Loading...
96-1534 ���N�� � — Council File# °� —� �� � �'���1�� Green Sheet# 3 S�'✓ _ SOLUTION TY SAI T PAUL, MINNESOTA �p9 Presented by Referred To Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED,that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the December 3, 2 1996 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer: 3 Property A�ealed A�pellant 4 592 Portland Avenue Harlan Heichel 5 Decision: Deny appeal. 6 360-362 Fuller Harold Strassener 7 Decision: Deny appeal. 8 266 E. Seventh Street -- l._.c�.�..�.� c, ,�,` � Marion Rose/Pioneer Co. 9 Decision: Deny appeal. `�•�. � \���q� �C'�� �tv�� , 10 855 Woodbridge Street — L.o�-�� o ��.�. �-}� Steven Johnson 11 Decision: Deny appeal. (J�, �:�,�\°l�l(� �C�}� M�. 12 810 Concordia Avenue Cindy Woldstad 13 Decision: Deny appeal, however, grant extension to December 31, 1996 to vacate property provided smoke 14 detectors are installed immediately. 15 1336 Hewitt Avenue Michael Schmid 16 Decision: Deny appeal,however, grant extension to January 1, 1997 to vacate properly. 17 1201 Edgerton Richard Phillips 18 Decision: Grant appeal on condition that basement not be used. 19 1193 Laurel Avenue Joseph Perry 20 Decision: Deny appeal. 21 149 E. Morton Avenue Richard and Mary Magner 22 Decision: Grant variance for windows. 23 1339 Sherburne Avenue , ca p��t �, Allan Cederberg 24 Decision: Grant extension to�--�-, 1997 to complete painting exterior of building and repair to front steps. 25 290 Dayton Avenue Cathedral Court Condo. Assoc. 26 Decision: Grant one year extension to disconnect rainleader. �ls��{ 1 1621 Marshall Avenue Samuel Ng � � 2 Decision: Laid over to December 10, 1996 hearing. Yeas Na s Absent Requested by Department o£ Blakey Bostrom Guerin �' Harris � Megard By: Rettrnan ��e � Form Approved by City Attomey � � By: Adopted by Council: Date �srt _l� . ����� Adoption Certified by Council Secretary Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council BY: �� �-. ��-� - s— -By: Approved by Mayor: Date � `Z d �i By: `�C ��53� c��couNC�, i2�3i� � �REEN SHEET _N_ 3 �6 9 8 �DEPApTMENT DIRE���A�� �GTY COUNCIL IMI71AtJDATE Gerry Strathman 266-8575 �aaM �cirv nrraaNev �cm c��uc n. 1 1 p�j�p� �BUDQET DIRECTOR �FMd.3 MQT.BERVICEB OIR. DCCCIII�'! 11� 1� ��� �MAVOR iOR A$81STAN7) � TOTAL#F OR SIQNATURE PA�iLB (CLIP ALL LACATIONS FOR SItiNATURE) ACTION REQUE8TED: Appmving tl�e decisioa of the Legislative Heazing Officer on Property Gode Enforcement Appeals for the December 3, 1996 meeting. :'�10�(A)°���) PER80NAL SERVICE CONTRACT8 MUST AI�WER THE FOLLOWINO OUE�TIONS: _PLANNINO COMII�ISBION _GIVIi.BERVICE CtiMM188tON 1. Has this pereoMkm wer work�d undsr a oOnU#Ct fOr thb dpfertrtlsnt? - —c�s� — vES "° 2. Ha�tl�s p�eon/MMn wer be�n a cHy empbyee4 —�� — YES NO —���T — 3. Do�s Mis persoNfirm poeests a skill not normeNY Pa�at�d bY any wir�nt dly s�riployN9 9UPPORT8INNK�1 CAUNCIL OsJECTIVE9 YE8 NO EzpNin all yq an�w�n on ppn�b�hNt fnd�h to On�n shrst INITIAIlI�PROBLEM.188UE.OrPOATUNITY(Who.Wlwt.VYhen.WNsn.WhYI� ADVANTAOES IF MPROVED: DISAOVAMTAOE8IF APPFiOMED: DIBAOVANTKiE8 IF NCf APPR�fED: � �� �IL� [J�C (� �„ 1n'�r TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRAN=ACTION i COST/REVENUE BUDOETEO(GRCLE pNE� YE$ NO FUNOIHO iOURCE ACTIVITY NUMSER FINANCIAI MIFOAMATION:(EXPLAIN) Property Code Enforcement Meeting � �_. � S'�� December 3,1996 592 Portland Avenue Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that this matter had been laid over from the November 5, 1996 hearing in order to have the building re-inspected. The building was inspected and found to be in compliance and the revocation order was removed. The property owner did not appear. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal. 360-362 Fuller Pat Fish,Fire Prevention, stated that this matter had been laid over from the September 17, 1996 hearing. The building was re-inspected on October 28, 1996. The inspector cited 15 outstanding deficiencies when the building was re-inspected and the revocation of certificate of occupancy was still in force. The property owner did not appear. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal. 266 E. Seventh Street Alan Weinblatt, attorney representing the owner Marion Rose/Pioneer Co., appeared and stated that this matter was laid over from the September 17, 1996 hearing to a11ow the owner the time to obtain bids to make the repairs to the building. A request for bids was sent to three contractors on November 15 and no response was received. The owner also contacted potentiallenders to secure financing to afford the cost of the repairs. Unfortunately, the assets of the business were not substantial enough to convince any lender to loan an unknown amount of money without guarantees. A professional redeveloper contacted the owner to see if she would be interested in selling the building. The owner indicated that she would be willing to sell the building, however,to date had not received a formal offer for purchase of the building. The owner had now placed the property on the market for sale. He requested additional time to allow the owner to sell the building. Mr. Strathman stated that he believed all of the parties involved had made a diligent effort in trying to resolve this matter. However,he was not willing to hold the matter over any further and believed the Council should be allowed to make the decision. He denied the appeal. 