The URL can be used to link to this page

01-1217Council File # a � r, �� CI��,L Presented RESOLUTtON OF SAINT PAUL, M{NNESOTA a� Referred To Committee Date BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the November 6, 2041, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enfarcement Appeals for the following addresses: 4 Pro e�riv Appealed A� elv lant 333 Irvine Avenue Gwynne Evans Decision: Appeal denied on the October 16, 2001, Cozrec6on Notice. If the life safety issues are addressed, the compliance date For the rest of the items wiil be amended to December 31, 2001. ff the tenant vacates the property before November 12, 2001, the repairs do not have to be made. 9 332 Summit Avenue Gwynne Evans 10 Decision: Appeal denied on the October 10, 2001, Deficiency List. 11 799 Fourth StreeC East John Mazurkiewicz 12 Decision: Appeal denied, but the inspector will change the compliance date to September 1, 2002. 13 630 Marshall Avenue James Daly 14 Decision: Appeal denied on the October 17, 2001, Correction Notice, but the inspector wiil change the 15 compliance date to June 30, 2002, on scraping and painting the trim and providing ground cover in front of the 16 property. 17 295 Suminit Avenue Gloria Anne Fritz 18 Decision: Appeal denied on the October 19, 2001, Certificate of Occupancy Approval with Deficiencies. 19 952 Haeue Avenue 20 Decision: Appeal denied on the vacant building fee. James Robinson Green Sheet # 110343 ? 1 232 Exchange Street South. Apartment C Robert G. Mairs '.2 Decision: Appeal granted to a request of a$75 refund for the certificate of occupancy inspection on the grounds 3 that there aze no common areas at this properiy to be inspected. Green Sheet 110343 D� -1�\^t 3^1(�+ �� Yeas Nays Absent Blakey � Coleman � Hatris ,�- Benanav ,� Reiter � Bostrom v- Lantry ✓ o O 1 2 3 4 5 5 � Adopted by Council: Date:� � � y a- � t ' '. Adoptio Certified by Council Secretary By: '� � 1 �. �_____ Approved by Mayor: Date ��f �� Z�� By: � � Requested by Department of: I� Form Approved by City Attorney I: Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council I: 2 o � -�aa1 City Council Offices Gerry Stratt�man, 266-8560 DATE WIiIATED �:�r�, �, Zooi GREEN SHEET � 110343 OxDER TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES � a,rcann ❑ arvwnox�r ❑ asrc�uc u ❑ �ur�eismxesamc ❑ wuxcw.mmaccrc ❑ W1YOR(ORAfStSflWi) ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATUR� Approving the November 6, 2001, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 333 Irvine Avenue, 332 Summit Avenue, 799 Fourth Street East, 630 Marshall Avenue, 295 Su�t Avenue, 952 Hague Avenue, and 232 Exchange Streee South, Apartment C or PIANNING CAMMISSION CIB COMMI7TEE CfVIL SERVICE COMMISSION APPROVED i SOURCE Why} Has this persorJfirm ever urorked under a wMrad for this departmentl YES NO Has this perso�rm evei been a city emWoyee'1 YES N� Does this person/firm possess a skill not namalrypossesseU by a�ry curterd cily employee? YES NO Is this person/fimi a tarpeted veMOR YES t� ilain all ves answxs on seoa2te sheet an0 attach to nreen sheet COST/REVENUE 9UOGETED {CU2CLE QNE) ACTMTY NUMBER �� INFORMATbN (IXPWN) ° �_�Z-�1 Z�. NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, November 6, 2061 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathtuan, Legislative Hearing Officer STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Fishbach, LIEP; Lisa Foster, Code Enforcemem; Jack Reardon, Code Enforcement; Dennis Senty, Code Enforcement The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. 333 Irvine Avenue 332 Summit Avenue Gwynne Evans, owner, appeazed and stated she has not appealed 332 Suuunit Avenue. She has 30 days to do so. Gerry Strathman stated both addresses aze on the appeal applicafion. Ms. Evans responded she talked to Wendy Lane (LIEP), who recommended Ms. Evans wait until November 15 to appeal. Jeff Fishbach responded he was at that meeting with Ms. Evans. Anything involving a zoning matter cannot be heard at this hearing. Any issues involving Pat Fish are to be heard today. Pat Fish stated there is a lelter attached listing life safety issues in the building regard'ang exifing. If Ms. Evans wants to appeal the Summit Avenue issues, stated Mr. Strathman, this is the time. 333 Irvine Avenne Ms. Evans stated she purchased this property because she was going to live in it. Her attomey told her that if she decided not to live it, the best thing to do is to put it up for sale, which she did. She felt she could have tenants in it. She didn't feel there were safety issues at the time. Mr. Strathman stated it was her view there were no problems with the property. Ms. Evans responded that is right. It is a$13 Million house. She knows it is better to have people living there than having it vacant. For example, someone started a powwow in the rear of the property. If someone had not been in the property to ca11 the police, it is unclear what would haue happened. The properiy has now been sold. The closing is November 30. At the time of the notice from Lisa Foster, there were tenants in the building who were not paying rent. When they were told they had missed two months rent, they called the City and made complaints. She filed an unlawfiil detainer on them. In the lease, it cleazly stated the house was rented as is. One tenant owned lus own construcfion company and was going to correct any problems. She gave him a discount accordingiy. When he wasn't paying the rent, she also found out that he hadn't cut the grass since October 2000. There is another tenant in there now. The sanitation, grass, weeds, windows, and locks issues have been taken caze of. She should not have to bring the properly into compfiance in 30 days because the buyers of this property wili be demolishing it. o�-�Z�� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF NOVEMBER 6, 2001 Page 2 Mr. Strathman asked aze people living in this building and is the lease going to expire. Ms. Evans responded there is one family. They rent month to month. Lisa Foster reported she inspected the property. The grass had not been cut in a while and there was miscellaneous debris. There was also a bonfire on the back deck, which burned through. At that time, there was no one living in the home. She issue a set of orders on an interior inspection with 16 items listed. There are life and safety issues here. If the property was vacant, Ms. Foster would haue been comfortable granting an ea�tension of time. The owner is selling the property, but these issues do need to be addressed by the deadline of November 12. Mr. Strathman