Loading...
01-1258�'���� . _ Presented Refesed To Green Sheet # 110344 Council File # O— 1 5 P' Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the November 20, 2 2001, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 addresses: 4 Property Appealed RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MfNNESOTA � Ap elro lant 5 �33 Pierce Butler Route (Rescheduled from 11-6-01) James Gaffiiey 6 Decision: Appeal denied on the August 16, 2001, Inspection Report. 7 453 Edmund Avenue Bazbaza Jean Kreuscher 8 Decision: Appeal denied on the Notice of Condexnnation dated October 25, 2001. Extension granted to pay the 9 vacant building fee by January 25, 2002. 10 138 Maria Avenue John W. Sipf 11 Decision: Laid over to the December 18, 2001, Properry Code Enforcement meeting. 12 935 Portland Avenue Ronald Thery, Crocus Hill Properties, LLC 13 Decision: Extension granted to December 31, 2002, to bring the Unit 4 window in the north sleeping room into 14 compliance. 15 819 Hollv Avenue (Laid over from 7-24-01) Patrick Caruso, Premier Fence, Inc. 16 Decision: Appeal denied on the fence. 17 18 1016 Albemarle Street #2 (Rescheduled from 11-6-01) Jenny Gritz 19 Decision: Laid over to the December 4, 2001, Properiy Code Enforcement meeting. 1 Green Sheet 110344, Page 2 o �_�asr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yeas Na s Absent Blakey ✓ Coleman � Harris � Benanav ,/ Reiter ✓ Bostrom ,i- Lantry ,/ fv b t 8 Adopted by Council: Date � S a c o a 9 ' 10 Adoprion Certified by Council Secretary � 1 B `�b�..-_-- a- _ � � 12 Approved by Mayor: Date 'ri-� �� � � 13 By: Requested by Department oE � Form Approved by City Attorney � Approved by Mayor for Submission to CouncIl � � O� -�St' z� Gerry Strathman, 2b6-8560 m TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET � No 110344 qrvmn+n. coa ❑ orr�rrox�r ❑ ane�nK ❑ w��ur�ntssauicFSmc ❑ wuntu�amm�ccro ❑ raroR�onavnraxn ❑ (CUP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Appioving the November 20, 2001, decisions o£ the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals £or the following addresses: 733 Pierce Butler Route, 453 Edmund Avenue, 138 Maria Avenue, 935 Portland Avenue, 819 Holly Avenue, and 1016 Albemarle Street4l2. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB COMMITTEE CML SERVICE CAMMISSION IF Has this personffirtn erer vrorketl under a conVact tor Nis departmeM? VES NO Has this persoNfirm ever been a Ciry empbyeeT YES NO Does this persoNfirtn possess a sldll not normallypossessetl by any curterR dty emp�oyee? VES NO Is this P�� a tar9eted vendoYf YES NO ���� ����� ��?�� ���r�� � � ��� n»:z.���a.� OF TRANSACTION S 50URCE COST/REVENUE BUDGETW (CU2CLE ON� ACTNIN NUMBER YES NO INFORMAiION (IXPWN) � \-\ZS � q_ NOTES OF TI-� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMEN'I' MEETING Tuesday, November 20, 2001 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 1:34 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Dick Lippert, Code Enforcement; Racquel Naylor, City Council Offices; Steven Olson, LIEP (License, Inspections, Environmental Protection); Michael Urmann, Fire Prevention 733 Pierce Butler Route (Rescheduled from 11-6-01) Steven Olson reported the property is in the process of being sold. Mr. Gaffney was suppose to meet with Mr. Olson and�the prospective owner's son October 17, but they never showed up. He left a phone message while Mr. Olson was on vaca6on, and never called back again. Now, the prospecfive owners have a management agreement to run the property. Typically, these issues are on contingency: if everythuig goes through, the prospective buyers will take ownership. The fitst night they were open, there was police response, and the matter is in the City Attorney's Office for action. Mr. Olson talked to the prospective owners, and will meet with them on November 29 to look at wbat they have done and what they are going to do. His understauding is they started demolition work. Mr. Olson has instructed them not to do any repairs or remodeling until their plans are reviewed. James Gaffney arrived and stated he talked to the new owners on the phone and went through the inspection report. C'ierry Strathman asked what items remain under appeal. Mr. Gaffiiey responded one bar has been removed; one is not being used and wiil be removed. The patio bar is not being used. The main bar and the back baz were done pursuant to Mr. Olson's recommendation. There has been a meeting scheduled on November 29 for direction on the main baz. The other matters have been taken caze of by the new owners. Mr. Strathman stated it sounds like the items appealed haue been taken care of. He is not clear what is being appealed at this point. Mr. Gaffney responded he still wants to be compliant with Mr. Olson's report. After the meeting on November 29, Mr. Olson's recommended chauges will be completed. Mr. Olson stated he does not know if the properry is compliaut since he has not been back at the property. Mr. Strathman stated no one is claiming the orders issued aze incorrect or improper. Mr. Gaffney concurred. The items that were installed without a permit have since been removed. