gerry Stratliman denied the appeal because the order was correct. Because the problem has been taken care of, the order is of no importance. The owner should let Ms. Fish verify electrical service and make sure the smoke detector is working. 693 Wilson Avenue Pat Fish stated the owner of the building was not planuiug to attend the meeting today. Ms. Fish does not haue any objections to a variance on the fire doors. Gerry 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. The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m. rrn ORIGlNAL Presented Referred To Council FIle # Op-LQ1 Green Sheet # 100421 Committee Date 1 BE I'P RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the June 20, 2000, 2 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals far the following addresses: 3 Property Ap en aled A nep llant 4 73 Leech Street (Laid over from 4-18-00) Laurie Colbecki, Women ofNations 5 Decision: Laid over to the July 20, 2000, Properry Code Enforcement meeting. 6 795 Sixth Street East (Laid over from 5-16-00) Ed Reyes for Pagasa L.L.P. 7 Decision: Laid over to the July 11, 2000, Properiy Code Enfarcement meeting. 8 9 1021 Hudson Road (Laid over from 5-16-00) Lynette Swaser 10 Decision: Appeal denied on the Order to Vacate dated May 4, 2000. 11 726 Lincoln Avenue Frank and Nancy Martin 12 Decision: Appeal denied, but an extension granted to July 1, 2001, to comply with the Rainleader Ordinance. 13 422 Pierce Street #1 Robert Dellmore 14 Decision: Appeal denied on deficiency/conection list dated June 2, 2000. 15 1913 Carroll Avenue Curtis M. Decker 16 Decision: Appeal denied on the deficiency/correction list dated May 31, 2000. 17 880 Wilson Avenue #4 Holly Kuhn 18 Decision: Appeal denied on Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated June 16, 2000. RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 0 19 693 Wilson Avenue Dartell Tutewohl 20 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 21 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 22 building must otherwise be in compliance. Crreen Sheet 100421 Do -�p7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yeas Na s Absent Blakey � Coleman �/ Harris � Benanav � Reiter � Bostrom ,/ Lantry ,/ `� D C� 8 9 10 Adopted by Council: Date: a a a o 11 12 Adoption Certified by Council Secretary 13 By: `o`� a . � , � 14 Approved by Ma or: 15 Date: .� u�'�� 5 Zld�� 16 By: 2 Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council : Council Offices Gerry Strathman, 266-8560 June 28, 2000 June 21, 2000 � TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET u.�u,�r aama oo- �o� No � ��-��'?1 qntax� ❑ an�nauar ❑ arve�au ❑qiur.f�u�sn� ❑wuw�vaaoea,xts ❑ wvoRtwiuesnwn ❑ (CLJP ALL IOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the 6-20-00 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals on the following addresses: 73 Leech Street, 795 Sixth Street East, 1021 Hudson Road, 726 Lincoln Avenue, 422 Pierce Street ��1, 1913 Carroll Avenue, 880 Wilson Avenue 114, and 693 Wilson Avenue. PLANNING CAMMISSION CIB COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION '��y_�a.:bPitld Flesmicce�sonlfirmeoerworlaeaunaeraaanha.ttamisaepanmema , YES MO Flas Mis DNeaJfirm e.er heen a d'�' dnPbY�? YES NO Dce6 this D�um G� a 516q nOt riwme�HP� M' anY wnent Cdy empbyce? YES NO la this pereoNfiim a tarpeted �n.v�doY7 YES NO dain all ves anawe�s on aeoarate sheet arM atlach in areen ahee[ Councs� Re��arc!? Cent�r �u� � i a000 TOTALAMOUNT OFTRANSACTION NNDINO SOURCE ' FlNFNCIN. INFORAV RION (EXP W f� cosrrt+EVaue euoeerso �areu.e oN� ncrnm rwn�sErt YEE NO c�c�- � o� q_ NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, June 20, 2000 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 1:31 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Pat Cahanes, Public Works-Sewer Utility; Pat Fist�, Fire Prevention; Mike Urmann, Fire Prevention 73 Leech Street (Laid over from 4-18-00) The following appeared: Laurie Colbeck, Women of Nafions, and Jerry Walsh, Project Manager for Diversified Construction. Ms. Colbeck stated three of the azeas are almost completed. The new shower azeas in the hallway and the residential azeas aze almost done. The new laundry area will have washers and dryers this week. Additional electrical work will be done. There will be a new bath and shower in the new bedroom. Mr. Walsh stated the new bedroom is close to completion and may be finished next week. The shower units are set and plumb. They are working on the sheetrock repairs and painting right now. A ceramic tile floor is going in. All the small items aze very attainable. Ms. Colbeck stated the final azea is the additional bathroom and shower that will be installed in the location of the old laundry room. Mr. Walsh stated this area could not be approached until the old laundry room got relocated into the new area. Mike Urmann reported he took a tour with the appellant this morning to see the project. They aze progressing very nicely and they are acting in good faith. Gerry Strathman asked when the building will be fmished. Mr. Walsh responded a realistic date would be three weeks. Gerry Strathman laid over to the July 20 Properry Code Enforcement meeting. 