asked which items aze life safety. Ms. Foster responded with tl�e following: Item 4, Provide operable window locks for all windows except third floor and above; Item 6, Provide one-inch throw deadbolt locks for all entry doors to dwelling unit(s); Item 13, Provide funcrioning smoke detectors in accordance with the attached requirement within 24 hours; Item 14, Have a licensed electrical contractor check service and label fuse box; and Item 16, Repair open wires at top of steps. Mr. Strathman stated Ms. Evans has a coupie of choices: 1) Vacate the building by the November 12 deadline; 2) make the repairs identified as life safety issues by November 12 if the building will be occupied. Ms. Evans stated she thinks she has to give the tenant a 30 day notice to vacate. Mr. Strathman responded maybe she could make an agreement with the tenant. In response to several questions asked by Ms. Evans, Ms. Foster responded the last time she was at the properry was October 16, at which time she went through the inside. There were inoperable locks on some of the windows, but she is unsure how many. The back door had a deadbolt on it, but the door was sficking. As for the smoke detectors, she will provide the requirement to Ms. Evans. The two detectors in the home were not working when she was there. The owner should contact a licensed contractor about the heating equipment. Ms. Foster would like tlus contractor to send her docuxnents concernixig anything that has to be done. The open wires are about 6 feet high. There might have been some type of electrical oudet there. Ms. Evans stated she will have people working on this tomonow morning. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on the October 16, 2001, Correction Notice. If the life safety issues are addressed, the compliance date for the rest of the items will be amended to December 31, 2001. If the tenants vacate the property before November 12, 2QQ1, the repairs do not have to be made. 332 Summit Avenue Gerry Strathman stated there is a zoning issue here, but that will not be discussed today; however, there aze orders issued by the Fire Deparnnent that will be discussed. Those orders are contained in a document prepared by Pat Fish dated October 10, 2001. The items subject to o� �Z�1 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOT'ES OF NOVEMBER 6, 2001 Page 3 appeal aze as follows: remove exposed wiring and install in accordance with the elecfrical code, ivstall fire alarm system, lacks legal e�ting, provide a smoke detector outside each sleeping area, the properiy does not have a certificate of occupancy for rental use, and it must be brought up to code. Pat Fish reported the property has not had an inspection of the whole building because it is not a legal three dwelling unit. She did not do a certificate of occupancy inspection on it. At this inspection, she identified the life safety issues, the feasibility of ntaking this a three unit building, and what would ha�e to be done. Mr. Strathman staxed he wanted to make it clear for everyone. This building is currently considered by the City to be a single family home. It is appazendy being used as a multifamily home, but it does not meet the requirements of a multifamily home. Plus, there may be other items that would be revealed in a certificate of occupancy inspecrion that has yet to be conducted. He asked what the requirements would be for a single family home. Ms. Fish responded Fire Prevenfion does not renew the certificate of occupancy on single family homes. If it was occupied as a single fanuly home, it would not need a fire alarm system. Mr. Strathman stated if it is to be used as a singie family home, there would not be any immediate issues with this property. If it is to continue to be used as a multifamily dwelling, then it has to meet these life safety issues. Ms. Fish responded that is correct. Ms. Evans stated she spoke with Ms. Fish about making a three dwelling unit or four dwelling unit out of this property and they came to the conclusion that it would be expensive and time consuming to do that. Then they talked about the number of people that could be in that building so additional exits would not be needed. Ms. Fish responded if up to four unrelated people were living in the building, then it would be considered a single family home. Ms. Evans stated she received a notice to vacate from Vivian Giyck and her husband Michael Koenigs, who live on the top floor. Also, there aze five girls on the first floor. 5he asked what she would have to do to keep four people in the building. Ms. Fish responded that would be four unrelated persons; therefore, it would not require a certificate of occupancy and would not be inspected. The properry would still need to be registered as rental properry. The fire alarm system would not be requited. Also, when the property is converted from a mulfiple unit to a single faznily, the ea-Ira kitchens have to be removed. The properry has the physical setup of three units with three full kitchens. Mr_ Strathman stated if she reduces the occupancy to four and declares it is a single family home, the owner ]s required to remove the additional kitchens. Mr. Fishbach responded that from a zoning standpoint, the definition of a dwelling unit is a building or portion thereof designed for occupants of one family for residential purposes. If the owner made it a single family dwelling, Mr. Fishbach's orders would be to remove two of the kitchens, which aze the orders the owner could appeal through November 15. Ms. Evans responded she does not know how another c�� Z�1 PROPERTI' CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF NOVEMBER 6, 2001 Page 4 kitchen would be tlueatening. The building is for sale and she is not going to disassemble three kitchens. The girls use one kitchen. Mr. Straxhman responded the law is not always pracfical. Ms. Evans stated in the Twin Cities practically everyone she knows has more than one kitchen in their house. Mr. Strathman responded he does recall an instance where a property had two latchens. It is a substantial issue to have two kitchens and ciaim it as a single family home. Ms. Evans asked why the previous owner was allowed to have more than one kitchen. Mr. Strathman responded that his guess is that no one knew about it and no one made an issue of it. Mr. Fishbach stated the Boazd of Zoning Appeals can made the decision to allow her to have two kitchens. Also, with the five college girls, even though two aze sisters, by defuution of the zoning ordinance, they are not related. For e�nple, this is