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. The inspector can grant additional time if he feels it is appropriate. It sounds like things will go forward without a problem. Mr. Gaffiiey responded he tiunks so. _I �\-\ZS�S PROPERT`Y CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF NOVEMBER 20, 2001 Page 2 453 Edmund Avenue Bazbara Jean Kreuscher, owner, and Edwazd Griffin, 453 Edmund Avenue, appeazed. Ms. Kreuscher stated her home was raided on October 24, and she went to jail overnight. Her house was condemned for lack of housekeeping and cleaning. There was an accumulafion of household belongings creating an ea�treme fire hazard. She does not understand the code compliance inspection, and that is what she is appealing. She will do whatever she can to move back into the properry. She is not living at the properry at the moment, but is there during the daytune cleaning and getting rid of items. There have been two deaths in her family so there aze days when she does not do much at the property. Her long term plans aze to clean the properly so she can move back in. Dick Lippert reported he is assigned to the FORCE Unit of the Police Department. He was called to the address by FORCE officers who executed a warrant for narcotics. Items are piled floor to ceiling in every room. He was able to get into the basement where he did see code violations, but he chose not to articulate them because it was impossible to make a decent inspection. The City has a right to inspect this building. It is the City's choice as to how it is inspected and who inspects it. This house is on a block in a neighborhood that could be the worse group of nuisances in the City. The City is making a commitment to restare the neighborhood to a habitable place. Mr. Lippert chose to do a code compliance inspection because this block is marginal in every respect. Gerry Strathman asked who would conduct a code compliance inspection. Mr. Lippert responded they aze conducted by a team in LIEP. The building was not in a condifion to be inspected when he was there. The purpose of the code compliance inspection is to take this issue a step fiu•ther than just doing mazginal work. Mr. Strathman asked was it his view that it is within his discrerion to order a code compliance inspecfion. Mr. Lippert responded he can call for experts to back him up. This is the means by which the City has decided to organize this type of expert inspection. Mr. Strathman explained to the owner that she needs to get the house clean so the inspectors can enter and look at its condition. When they do that, she will get a list of tivngs needed to be repaired. Once the items have been repaired, she can move back into the property. Ms. Kreuscher stated she has to come up with $200 by November 1 for the vacant building fee. The house will be ready for inspection in another week. Mr. Strathman stated if the property is going to be vacant for a short time, he would be willing to waive the fee. If it is going to be vacant a long time, there needs to be a fee charged. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on the Notice of Condemnation dated October 25, 2001. He extended the tnne to January 15, 2002, for the vacant building fee to be paid. If the owner does not move back into the house by January 15, she will have to pay the $200 fee. �\-\ZS�S PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF NOVEMBER 20, 2001 Page 3 138 Maria Avenue John W. Sipf, owner, 260 English Street, appeazed. He went over the items on his deficiency list. REPAIR/'i'UCKPOINT EXTERIOR STUCCO WALLS WHERE CRACKED AND DETERIORATING - Mr. Sipf stated this is at the line of foundation. This is something that needs to be done in better weather conditions. He asked what the following code means: SPLC 34.09(1)a, 3432(1)a. Mr. Urmann responded the two code secfions aze Saint Paul Legislative Codes: 34.09(1) refers to a property maurtenance section of the housing code that requires exterior walls to be in good condirion without defect; 3432(1)a refers to the commercial section of the properry maintenance code. Mr. Sipf stated he would like Code Enforcement to send out a copy of what the codes mean instead of him taking Code EnforcemenY s interpretation. Gerry Strathman asked does he have access to the intemet. Mr. 3ipf