795 Sixth Street East (Laid over from 5-16-00) Gerry Strathman laid this over to the July 11, 2000, Property Code Enforcement meeting per a note from Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, who will be inspecting the property at a later date. 1021 Hudson Road (Laid over from 5-16-00) No one appeared to represent the property. Gerry Strathman denied the appeai citing no one is here on behalf of the applicant. o�-�o� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JLTNE 20, 2000 Page 2 726 Lincoln Avenue Frank Ivlartin, owner, appeared and stated five yeazs ago, he was in this room and was granted relief from having to connect two down spouts. He understood the relief was permanent. There is no place to put the water on the east side of the house because of the topography. When he did unhook the downspouts, water drained into the basement. He understood there would a chazge on his sewer bill for the water. There aze siY downspouts on the house, four of which are disconnected and drain away from the house. The other two downspouts aze impossible. Gerry Strathxnan asked for a description of the house. (Mr. Martin showed Mr. Strathman a diagram he drew of the outside of the house.) For most City ordinances, stated Mr. Strathman, there is a provision to grant exceptions under certain circumstances. This one is different because it results from a settlement of a lawsuit between Saint Paul and the federal government having to do with the discharge of sewage into the Mississippi River. The ordinance accepted by the federal government and adopted by the City Council does not provide for any variances; however, the City may grant additional time. That is undoubtedly what happened when Mr. Martin was here five years ago. Pat Cahanes reported that on May 24, 1995, the properiy owner was granted a five year time extension. Mr. Cahanes sent him a letter that the time extension had expired and it was time to connect. He did an inspection of the property and feels there is adequate area to drain on the west side. It was explained to Mr. Cahanes that the owner was worried about downspouts crossing the sidewalk, but there are many properties in Saint Paul that have downspouts crossing their sidewalk. Mr. Strathman asked can those downspouts be closed off or are they essential to the roof drainage. Mr. Cahanes responded the gutter to the north that drains the front porch area could be rehung. Without changing all the gutters on the house, he is unsure about the other one. It could be moved to a corner of the house instead of the center. Any thoughts about the claim that water drains into the garden azea and migrates into the basement, asked Mr. Stratlunan. The previous inspector, responded Mr. Cahanes, noted that it needs an extension. There were no e�ensions done on the downspouts and it was draining next to the foundation rather than across the sidewalk and into the garden azea. Mr. Martin stated he does not agree with Mr. Cahanes. Water was draining across the sidewalk. In a heavy rain, that small azea, which must be porous, goes right through the foundation. The sidewalk is flush against the house. The vast majority of the water is iuvning across the sidewalk out into the gazden area and ponding there. Mr. Cahanes responded he believes there aze options with downspout relocation andlor installing an underground PVC pipe and draining it at the south end of the properry, which would not be next to the foundation of the house. �-�0 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF Jt7NE 20, 2000 Page 3 Mr. Martin stated he has an elm tree that is approxixuately three feet in diameter. Tree surgeons have told him that the tree is infected as all trees aze in the City, and if the root system is disturbed, it will kill the tree. It is surviving now because it has an excellent set of conditions. Mr. Strathman stated he cannot grant a variance and it does not matter whether he would like to or not. Neither can the City Council grant a variance without violating the ordinance which provides for no variances. There may be expenses involved; therefore, he is willing to grant an extension of one more year. Within that time, Mr. Martin will have to come up with a solution for drainage. Public Works believes there aze solutions available. Mr. Martin responded one solution is to hire a contractor to reset the house, but that is ridiculous. Mr. Martin stated he would like his $25 appeal fee returned because there is no point to the appeal; this is an unappealable issue. Mr. Strathman responded it is appealable with respect to getting an extension. I£ Mr. Martin filed the appeal under the misconception that he could get a variance, then the filing fee can be refunded. Mr. Strathman asked does he want a one year extension. Mr. Martin responded he had better take it. Mr. Strathman granted an extension to July 1, 2001, to comply with Rainleader Ordinance 41.03. 422 Pierce Street #1 Robert Dellmore, tenant, appeared and stated ten days to bring his apartment into compliance is harsh. He has no car, no money, and needs time off of work. He admits he is not a great housekeeper, but is doing what he can to bring the apartment into compliance. (Mike Urmann gave Gerry Strathman photographs of the apartment.) Mr. Strathman stated the orders were issued June 2 and asked has progress been made. Mr. Dellmore responded he believes so. He has a few things more to do. He does not know what is really expected of him. Mr. Strathman stated this situation has to be resoived. It is clearly a health hazard and cannot be allowed to continue. He asked can this apartment be cleaned up in a week. Mr. Dellmore responded he thinks he can. Mr. Strathman stated he will deny the appeal, but the City Council will not approve his decision until June 28�', and then the inspectors can deal with this more aggessively. Robert Pilz, owner, 15801 Pilar Road North, appeared and stated Mr. Dellmore is a good tenant, but the sanitary condition has to be conected. c�o--�o PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JLINE 20, 2000 Page 4 Mr. Stratlunan asked are there any resources. Mr. Pilz responded the tenant upstairs is a friend of