four unrelated people: a martied couple who ue two individual people, their kids would not count, and two more people. In answer to questions from Ms. Evans, Ms. Fish responded a fire alarm company has to be called to install a fire alann system in the building. The Romex should be covered. In order to get the certificate of occupancy, she needs to have another inspection. There is a full list of everything in the building that needs to be done. Ms. Fish only cited the life safety issues as Ms. Evans asked her to because she was not going to get it certified as a three unit. Michael Koenigs and Vivian Glyck, 332 Sunuvit Avenue, appeared. Ms. Koenigs stated they haue never been notified by Ms. Evans that there have been any kind of safety issues. They have put forth their notice to vacate by the end of the month. The main issue is that Ms. Evans is holding them to a 60 day lease. Ms. Glyck stated they have a month to month lease and a 60 day notice. Given all the issues going on with this properiy, they would just like to leaue as of November 30. They have been in the property 13 months. They were never told they were in the building to watch it. As for the bonfire, they did not call the police nor have the other tenants. As far fue and safeiy issues, they are evident. Ms. Evans responded the bonfire in the back did happen and it was reported by a girl that lived on the first floor. Mr. Strathman responded it does not matter why anyone was living there. Ms. Evans stated Mr. Fishbach has presented letters to the tenants on the first floor. She has not iried to lude anytiung from the tenants and has had extensive conversations with Ms. Glyck. Mr. Fishbach responded that is standard practice for him to inform the tenants so it does not come upon them as a shock. Colleen Fitzpatrick, 332 Smimiit Avenue, appeared and stated Mr. Fishbach called their house assuming it was Ms. Evan's residence and said he would give her further notices. Kendra Frath, 332 Suminit Avenue, appeared and stated she lived at this address and had no knowledge of problems with the property. Barbara Farrell, 2361 Stillwater Avenue, Maplewood, appeared and stated her daughter is Lee Farrell. She was the 6th person to move in. The day she moved in, they saw all the notices c��-�z�� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF NOVEMBER 6, 2001 Page 5 posted on the refrigerator. When they saw the safety issues, Bazbaza Fanell did not sign the lease. Lee opted to leave two weeks ago. The owner told the giris that Lee would be held responsible for her rent until January 1 because she had to give a 60 day notice. The owner was aware that the property cannot have more than four unrelated people living in one unit. Ms. Evans responded this is an issue they have with this girl to make their rent cheaper. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal on the October 10, 2001, order. The orders Pat Fish issued are conect, reasonable, and appropriate. The issues with current and past tenants cannot be resolved at this meeting. Ms. Evans asked for an e�tension. Ms. Fish responded she will not change compliance dates on life safety issues. 799 Fourth Street East (Jack Reardon showed photographs to Gerry Strathman.) John P. Mazurkiewicz, owner, appeared and stated his paint is peeling, but there are many houses in lus area that have peeling paint. He has a proposal from Integrity Construction to install a $6,000 porch on his house. He does not have money to have this house painted right now. Gerry Strathxnan stated he does not see the relevance of the proposal. Mr. Mazurkiewicz responded the inspector wants him to paint the house. He has tried to paint it, but paint will not stick on this house for some reason. Some painters have told him there is moisture from the inside the house that is coming out of the house and blistering the paint. On September 10, the downstairs caught fire. He has been replacing the kitchen. He has neighbors complaining the fence is falling down. He has all the materials there, but he does not have time to do all these tivngs. He does not feel comfortable painting the house on a ladder, and he cannot afford to pay someone $5,000 to paint the house. Mr. Strathman asked what is his proposal. Mr. Mazurkiewicz responded he is working on it, but he is only one person. Mr. Strathman asked what is painted. Mr. Mazurkiewicz stated the front is almost painted, the sides are not painted, and half of the rear is painted. Jack Reardon reported the owner told Mr. Reardon that he was hying to get siding. Mr. Mazurkiewicz responded he cannot put siding in that neighborhood because of the historic district. Ae pays the mortgage, tases, insurance, and is told he cannot fix the house the way he wants to fix it. The weather is getting cold for painting. Nir. Strathman asked is it late to paint. Mr. Reardon responded it would be tough for the owner to finish the painting. He could finish it neat spring or summer. Gerry Strathman stated he understands the frustraiion with the house, but the home has to be maintained. It is not pracflcal to expect the owner to be painting this time of the year. He would prefer the inspector set a new compliance date. Mr. Reardon responded he has no problem with c� � �Z�-� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF NOVEMBER 6, 2001 Page 6 that and can work with the owner. Mr. Mazurkiewicz responded he would like the compiiance date to be September 2002. The last time he rented scaffoiding, it cost about $1,000. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on the September 28, 2001, Conection Notice; however, the inspector will change the compliance date to September 1, 2002. 