responded he does not. Mr. Strathman stated the Saint Paul Code of Ordinance aze in the public libraries. The inspectars do thousands of these inspecrions every year and they do not copy all the laws and send them to everyone. SCRAPE AND REPAINT ALL EXTERIOR PAINTED AREAS WH�RE PAINT IS WORN, DETERIORATED, CHIPPED, FLAKING OFF - INCLUDES DECKS AND EXTERIOR SIDES OF INTERIOR WINDOWS - Mr. Sipf stated the paint job lasted about eight years. It is something that he was not planning to do at this point. REMOVE DETERIORATED WINDOW PUTTY (GLAZING) AND REGLAZE WINDOWS THROUGHOUT B[JILDING REPAIR WINDOWS THROUGHOUT TO ELINIINATE AIR INFILTRATION - Mr. Sipf asked wl�at that means. Mr. Urmann responded the glazing and the window itself should be in good repair without defect. They aze asking that the window be weather tight. If weather is coming through--rain, cold air, etc: -the owner has to provide weather stripping or repair the window to make it function the way it was designed. Mr. Sipf stated the windows are from 1929. With maintenance, responded Mr. Urmann, they should work correctly. Mr. Urmann asked are they weathertight. Mr. Sipf responded they are as weather tight as he can get them without completing taking them out. Mr. Strathman asked do they haue storm windows. Mr. Sipf responded yes and they work. Mr. Urmann stated his understanding from the field inspector is that the windows aze in such disrepair that they are not weather right anymore. The glazing compound and the windows themselves aze starting to show wear. They rattle in the wind. Mr. Sipf responded the windows C� �� \2S �S PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF NOVEMBER 20, 2001 Page 4 do not rattle. They are probably peeling somewhat and some of them have glazing coming loose. This is not the time to do them because the tenants will get mad if the windows aze open and all the heat goes out. The second window item should be removed because it is covered under the reglazing item. REPAIR DETERIORATED PORCH DECHING AS PER PREVIOUS ORDERS FROM PAT FISH - Mr. Sipf stated he has one piece of flooring that is rotted away and in an inconspicuous spot. There is a post that holds up the entire structure right in $ont of it. They would have to go around that. The decking is 97% free of any paint. He is leaving it that way to let the remainiug paint wear off. It will be finished with a penetrating material so the sun does not bake it off and create peeling every other yeaz. Mr. Strathman responded he does not see anytlung that says it has to be painted. He imagines the Fire Department would accept another finish on the paint as long as it is weather resistant. Mr. Sipf responded Item 2 refers to repainting the decks. Pat Fish (Fire Prevention) and Bazb Cnmm;ngs (Fire Prevention) feel it has to be painted from the reading of the statute. Mr. Urmann stated that waiting for the paint to peel off is the problem. There is deteriorated porch and deck members because the ownex is waiting for the paint to wear off: It is not weather resistant wood. Mr. Strathman stated the owner can remove the paint and put another finish on it. Mr. Urmann responded he does not have a problem with that. Mr. Sipf asked how they know it is not treated with something. Mr. Urmann responded the information he has is that the wood is not. If it is, the rotting and deterioration the owner admitted to would not e�cist. Mr. Strathman asked is tlie wood treated underneath. Mr. Sipf responded it is possibly treated. He is sure it had been at one time. REPAIR/1tEPLACE DEFECTIVE/MISSING BALUSTRADES/GUARDRAILS FOR PORCHES AND MAINTAIN IN A SOUND CONDITION AS PER PREVIOUS ORDERS FROM PAT FISH - Mr. Sipf stated the balustrades on the front parch are completed. The ones that were rotted haue been replaced. REPLACE DEFECTIVE/MISSING WINDOW SCREENS. SCREENS REQi3IRED IN GOOD REPAIR YEAR ROUND - Mr. Sipf stated a tenant damaged the front door, which the tenant will replace. One of the screens in the basement is rotted. Two will be done, but the frame around one is rotten, and he cannot buy a standard frame. He will have to build a new window. That will be done neat stunmer. REPLACE ALL BROKEN WINDOWS - Mr. Sipf stated there is a broken window next to a basement vent. The storm window there is broken. The inside window is in good shape. The vent system is not being used any longer. The seal is rotten. There is no reason to put a window on a rotten sea1. o� �zs� PROPERTI' CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF NOVEMBER 20, 2001 Page 5 PROVIDE UNIT IDENTIF'ICATION NUMBERS O1V ALL iJNIT ENTRY DOORS - Mr. Sipf stated each unit has a identification number on each door. Mr. Urmann responded the field inspector said the units