8S5 Woodbridge Street Steven Johnson,property owner,appeared and stated that he was appealing the registered vacant building fee. The tenants who had lived in the building for two years were in arreazs on their rent and they trashed the house before they moved out. He had been out of the country for over two months and was not able to handle the situation. He believed that he was being unfairly punished in having to pay the vacant building fee. His intention was to repair or sell the property. Mr. Strathman explained the purpose of registering a vacant building and the necessity of the fee. w Property Code Enforcement Meeting d� ( December 3, 1996 1 `P �`�� � Page- 2 - Steve Magner,Public Health, stated that they had received a complaint that the property was unsecured and trashed. Public Health issued orders to secure the building and remove the trash. Since there was no response to the order,the city secured the building,cleaned up the trash and registered the building as vacant. He had inspected the property that day and the building was openable through a broken basement window. The fee was required to reimburse the cost of inspecting the property which was done at least every two months. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal. 810 Concordia Avenue Cindy Woldstad, appellant, appeared and stated that she was a tenant in the building and was appealing the condemnation order. She had made an agreement with the owner to make some of the repairs and had hired a neighbor who made some initial repairs. She requested that she not have to vacate the premises until the beginning of January. Mark Kaisersatt,Public Health, stated that the building was inspected on October 21, 1996 and a correction notice was sent to the owner. On reinspection,none of the violations had been corrected and the building was condemned. There was no direct contact from the owner,an elderly woman,however, a friend of the owner had communicated on her behalf that it was her intention not to make any of the required repairs, she desired to have the building vacated and then intended to sell the property. He was concerned for the safety of the tenant as the building did not have any smoke detectors and the stove had been red tagged by NSP for a gas leak. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal,however,granted an e�ension to December 31, 1996 to vacate the premises provided the tenant installed smoke detectors immediately. 1336 Hewitt Avenue Michael Schmid, property owner, appeared and stated that he was appealing the condemnation order. He requested that he be allowed an extension to vacate the premises to December 31, 1996 in order to complete the necessary repairs to the building. David Weisberg, Public Health, stated that he had inspected the properly that day and had agreed to extend the vacation date to January 1, 1997. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal,however, granted an extension to January 1, 1997 to vacate the premises. 1201 Edgerton � Richard Phillips,property owner, appeared and stated that he was cited for having a leaking basement. He acknowledged that the basement did leak and it was his opinion that not only the age of the building was a contributing factor but the sidewalk sloped towards the building allowing rainwater to run off towards the building. He presented pictures of the property. The building had a grocery store on the first floor and two apartments on the second floor. The basement was not leased for use to anyone, however,the grocery store owner did use the bathroom that was located in the basement. He had tried using sealant on the exterior of Property Code Enforcement Meeting December 3,�1996 � �-� S � � Page- 3 - the building but was unsure on how to make repairs to the interior of the basement walls. Phil Owens, Fire Prevention, stated that the building was inspected after receiving a complaint. On inspection,there was standing water in the basement. It was his opinion that this created an electrical hazard as water ran behind the electrical panel on the wall. Mr. Strathman granted the appeal on the condition that the basement not be used. 1193 Laurel Avenue Joseph Perry,property owner,appeared and stated that he was appealing