630 Marshall Avenue Jim Daly, 10550 Dale Road, appeared. He showed photographs to Gerry Strathman and explained each one. Gerry Strathman stated tlie orders aze to replace a broken window, replace missing screens, paint trixn, and provide ground cover. Mr. Daly responded the window is taken caze of. He purchased the properiy in July. There are severai residents that are di�cult. He was able to remove one resident because there was no lease. He will maintain the property in the winter. There are nine school age children remanung in the building. By the end of the school year, he will be able to remove the tenants that are problematia The property has a new front door, windows, screens, kitchen, bath, plumbing, and the heat has been repaired. The tenants tore up the basement after the inspection. He is asking for additional tnne to make the repairs. Lisa Foster reported the front window was suppose to be taken care of by October 23, which was done. The screen were suppose to be replaced by November 30. The trim and ground cover is suppose to be done by June 30, 2002. She feels she has given sufficient time to get these items conected. Mr. Strathman staied June 30 should gave sufficient time. Ms. Foster responded Fire would usually handle this. There was a broken front window. He gave her verbal assurances that he would take caze of it. She went by there on several occasions, but the window was still not repaired. She drove by the properiy this morning, he stuck a board in the window and left broken glass in there. Instead of taking out the entire window, it was a quick fix. Mr. Daly responded he replaced the window and it was broken again in a week. At the fime, he asked her to send the items in writing because he wants a paper trail to show what he has done. Ms. Foster stated the property looks good. Her only concern is the broken window. Mr. Daly thought she was picking on him, but she explained that her job is to go through an azea and pick up anytl�ing she sees. The glass needs to be repaired properly. Mr. Strathman stated he does not see anything unreasonable about these orders. Mr. Daly responded he will be completely in compliance by the end of 3uly, which will be one yeaz after he purchased the building. Mr. Strathman stated he sees no reason to change the orders for the windows and screens. He asked Ms. Foster does she have a problem with the compliance date on the painting and ground cover changed to July 3Q 2002. Ms. Foster responded that is fine. o � �Z.�� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOT'ES OF NOVEMBER 6, 2001 Page 7 Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on the October 17, 2001, Conection Norice; however, the inspector will change the compliance date to June 30, 2002, on scraping and painting the trim and providing ground cover in front of the properry. 295 Summit Avenue Gloria Anne Fritz, owner, Ed Hanson, attomey, appeared. Ms. Fritz stated doing the ea�terior at this time would be a hardship for her unless she can find a buyer. She cannot raise over $200,000 to get the work done. There are three flights up to get to the soffits, which will require scaffolding. The rest of the house is brick. In a letter dated October 19, stated Mr. Stzatlunan, the Fire Department has issued a certificate of occupancy for tlus building. It indicates the deficiencies need to be corrected by May l, 2002. He asked what is inappropriate about the orders. Ms. Fritz responded it is going to be difficult to afford more work on this house. She is extended out as far as she can go. Right now, the soft rental market has made it even more difficult to rent property. If she does not comply with the orders by May 1, her certificate of occupancy will be revoked. She cannot afford to have that happen. Mr. Strathman asked what she is proposing as a resolution. Ms. Fritz responded that the arders be lifted until the property is sold. 5he has refinanced a11 her properties to make it tluough her divorce. She does not want to violate any laws nor make promises she cannot keep. She has two cluldren and has to pay child support of almost $1,500 a month. Plus, she has mortgage payments on ali her other properties. Mike Urmann reported he has worked with Ms. Fritz since October 2000. Fire Prevenfion has granted several extensions on the exterior repairs. They were told by spring that this property would be taken care of. The certificate of occupancy was revoked because of noncompliance. There was a legislative hearing two weeks ago; the ea�teriors were extended until May of next yeaz. At the direction of the Fire Marshal, Fire Prevention has been reasonable with the properiy maintenance code violations. They have warked with the building owner. Their only action is enforcement at this time because she refuses to do the work. Ms. Fritz responded she is not refusing to do it. She does not have the money. She has called several organizations for heip. Her attorney advised her to ask Mr. Strathman to see if there is any grant money available. Nothing is cheap on these old houses. Mr. Strathman stated the reason for this hearing is that the City Council recognizes that it is possible that inspectors may make mistakes and fail to exercise their authority properly. The Fire Marshal operates under the Administration and direction of the Mayor. Mr. Strathman operates under the direction of the Council; therefore, he is ntdependent of the administration. It is not Mr. Strathman's role nor the City Council's role to substitute their professional judgement far that of the Fire Marshal. If Mr. Strathman had any reason to believe the Fire Marshal was acting inconectly with issuing these orders, there are remedies; however, he does not have error here. He understands that Ms. Fritz fmds herself in possession of a property the maintenance of which costs more than she can afford. Unfortunately, under the law, Chat is not a justification for o� �-�...�`� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF NOVEMBER 6, 2001 Page 8 not complying with City ordivauces. Ms. Fritz asked how the soffits are a fire or safety issue. Mr. Strathxnan responded the property maintenance code designates the fire marshal as the enforcement agency for this. It does not necessarily haue to do with fires or life safety. Ms. Fritz asked whax happens if the work is not done by May 1. Mr. Strathman responded that is up to the Fire Marshal. They may move to revoke the certificate of occupancy. Gerry Srtathman denied the appeal on the October 19, 2001, Certificate of Occupancy Approval with Deficiencies. Ms. Fritz asked couid the compiiance date be e�ended. Mr. Strathman responded the Fire Mazshal and the City Council can amend the date. Also, she should speak to Councilmember Chris Coleman about this issue. They may be able to fmd additional resources. 952 Hague Avenue (No one appeared to represent the property.) Gerry Strathman stated the owner is asking to be excused from paying the fee. Dennis Senty reported that he would like the appeal denied because James Robinson, the appellant, is not the owner of the property. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on the vacant building fee. 232 Exchange Street South, Anartment C(Panama Flats Rowhouse Associationl (No one appeared to represent the property.) Gerry Strathman granted the appeal on a request of a$75 refund for the certificate of occupancy inspection on the ground§ that there are no common areas at this property to be inspected. The meeting was adjourned at 3:07 p.m. rrn Council File # a � r, �� CI��,L Presented RESOLUTtON OF SAINT PAUL, M{NNESOTA a� Referred To Committee Date BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the November 6, 2041, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enfarcement Appeals for the following addresses: 4 Pro e�riv Appealed A� elv lant 333 Irvine Avenue Gwynne Evans Decision: Appeal denied on the October 16, 2001, Cozrec6on Notice. If the life safety issues are addressed, the compliance date For the rest of the items wiil be amended to December 31, 2001. ff the tenant vacates the property before November 12, 2001, the repairs do not have to be made. 9 332 Summit Avenue Gwynne Evans 10 Decision: Appeal denied on the October 10, 2001, Deficiency List. 11 799 Fourth StreeC East John Mazurkiewicz 12 Decision: Appeal denied, but the inspector will change the compliance date to September 1, 2002. 13 630 Marshall Avenue James Daly 14 Decision: Appeal denied on the October 17, 2001, Correction Notice, but the inspector wiil change the 15 compliance date to June 30, 2002, on scraping and painting the trim and providing ground cover in front of the 16 property. 17 295 Suminit Avenue Gloria Anne Fritz 18 Decision: Appeal denied on the October 19, 2001, Certificate of Occupancy Approval with Deficiencies. 19 952 Haeue Avenue 20 Decision: Appeal denied on the vacant building fee. James Robinson Green Sheet # 110343 ? 1 232 Exchange Street South. Apartment C Robert G. Mairs '.2 Decision: Appeal granted to a request of a$75 refund for the certificate of occupancy inspection on the grounds 3 that there aze no common areas at this properiy to be inspected. Green Sheet 110343 D� -1�\^t 3^1(�+ �� Yeas Nays Absent Blakey � Coleman � Hatris ,�- Benanav ,� Reiter � Bostrom v- Lantry ✓ o O 1 2 3 4 5 5 � Adopted by Council: Date:� � � y a- � t ' '. Adoptio Certified by Council Secretary By: '� � 1 �. �_____ Approved by Mayor: Date ��f �� Z�� By: � � Requested by Department of: I� Form Approved by City Attorney I: Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council I: 2 o � -�aa1 City Council Offices Gerry Stratt�man, 266-8560 DATE WIiIATED �:�r�, �, Zooi GREEN SHEET � 110343 OxDER TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES � a,rcann ❑ arvwnox�r ❑ asrc�uc u ❑ �ur�eismxesamc ❑ wuxcw.mmaccrc ❑ W1YOR(ORAfStSflWi) ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATUR� Approving the November 6, 2001, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 333 Irvine Avenue, 332 Summit Avenue, 799 Fourth Street East, 630 Marshall Avenue, 295 Su�t Avenue, 952 Hague Avenue, and 232 Exchange Streee South, Apartment C or PIANNING CAMMISSION CIB COMMI7TEE CfVIL SERVICE COMMISSION APPROVED i SOURCE Why} Has this persorJfirm ever urorked under a wMrad for this departmentl YES NO Has this perso�rm evei been a city emWoyee'1 YES N� Does this person/firm possess a skill not namalrypossesseU by a�ry curterd cily employee? YES NO Is this person/fimi a tarpeted veMOR YES t� ilain all ves answxs on seoa2te sheet an0 attach to nreen sheet COST/REVENUE 9UOGETED {CU2CLE QNE) ACTMTY NUMBER �� INFORMATbN (IXPWN) ° �_�Z-�1 Z�. NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, November 6, 2061 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathtuan, Legislative Hearing Officer STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Fishbach, LIEP; Lisa Foster, Code Enforcemem; Jack Reardon, Code Enforcement; Dennis Senty, Code Enforcement The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. 333 Irvine Avenue 332 Summit Avenue Gwynne Evans, owner, appeazed and stated she has not appealed 332 Suuunit Avenue. She has 30 days to do so. Gerry Strathman stated both addresses aze on the appeal applicafion. Ms. Evans responded she talked to Wendy Lane (LIEP), who recommended Ms. Evans wait until November 15 to appeal. Jeff Fishbach responded he was at that meeting with Ms. Evans. Anything involving a zoning matter cannot be heard at this hearing. Any issues involving Pat Fish are to be heard today. Pat Fish stated there is a lelter attached listing life safety issues in the building regard'ang exifing. If Ms. Evans wants to appeal the Summit Avenue issues, stated Mr. Strathman, this is the time. 333 Irvine Avenne Ms. Evans stated she purchased this property because she was going to live in it. Her attomey told her that if she decided not to live it, the best thing to do is to put it up for sale, which she did. She felt she could have tenants in it. She didn't feel there were safety issues at the time. Mr. Strathman stated it was her view there were no problems with the property. Ms. Evans responded that is right. It is a$13 Million house. She knows it is better to have people living there than having it vacant. For example, someone started a powwow in the rear of the property. If someone had not been in the property to ca11 the police, it is unclear what would haue happened. The properiy has now been sold. The closing is November 30. At the time of the notice from Lisa Foster, there were tenants in the building who were not paying rent. When they were told they had missed two months rent, they called the City and made complaints. She filed an unlawfiil detainer on them. In the lease, it cleazly stated the house was rented as is. One tenant owned lus own construcfion company and was going to correct any problems. She gave him a discount accordingiy. When he wasn't paying the rent, she also found out that he hadn't cut the grass since October 2000. There is another tenant in there now. The sanitation, grass, weeds, windows, and locks issues have been taken caze of. She should not have to bring the properly into compfiance in 30 days because the buyers of this property wili be demolishing it. o�-�Z�� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF NOVEMBER 6, 2001 Page 2 Mr. Strathman asked aze people living in this building and is the lease going to expire. Ms. Evans responded there is one family. They rent month to month. Lisa Foster reported she inspected the property. The grass had not been cut in a while and there was miscellaneous debris. There was also a bonfire on the back deck, which burned through. At that time, there was no one living in the home. She issue a set of orders on an interior inspection with 16 items listed. There are life and safety issues here. If the property was vacant, Ms. Foster would haue been comfortable granting an ea�tension of time. The owner is selling the property, but these issues do need to be addressed by the deadline of November 12. Mr. Strathman asked which items