aze not cleazly identified. POST CURRENT CERTIF'ICATE OF OCCUPANCY EASILY SEEN AND READ FROM EXTERIOR POST CUI2RENT OWNERSHIP INFORMATION WHICH INCLUDES OWNER NAME, ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER, AND EMERGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION EASILY SEEN AND READ FROM EXTERIOR - Mr. Sipf stated he and Ms. Fish discussed where to put the certificate. The one bedroom unit has an address of 138 on it. The upstairs unit has 140 on it. On the side of the building, there is an entry that goes into 138'/Z Maria, which leads to the efficiency. The back door reads 140'/2, which leads up to an efficiency on the second floar. There aze no common hallways and stairways: each unit has its own way to the basement and laundry. They came to the conclusion that they could put the certificate into the laundry room. Those within the building can see it. Someone made an issue about that, and now it is on the front porch, on the top rail of the 140 side, so it does not get weathered by the rain. Anyone can see it. It has been this way for two years. Mr. Urmann responded it is suppose to be on the address side of the building, on the exterior of the building, so anyone can see who owns the building and contact that building's owner. If it is on the outside of the building, visible, readable, it should be code compliant. Mr. Sipf stated in past inspections, no one has ever suggested that. They have all looked for places within the building to mount the certificate. REPAIR/REPLACE DEFECTIVE REAR HAI�L FLOOR/LANDING BY BASEMENT STEPS - Mr. Sipf stated this is finished. The run of flooring stops 4'h inches from the end. A little piece has been added. SUBMIT DOCLIMENTATION OF HEATING PLANT CLEAIVING, SERVICING, AND FLUE GASSES ANALYSIS BY A LICENSED H�ATING CONTRACTOR - Mr. Sipf stated he has the docuxnent. .7�7�1 fi171 � �1] f�,y_�1 f�+/Z�li�[!� �7\i/_�x`4� 1�[l1iJ���T'•7.� SERVICED AND TAGGED YEARLY BY A QUALIFIED COMPANY. - Mr. Sipf stated they have been checked. MOLTNT EXTINGUISHER REAR 2ND FLOOR fIALL - Mr. Sipf stated someone ripped it off the wall. It has been remounted. PROVIDE UL APPROVED HYDRAULIC DOOR CLOSURES ON IJNIT HALLWAY DOORS TO BASEMENT - Mr. Sipf stated some inspectors say that using a hinge that will automatically close the door is acceptable. Mr. Urmann responded it is required to ha�e a hydraulic closing device, and not a spring loaded hinge. A spring loaded hinge on that type of door malfunctions. It is acceptable only on a unit door. � �--\Z� c�5 PROPERTY COAE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF NOVEMBER 20, 2001 Page 6 Mr. Sipf stated inspectors haue told him that he could put a pneumatic one on. He asked what is the difference. Mr. Urmann responded when the door is heated, it will push the door open. The hydraulic door closure is the only one tl�at is accepted. Mr. Sipf stated he would like to read the codes because inspectors aze telling him different things. Mr. Urmann responded the fire code is two volumes long and several hundred pages. It can be viewed at their office or the State offices. This code section may refer to other code secfions. In order for him to have the full description, he has to access the code elsewhere, such as the public library. PROVIDE FiJNCTIONAL LIGHTING THROUGHOUT BASEMENT - Mr. Sipf stated one of the tenants has extension cords running through the basement so they can have a t.v. there. That will be coming out. REMOVE ALL STORAGE FROM ITNDER BASEMENT STAIRS - Mr. Sipf stated the items have been removed. PROVIDE APPROVED GUARDRAILBALUSTRADES ON BASEMENT STEPS. BALi7STRt1DES TO BE NO FURTHER THAN 4 INCHES APART - Mr. Sipf asked what the inspector is saying here. Mr. Urmann responded the balustrades are too wide, don't meet the code requirement, and is required to be brought into compliance. He did not talk to Pat Fish about this because he did not see this on the application for appeal. Mr. Sipf asked how many basement steps require a railing. Mr. Urmann responded that is on any open stair area, even a single. Mr. Sipf stated that most of it has wa11 on both sides. There is no way someone will fall through from the main floor to the basement. Mr. Strathman responded someone can still fall down the stairs. Mr. Sipf responded there is a handrail, and they will not get their head or body shxck between someUung because there is a solid wa11 going down. Mr. Urmann responded if there is one step, and that step is between ten and eleven inches wide, that is more than 4 inches allowed in the building code. Mr. Urmann stated he is willing to look at any of these orders, but Mr. Sipf has yet to tell him these orders do not exist. Mr. Sipf responded he is trying to get