Loading...
02-1082B � ���!����� Presented Referred To ����� ``,�D�O� ORESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA � Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the November 12, 2 2002, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 addresses: 4 Property Ap en aled Apoellant 6 751 Centxal Avenue West Kenneth 7ackson 7 Decision: Appeal denied on the Deficiency Lists dated October 8, 2002, and October 10, 2002. 8 359 Maria Avenue Todd Smith 9 Decision: Appeal denied on the Deficiency Lists dated September 24, 2002, and October 21, 2002, with the 10 following exception: a one year extension is granted for bringing the garage roof into compliance provided it 11 does not deteriorate into a dangerous condition. 12 320 Front Avenue Bradley Krussow 13 Decision: Appeal denied on Certificate of Occupancy With Deficiencies dated October 8, 2002. 14 1785 St. C1airAvenue �siele 'R�ati�.� �--e?1� 15 Decision: Occupancy variance is granted on the following condition: the occupancy in these units do not 16 exceed two people. This variance sha11 remain in force for the length of the current tenants' occupancy. Council File # p �, � �Q�a. Green Sheet # 113840 17 2135 Case Avenue Daniel Lissick 18 Decision: Legislative Hearing Officer will write a letter to the Office of Neighborhood Housing and Property 19 Improvement that the issue regazding the pool was not a code violation and that City recards should reflect this. oa-�o�a� � 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Yeas Na Absent Blakey 1� Coleman r /" Haaxrris �/ Benanav �/" Reiter y / Bosh „/ I,anhy ✓ G a � 9 Adopted by Council: Date N�s .�� �'�Q� 10 11 Adoption 12 By: 13 Approved 14 15 By: Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney � Appzoved by Mayor for Submission to Council 3'� G . City Council Offices CONTACTPERSONBPHONE � �Marcia�Moermond, 266-8560 DATEINRWT� ii-i2-zoo2 GREEN SHEET o'a ��o�rz- No � � �vwQ ��.,u,�� ���.. isr ee ora couria� ac� er (oarq �ssicx NYMBERFOR piYAiTORIEY ❑MYGFRK ROIIfBI � �� Rl�llunla[RYICFaCR ALIICI�LaERV/�CCiC ❑ Wlblt(ORAfH6Tl11(!� ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PACaES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) TIONREOUESTFD . . - -- _- , _ .. Approving the November 12, 2002, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Apgeals for the following addresses: 751 Central Avenue West, 359 Maria Avenue, 320 Front Avenue, 1785 St. C1air Avenue, 2135 Case Avenue. - PLANNING COMMISSION ' CIB COMMITTEE CML SERVICE CAMMISSION IFAPPROVED AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION Has this persoMim ever wo�lced untlx a CoMiact forthis tlepartmeM� VES NO Has this pereaNfimr erer been a IXty empbyee7 YES NO ooes enis cersonrTrm v� a slan rwt rioimally'aoseessetl bv any anem cilv emelorce7 YES NQ �s Nis personrIDm atargeted venmrt YES NO CQUncii Research Gec�ter �3py 1 � 2002 COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ON� YES ACiNISY NUMBER NO oZ �o�z NOTES OF T'F� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT Tuesday, November 12, 2002 Room 330 Courthouse Mazcia Moermond, I,egislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 10:02 a.m. STAFF PRESENT: Pat Fish, Fire Prevention; James Thomas, Fire Prevention; Michael Urmaun, Fire Prevention 751 Central Avenue West Kenneth R. Jackson, owner, representing Jen Dayi, appeared and stated his client was accused of overpopulating the unit. The tenant had two children in a one bedroom unit. Mr. Jackson indicated he received a notice on October 8 giving him until October 10 to make the necessary correcfions. The tenant was moved from 450 Grotto North in order to rehabilitate the building. She was only there for a short period of time. It was too short of time far her to go out and secure Section 8 housing assistance. Aside from that, she had an unlawful detainer against her, which meant no landlord in the private market wouid rent to her. His program usually works with teen mothers to try to correct their living conditions, their credit, and all the other things that go with preparing them for the communiry. Mr. Jackson stazed he filed the appeal to get extra tnne. Meanwhile, the tenant's mother decided the children could live with her if this is a problem. The tenant is at 751 Central, and she will be there unti1450 Grotto is cleared up and rehabilitated. The children are with their grandmother. Michael Urmann and James Thomas appeazed. Mr. Urmann reported he received no request for an extension of time regarding this issue. If the number of occupants is reduced to two, there is no longer an issue, and the owner is in compliance. The tenant cannot occupy this unit with more than two people due to square footage. The square footage of the bedroom is azound 65 feet. The living room area is about the same. The two together will give enough square footage for two people only. Mr. Jackson stated he used to work for housing in Minneapolis, and a mother could stay in the same bedroom with her child up to the age of six. His concern is her being able to gain occupancy elsewhere based on the fact that she has had an unlawful detainer filed against her. Jen Dayi's posiflon is that they do business management, home keeping, and other things to make these girls more conducive to the community. If Fire Prevention is saying there is no problem at this point, then Mr. Jackson has no problem. Mr. Jackson stated he did not think it was fair far someone to tell the tenant that her children haue to be out in two days. Also, Mr. James did not show him the law that is being violated. The tenant was terrified. Marcia Moermond asked were there any age