aze life safety. Ms. Foster responded with tl�e following: Item 4, Provide operable window locks for all windows except third floor and above; Item 6, Provide one-inch throw deadbolt locks for all entry doors to dwelling unit(s); Item 13, Provide funcrioning smoke detectors in accordance with the attached requirement within 24 hours; Item 14, Have a licensed electrical contractor check service and label fuse box; and Item 16, Repair open wires at top of steps. Mr. Strathman stated Ms. Evans has a coupie of choices: 1) Vacate the building by the November 12 deadline; 2) make the repairs identified as life safety issues by November 12 if the building will be occupied. Ms. Evans stated she thinks she has to give the tenant a 30 day notice to vacate. Mr. Strathman responded maybe she could make an agreement with the tenant. In response to several questions asked by Ms. Evans, Ms. Foster responded the last time she was at the properry was October 16, at which time she went through the inside. There were inoperable locks on some of the windows, but she is unsure how many. The back door had a deadbolt on it, but the door was sficking. As for the smoke detectors, she will provide the requirement to Ms. Evans. The two detectors in the home were not working when she was there. The owner should contact a licensed contractor about the heating equipment. Ms. Foster would like tlus contractor to send her docuxnents concernixig anything that has to be done. The open wires are about 6 feet high. There might have been some type of electrical oudet there. Ms. Evans stated she will have people working on this tomonow morning. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on the October 16, 2001, Correction Notice. If the life safety issues are addressed, the compliance date for the rest of the items will be amended to December 31, 2001. If the tenants vacate the property before November 12, 2QQ1, the repairs do not have to be made. 332 Summit Avenue Gerry Strathman stated there is a zoning issue here, but that will not be discussed today; however, there aze orders issued by the Fire Deparnnent that will be discussed. Those orders are contained in a document prepared by Pat Fish dated October 10, 2001. The items subject to o� �Z�1 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOT'ES OF NOVEMBER 6, 2001 Page 3 appeal aze as follows: remove exposed wiring and install in accordance with the elecfrical code, ivstall fire alarm system, lacks legal e�ting, provide a smoke detector outside each sleeping area, the properiy does not have a certificate of occupancy for rental use, and it must be brought up to code. Pat Fish reported the property has not had an inspection of the whole building because it is not a legal three dwelling unit. She did not do a certificate of occupancy inspection on it. At this inspection, she identified the life safety issues, the feasibility of ntaking this a three unit building, and what would ha�e to be done. Mr. Strathman staxed he wanted to make it clear for everyone. This building is currently considered by the City to be a single family home. It is appazendy being used as a multifamily home, but it does not meet the requirements of a multifamily home. Plus, there may be other items that would be revealed in a certificate of occupancy inspecrion that has yet to be conducted. He asked what the requirements would be for a single family home. Ms. Fish responded Fire Prevenfion does not renew the certificate of occupancy on single family homes. If it was occupied as a single fanuly home, it would not need a fire alarm system. Mr. Strathman stated if it is to be used as a singie family home, there would not be any immediate issues with this property. If it is to continue to be used as a multifamily dwelling, then it has to meet these life safety issues. Ms. Fish responded that is correct. Ms. Evans stated she spoke with Ms. Fish about making a three dwelling unit or four dwelling unit out of this property and they came to the conclusion that it would be expensive and time consuming to do that. Then they talked about the number of people that could be in that building so additional exits would not be needed. Ms. Fish responded if up to four unrelated people were living in the building, then it would be considered a single family home. Ms. Evans stated she received a notice to vacate from Vivian Giyck and her husband Michael Koenigs, who live on the top floor. Also, there aze five girls on the first floor. 5he asked what she would have to do to keep four people in the building. Ms. Fish responded that would be four unrelated persons; therefore, it would not require a certificate of occupancy and would not be inspected. The properry would still need to be registered as rental properry. The fire alarm system would not be requited. Also, when the property is converted from a mulfiple unit to a single faznily, the ea-Ira kitchens have to be removed. The properry has the physical setup of three units with three full kitchens. Mr_ Strathman stated if she reduces the occupancy to four and declares it is a single family home, the owner ]s required to remove the additional kitchens. Mr. Fishbach responded that from a zoning standpoint, the definition of a dwelling unit is a building or portion thereof designed for occupants of one family for residential purposes. If the owner made it a single family dwelling, Mr. Fishbach's orders would be to remove two of the kitchens, which aze the orders the owner could appeal through November 15. Ms. Evans responded she does not know how another c�� Z�1 PROPERTI' CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF NOVEMBER 6, 2001 Page 4 kitchen would be tlueatening. The building is for sale and she is not going to disassemble three kitchens. The girls use one kitchen. Mr. Straxhman responded the law is not always pracfical. Ms. Evans stated in the Twin Cities practically everyone she knows has more than one kitchen in their house. Mr. Strathman responded he does recall an instance where a property had two latchens. It is a substantial issue to have two kitchens and ciaim it as a single family home. Ms. Evans asked why the previous owner was allowed to have more than one kitchen. Mr. Strathman responded that his guess is that no one knew about it and no one made an issue of it. Mr. Fishbach stated the Boazd of Zoning Appeals can made the decision to allow her to have two kitchens. Also, with the five college girls, even though two aze sisters, by defuution of the zoning ordinance, they are not related. For e�nple, this is four unrelated people: a