reasoning because one inspector says something and issues the certificate, and another inspector looks at the same thing and does not issue a certificate. Mr. Urmann responded than they need to get together at the building. If an inspector is misreading the law, Mr. Strathman stated, Mr. Sipf has the basis for an appeal. Telling him that the items under the stairs is removed is not an appeal. Seemingly, Mr. Sipf should be showing where the inspector made a mistake. Mr. Urmann has volunteered to go to the property and look at all the items and explain it to him. If the owner wants to do that and still reserve his right to appeal, the matter can be continued. If there are still disputes after he and Mr. Urmann meet, Mr. Sipf can rehun to appeal those items. The disputes need to show that Mr. Urmann has made a mistake. � � \ZS� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMME;NT NOTES OF NOVEMBER 2Q, 2Q�1 Page 7 As they go through the items, stated Mr. Urmann, Mr. Sipf has not disagreed with any of the orders. Mr. Strathman responded he says he misunderstands them. The way to dispatch this matter is for he and Mr. Urmann to make an appointrnent. Mr. Sipf stated he wants to laiow exactly in the law what he has to do. He is eapected to comply with their interpretation. When a police officer stops someone on the stseet and writes a ricket, e�lained Mr. Stratliinau, the officer does not give the state laws regazding speeding. If Mr. Sipf thinkc the ticket was 3ssued in error, it is up to him to research it and show the police officer made a mistake. The same is true here: he has to show where Ms. Cuwiming, Ms. Fish, or Mr. Urmann have made a mistake. Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the December 18, 2001, Properry Code Enforcement meeting. In the meantime, Mr. Urmann and Ms. Cnmmings should meet with Mr. Sip£ If there are still concerns, Mr. Sipf should return on December 18. If he does not return on December 18, Mr. Strathman will assume he is sarisfied. 935 Portland Avenue Ronald Thery, Crocus Hiil Properties, LLC, 760 First Avenue NW, New Brighton, appeazed and stated he appreciates the Fire DeparhnenYs inspection. This is the first properry he owned in Saint Paul and the inspections are different than Mimieapolis. Inspectar Mike Ricketson (Fire Prevention) provided him with a lot of information that is different from Saint Paul and Minneapolis. Mr. Thery stated the issue he has in dispute is the rear window. Mr. Ricketson said that it is a noncompliant window. The dimensions of the window should be 20 inches wide by 24 inches ta11. Mr. Thery's window is 2Ph inches wide by 21 inches tall. He just purchased the build'ang in August. It has been a legal fourplex since 1950. His request is that the window is close to the compliance size and that it be grandfathered in. Gerry 5trathman asked what the room is used for and is there another egress. Mr. Thery responded it is a bedroom. There is a legal egress window in a bathroom, which is adjacent to the bedroom. There is another bedroom on tt�e east side. Mr. Ricketson had previously approved this unit. Mr. Strathman asked what would be involved with installing a lazger window. Mr. Thery responded the main barrier is the historic preservation district. In order to make changes to the e�erior of the building, it has to be approved by that board. In exploring this issue, it is a difficult and lengthy task. Mike Urmann stated if the window has the minimum for width, then the min;mum for height cannot be used. Both of those together does not come to 5.7 square feet. If he does not make the minimum height of 24 or the minimum width of 20, then he is smaller than the 5.7 square feet. Mr. Thery responded that is the one pane of the window and not the entire window. C�\-�ZS� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OP NOVEMBER 20, 2001 Page 8 Mr. Strathman grauted an eatension to December 31, 2002, to bring the window into compliance. This will give the owner time to make application to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). If the HPC denies his application, Mr. Strathman will reheaz the matter and waive the filing fee. 819 Hollv Avenue (Laid over from 7-24-01) (No one appeazed to represent the properry.) Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. Racquel Naylor, Secretary, spoke to Patrick Canxso (appellant) who said he was paid $2,000 to remove the fence and was not interested in the appeal. 1016 Albemarle Street #2 (Rescheduled from 11-6-01) (Don Dame, the appellanYs representative, is in the hospital.) Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the December 4, 2001, Property Code Enforcement meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. rrn