Mr. Dellmore's. If this is not remedied, asked Mr. Strathman, what will happen. Mr. Urmann responded he will wait until after June 28 to hear the City CounciPs decision on this matter. If the Council denies the appeal, Fire wiil condemn the unit for non compliance, and issue a vacate date. Due to the length of time it has already taken, the vacate date may be five days. Within that time, the unit should be vacated or completely in compliance. Mr. Dellmore asked will he be notified of a reinspection date and time so he can take time off work and could the reinspection be done early in the morning. Mr. Urmann responded he will give Mr. Dellmore a card and they will work something out. (Mr. Dellmore viewed the photographs and he was given them.) Gerry Slrathman denied the appeal. It is cleaz from the photographs that this is an unsanitary condition that needs to be remedied. 1913 Carroll Avenue Curtis M. Decker, owner, appeared and stated he had a certificate of occupancy inspection and there were some items that needed to be corrected. He does not dispute the work needing to be done; however, there is so much to do, there is no way he can complete the work in any reasonable tune frame. Gerry Strathman stated the list has four items. From the appeal letter, Items 3 and 4 aze not a problem. The front entry stairs and the siding are the problem. Mr. Decker responded his plans for this siuiuner are to repair the front entry stairs, which entails rebuilding the front porch. Fire also wants him to stucco the addition. When he built the addition, it was to get rid of the safety issue of what happens in the winter when water on the flat roof freezes and melts on the stairway. Mr. Strathman asked did the permit call far siding. When he pulled the permit, responded Mr. Decker, he was told he had an unlimited time to complete the project. The siding issue is strictly cosmetic. He put some vinyl siding on the east side to protect it, the north side is under ihe eaves and has 30 pound felt over the walls. It is weather tight and not leaking water into the house. It is too much for him to tackle at once. Mr. Strathman asked about the front steps and the porch and is it a hazard. Mr. Decker responded no one has been hurt yet. Mr. Strathman asked will the front porch be done by the end of the suinmer. Mr. Decker responded that is the plan. oc�--�c�� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JUNE 20, 2000 Page 5 Mike Urmann reported the inspector told him that this building is not problematic. The inspector asked for the appellant to provide a letter with a date specific as to when the project will be completed and the e�ension would be granted. At this point, Fire has not received a letter regazding time. Mr. Strathman asked about the siding. Mr. Decker responded he does not have a time frame for it. Next stumner, he will move the garage. He wants to stucco it so it matches the rest of the house. This involves heavy labor. As far as the appeal is concerned, Mr. Strathman stated, there is no quesfion as to whether these things need to be done and no question as to whether the owner is informed. The orders aze correct. What Mr. Strathman was trying to do is get a specific time line to include in his decision. The proper thing to do is to deny the appeal and Mr. Urmann has indicated the inspectors are willing to work with the owner for a extended period of tune. Mr. Decker stated Mr. Urmann said they were expecting a letter from him and Mr. Decker did not understand the process to work that way. Mr. Strathman stated there are two bases for him granting an appeal: 1) the owner was not properly notified, 2) the orders aze unreasonable and improper. Mr. Decker responded they aze unreasonable from the standpoint that he does not have the time and resources to do the work they aze demanding he do. Mr. Strathman responded Mr. Urmann has said they are willing to work with the owner. They are just not prepared to let it be indefinite. He encouraged Mr. Decker to work with the inspector. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. (Mr. Urmann gave Mr. Decker his card and told Mr. Decker to ca11 him so they could work something out.) 880 Wilson Avenue #4 Holly Kuhn appeared and stated she had a small fire in her kitchen approximately three weeks ago. She has not had electricity since the end of May. Now the electricity has been paid and it is on in her apartment. (Ms. Kuhn showed Gerry Strathman and Pat Fish a receipt showing the electricity has been paid.) Gerry Strathman asked was that the only basis for the condemnation. Pat Fish responded she does not lrnow the balance on the account. She needs to verify the electricity. It was on short notice because it originated from a firefighter that had been in the unit because of a fire. The smoke detector was not working. Ms. Fish attempted to reach the tenant and contact the owner and was unable to do either. She would like to check the smoke detector. Mr. Strathxnan asked can she arrange to have the smoke detector checked. Ms. Kuhn responded in the affirmative. �-�c�� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JLTNE 20, 2000 Page 6 Gerry Stratliman denied the appeal because the order was correct. Because the problem has been taken care of, the order is of no importance. The owner should let Ms. Fish verify electrical service and make sure the smoke detector is working. 693 Wilson Avenue Pat Fish stated the owner of the building was not planuiug to attend the meeting today. Ms. Fish does not haue any objections to a variance on the fire doors. Gerry 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. The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m. rrn