martied couple who ue two individual people, their kids would not count, and two more people. In answer to questions from Ms. Evans, Ms. Fish responded a fire alarm company has to be called to install a fire alann system in the building. The Romex should be covered. In order to get the certificate of occupancy, she needs to have another inspection. There is a full list of everything in the building that needs to be done. Ms. Fish only cited the life safety issues as Ms. Evans asked her to because she was not going to get it certified as a three unit. Michael Koenigs and Vivian Glyck, 332 Sunuvit Avenue, appeared. Ms. Koenigs stated they haue never been notified by Ms. Evans that there have been any kind of safety issues. They have put forth their notice to vacate by the end of the month. The main issue is that Ms. Evans is holding them to a 60 day lease. Ms. Glyck stated they have a month to month lease and a 60 day notice. Given all the issues going on with this properiy, they would just like to leaue as of November 30. They have been in the property 13 months. They were never told they were in the building to watch it. As for the bonfire, they did not call the police nor have the other tenants. As far fue and safeiy issues, they are evident. Ms. Evans responded the bonfire in the back did happen and it was reported by a girl that lived on the first floor. Mr. Strathman responded it does not matter why anyone was living there. Ms. Evans stated Mr. Fishbach has presented letters to the tenants on the first floor. She has not iried to lude anytiung from the tenants and has had extensive conversations with Ms. Glyck. Mr. Fishbach responded that is standard practice for him to inform the tenants so it does not come upon them as a shock. Colleen Fitzpatrick, 332 Smimiit Avenue, appeared and stated Mr. Fishbach called their house assuming it was Ms. Evan's residence and said he would give her further notices. Kendra Frath, 332 Suminit Avenue, appeared and stated she lived at this address and had no knowledge of problems with the property. Barbara Farrell, 2361 Stillwater Avenue, Maplewood, appeared and stated her daughter is Lee Farrell. She was the 6th person to move in. The day she moved in, they saw all the notices c��-�z�� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF NOVEMBER 6, 2001 Page 5 posted on the refrigerator. When they saw the safety issues, Bazbaza Fanell did not sign the lease. Lee opted to leave two weeks ago. The owner told the giris that Lee would be held responsible for her rent until January 1 because she had to give a 60 day notice. The owner was aware that the property cannot have more than four unrelated people living in one unit. Ms. Evans responded this is an issue they have with this girl to make their rent cheaper. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal on the October 10, 2001, order. The orders Pat Fish issued are conect, reasonable, and appropriate. The issues with current and past tenants cannot be resolved at this meeting. Ms. Evans asked for an e�tension. Ms. Fish responded she will not change compliance dates on life safety issues. 799 Fourth Street East (Jack Reardon showed photographs to Gerry Strathman.) John P. Mazurkiewicz, owner, appeared and stated his paint is peeling, but there are many houses in lus area that have peeling paint. He has a proposal from Integrity Construction to install a $6,000 porch on his house. He does not have money to have this house painted right now. Gerry Strathxnan stated he does not see the relevance of the proposal. Mr. Mazurkiewicz responded the inspector wants him to paint the house. He has tried to paint it, but paint will not stick on this house for some reason. Some painters have told him there is moisture from the inside the house that is coming out of the house and blistering the paint. On September 10, the downstairs caught fire. He has been replacing the kitchen. He has neighbors complaining the fence is falling down. He has all the materials there, but he does not have time to do all these tivngs. He does not feel comfortable painting the house on a ladder, and he cannot afford to pay someone $5,000 to paint the house. Mr. Strathman asked what is his proposal. Mr. Mazurkiewicz responded he is working on it, but he is only one person. Mr. Strathman asked what is painted. Mr. Mazurkiewicz stated the front is almost painted, the sides are not painted, and half of the rear is painted. Jack Reardon reported the owner told Mr. Reardon that he was hying to get siding. Mr. Mazurkiewicz responded he cannot put siding in that neighborhood because of the historic district. Ae pays the mortgage, tases, insurance, and is told he cannot fix the house the way he wants to fix it. The weather is getting cold for painting. Nir. Strathman asked is it late to paint. Mr. Reardon responded it would be tough for the owner to finish the painting. He could finish it neat spring or summer. Gerry Strathman stated he understands the frustraiion with the house, but the home has to be maintained. It is not pracflcal to expect the owner to be painting this time of the year. He would prefer the inspector set a new compliance date. Mr. Reardon responded he has no problem with c� � �Z�-� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF NOVEMBER 6, 2001 Page 6 that and can work with the owner. Mr. Mazurkiewicz responded he would like the compiiance date to be September 2002. The last time he rented scaffoiding, it cost about $1,000. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on the September 28, 2001, Conection Notice; however, the inspector will change the compliance date to September 1, 2002. 