the order to install a chimney liner. He operated a licensed adult foster care home. He had hired a contractor to inspect the furnace and no one had looked at the chimney. It was his contention that there was a liner in place in the chimney. Pat Fish,Fire Prevention, stated that a flu gas safety test, which was required under the code, had been done by a licensed contractor. The form prepared by the contractor on the flu gas safety test indicated that there wasn't a liner in the chimney. The concern was carbon monoxide leakage without this liner in the chimney. She recommended that if the owner believed there was a liner in the chimney,that he contact the contractor to reinspect the furnace and file a corrected report with their office. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal. 149 E. Morton Avenue Richard Magner, property owner, appeared and stated that he was appealing the egress window height requirement. He was informed that egress windows needed to be 24 inches in height. The window in the efficiency unit was only 19 inches in height and the windows in the remainder of the units were 22%2 inches in height. He did not believe he should be required to replace all of the windows in the building. Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that she was concerned with the 19 inch window height as this was five inches shorter than was required. There was also a concern that the windows meet the 5.7 square feet requirement. Mr. Strathman granted a variance for the window height requirement. 1339 Sherburne Avenue Allan Cederberg,property owner,appeared and stated that he was requesting an extension of time to complete the painting to the e�erior of the building. He had completed approximately 40% of the painting before the weather became too cold for him to continue. He also stated that there was a small chip out of one of the steps leading to the front door. He requested that he be given an extension of time to complete this repair. Mr. Strathman granted an extension to July 1, 1997 to complete the repairs to the front steps and to complete the painting of the exterior of the building. Property Code Enforcement Meeting ��_ `S�� December 3, 1996 Page-4 - 290 Dayton Avenue Stephanie Stoessel, Cathedral Court Condominium Association,appeared on behalf of the Association. Ms. Stoessel stated that there were actually three buildings involved, 286, 290 and 294 Dayton, and she was requesting an extension of time to disconnect the central drain rainleaders in the buildings. They had hired an architect to inform them of the work that would be necessary to disconnect the rainleader. The architect estimated that the cost of the work would be approximately$30,000 to$50,000. The Association did not have the financing to be able to afford this cost as they had just replaced the roof on all three buildings and needed to replace the boilers this winter. The letter they received from Public Works required them to disconnect the rainleader by October 31, 1997. She requested a one year extension,to 1998,to disconnect the rainleader. Don Stein, Public Works, stated that a one year extension to 1998 was acceptable. Mr. Strathman granted a one year extension. 1621 Marshall Avenue Samuel and Virginia Ng,property owners, appeared. Mr.Ng stated that there had been a fire in the building which had caused a lot of smoke damage and the building was subsequently condemned. The building was a seven-unit rooming house. The items they were being required to repair,he believed, had not been caused as a result of the fire. They had purchased the building with most of the conditions allowed which they were now being required to upgrade or change. Most of these items would be very costly to do and there were also space limitations, such as putting a bathroom in every unit,that they wouldn't be able to do. Pat Fish,Fire Prevention,stated that the building was condemned and vacant due to a fire and the damage that was done to the building. Most of the items would not have been required during a regular certificate of occupancy inspection, however, since the building had been condemned, the improvements needed would have to be made under the new building code standards. To make some of these improvements allowable under the code,they would need a new variance. Ms.Ng stated that the repairs that they were being asked to do would be too costly and the insurance would not pay for those improvements. The building would then become permanently vacant because they could not afford the cost of the improvements. Mr. Strathman suggested that the owners meet with Fire Prevention inspectors to come up with a reasonable plan that would be economically feasible for the owners and would still meet code requirements. He laid this matter over to the December 10, 1996 meeting. vms