630 Marshall Avenue Jim Daly, 10550 Dale Road, appeared. He showed photographs to Gerry Strathman and explained each one. Gerry Strathman stated tlie orders aze to replace a broken window, replace missing screens, paint trixn, and provide ground cover. Mr. Daly responded the window is taken caze of. He purchased the properiy in July. There are severai residents that are di�cult. He was able to remove one resident because there was no lease. He will maintain the property in the winter. There are nine school age children remanung in the building. By the end of the school year, he will be able to remove the tenants that are problematia The property has a new front door, windows, screens, kitchen, bath, plumbing, and the heat has been repaired. The tenants tore up the basement after the inspection. He is asking for additional tnne to make the repairs. Lisa Foster reported the front window was suppose to be taken care of by October 23, which was done. The screen were suppose to be replaced by November 30. The trim and ground cover is suppose to be done by June 30, 2002. She feels she has given sufficient time to get these items conected. Mr. Strathman staied June 30 should gave sufficient time. Ms. Foster responded Fire would usually handle this. There was a broken front window. He gave her verbal assurances that he would take caze of it. She went by there on several occasions, but the window was still not repaired. She drove by the properiy this morning, he stuck a board in the window and left broken glass in there. Instead of taking out the entire window, it was a quick fix. Mr. Daly responded he replaced the window and it was broken again in a week. At the fime, he asked her to send the items in writing because he wants a paper trail to show what he has done. Ms. Foster stated the property looks good. Her only concern is the broken window. Mr. Daly thought she was picking on him, but she explained that her job is to go through an azea and pick up anytl�ing she sees. The glass needs to be repaired properly. Mr. Strathman stated he does not see anything unreasonable about these orders. Mr. Daly responded he will be completely in compliance by the end of 3uly, which will be one yeaz after he purchased the building. Mr. Strathman stated he sees no reason to change the orders for the windows and screens. He asked Ms. Foster does she have a problem with the compliance date on the painting and ground cover changed to July 3Q 2002. Ms. Foster responded that is fine. o � �Z.�� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOT'ES OF NOVEMBER 6, 2001 Page 7 Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on the October 17, 2001, Conection Norice; however, the inspector will change the compliance date to June 30, 2002, on scraping and painting the trim and providing ground cover in front of the properry. 295 Summit Avenue Gloria Anne Fritz, owner, Ed Hanson, attomey, appeared. Ms. Fritz stated doing the ea�terior at this time would be a hardship for her unless she can find a buyer. She cannot raise over $200,000 to get the work done. There are three flights up to get to the soffits, which will require scaffolding. The rest of the house is brick. In a letter dated October 19, stated Mr. Stzatlunan, the Fire Department has issued a certificate of occupancy for tlus building. It indicates the deficiencies need to be corrected by May l, 2002. He asked what is inappropriate about the orders. Ms. Fritz responded it is going to be difficult to afford more work on this house. She is extended out as far as she can go. Right now, the soft rental market has made it even more difficult to rent property. If she does not comply with the orders by May 1, her certificate of occupancy will be revoked. She cannot afford to have that happen. Mr. Strathman asked what she is proposing as a resolution. Ms. Fritz responded that the arders be lifted until the property is sold. 5he has refinanced a11 her properties to make it tluough her divorce. She does not want to violate any laws nor make promises she cannot keep. She has two cluldren and has to pay child support of almost $1,500 a month. Plus, she has mortgage payments on ali her other properties. Mike Urmann reported he has worked with Ms. Fritz since October 2000. Fire Prevenfion has granted several extensions on the exterior repairs. They were told by spring that this property would be taken care of. The certificate of occupancy was revoked because of noncompliance. There was a legislative hearing two weeks ago; the ea�teriors were extended until May of next yeaz. At the direction of the Fire Marshal, Fire Prevention has been reasonable with the properiy maintenance code violations. They have warked with the building owner. Their only action is enforcement at this time because she refuses to do the work. Ms. Fritz responded she is not refusing to do it. She does not have the money. She has called several organizations for heip. Her attorney advised her to ask Mr. Strathman to see if there is any grant money available. Nothing is cheap on these old houses. Mr. Strathman stated the reason for this hearing is that the City Council recognizes that it is possible that inspectors may make mistakes and fail to exercise their authority properly. The Fire Marshal operates under the Administration and direction of the Mayor. Mr. Strathman operates under the direction of the Council; therefore, he is ntdependent of the administration. It is not Mr. Strathman's role nor the City Council's role to substitute their professional judgement far that of the Fire Marshal. If Mr. Strathman had any reason to believe the Fire Marshal was acting inconectly with issuing these orders, there are remedies; however, he does not have error here. He understands that Ms. Fritz fmds herself in possession of a property the maintenance of which costs more than she can afford. Unfortunately, under the law, Chat is not a justification for o� �-�...�`� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF NOVEMBER 6, 2001 Page 8 not complying with City ordivauces. Ms. Fritz asked how the soffits are a fire or safety issue. Mr. Strathxnan responded the property maintenance code designates the fire marshal as the enforcement agency for this. It does not necessarily haue to do with fires or life safety. Ms. Fritz asked whax happens if the work is not done by May 1. Mr. Strathman responded that is up to the Fire Marshal. They may move to revoke the certificate of occupancy. Gerry Srtathman denied the appeal on the October 19, 2001, Certificate of Occupancy Approval with Deficiencies. Ms. Fritz asked couid the compiiance date be e�ended. Mr. Strathman responded the Fire Mazshal and the City Council can amend the date. Also, she should speak to Councilmember Chris Coleman about this issue. They may be able to fmd additional resources. 952 Hague Avenue (No one appeared to represent the property.) Gerry Strathman stated the owner is asking to be excused from paying the fee. Dennis Senty reported that he would like the appeal denied because James Robinson, the appellant, is not the owner of the property. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on the vacant building fee. 232 Exchange Street South, Anartment C(Panama Flats Rowhouse Associationl (No one appeared to represent the property.) Gerry Strathman granted the appeal on a request of a$75 refund for the certificate of occupancy inspection on the ground§ that there are no common areas at this property to be inspected. The meeting was adjourned at 3:07 p.m. rrn