requirements regazding occupancy. Michael Urmann responded a child under age 1 can stay in the same space as the parent. After one yeaz, that person is considered an occupant and aze required to meet all the occupant measurements and sizes. It is 75 squaze feet for one in a bedroom and 50 square feet for two more. o2-��z PROPERT'I' CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2002 Page 2 Ms. Moermond asked how much time Mr. Jackson was given to correct it. Mr. Unnanu responded the initiai compliance date was November 7. After receiving further informauon from Zoning about moving people from one building to another, the compliance time was reduced to October 23 because Mr. Urmaun thought the tenants from ttus building were being moved into another building. Mr. Jackson stated he is n,nning Jen Dayi's program accarding to the letter. The best he can do is shape up the person in order for that person to qualify for housing. If Fire Prevention wants to make another inspection, they ha�e that authority. The tenant has corrected her own problem. When 450 Grotto is ready to be rerented, she can move back there because he has no problem with her. Ms. Moermond denied the appeal on the Deficiency Lists dated October 8, 2002, and October 10. 2002. It is denied based on the fact that there were more occupants in the space than is allowable under City ordinance. She does appreciate what Mr. Jackson is hying to do with this program. The denial is of little consequence as the occupancy situation has been conected. 359 Maria Avenue Todd Smith and Steve Hance appeazed. Marcia Moermond stated she has two separate lists. There is a letter and a list of deficiencies which were developed on September 24, 2002. There was a reinspection and a second letter of deficiencies developed on October 21. The second list is smaller; obviously some of the items from the first list were addressed. Mr. Smith responded that is correct. Unit 4 was condemned and Pat Fish came over to check it out. Steve Hance asked did she have his letter dated November 5. Ms. Moermond responded she did not. (A packet of information was submitted.) Mr. Hance stated the letter addresses each of the 41 issues on the list, except one. The letter outlines the deficiency and the action taken on each issue. They purchased the property in June. When they purchased the property, they noted the representation from the seller that the building was compliant with applicable municipal and city codes. They also noted a Certificate of Occupancy hanging from the doorway of the property. Of the 41 items on the September letter, there were two or three issues that azose after they purchased the property. In previous yeazs, the Certificate of Occupancy was issued to M& M Properties, the former owners. Mr. Hance does not condone or advocate the type of pzoperty management that M& M Properties represents. Mr. Hance came into this properry with the intent of improving it. They have spent thousands of dollars prior to and since receiving the notice. They have reroofed a large secrion of the roof, which they expected the former owners would have done prior to closing. They replaced the oZ- \o�Z PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTE5 OF NOVEMBER 12, 2002 Page 3 sewer drainage stack. They installed a fence. They heazd stories that Ms. Fish has been wanting to get ground cover for years. There is a fence up and they will be planting. Mr. Smith added they will be planting sod, shrubs, and they have installed a concrete sidewalk to change the approach. Mr. Hance went on to say that they completely remodeled Unit 4. Other units do not have walled in closets; they have hangers and shelves that are exposed. Besides doing Unit 4, they installed closets, blinds, new toilet, sink, doar locks, tile, mirror, plumbing, etc. Mr. Hance stated they have addressed all tUe issues except for the garage. It has brick and stone walls and a door that is locked. The tenants aze not allowed entry. The garage roof needs to be repaired or replaced. They believe the requirement that they repair it immediately or even by November 5 is unduly burdensome. Tt may cost $20,000. Mr. Smith added that it is in the historic district. The garage is not in use, and the former owner still has junk in there. Mr. Smith does not have a key to the lock, and the former owner has been called several rimes. They do not have the cash to repair the garage and they would like an indefinite extension. Pat Fish reported they have done a lot of extensive work for the building. The building had a certificate inspection about 1'/z yeazs ago. It continually has an extensive list of repairs. Tiie garage roof was repaired about three yeazs ago, but the repaazrs did not last. It is more important to repair the interior issues: extension cords, repairing the oven, etc. She would object to an indefinite extension for the garage rood repair and suggested an extension of one year. With the changes in housing regularion, stated Mr. Smith, and it is a large structure, his thought would be to make it into a carriage house. They will not be cash positive for a couple of yeazs. They are in it to generate a profit. They do not want to fix it so it lasts temporarily as M& M has done continually. Ms. Moermond asked was there a chance to confirm the assertions made in the materials they provided. Ms. Fish responded no; the reinspecrion will be done tomonow. Ms. Moermond asked aze they just appealing the arder on the garage. Mr. Smith responded 98% of the deficiencies have been corrected. There are more general maintenance issues that wili be done by the end of the month. They are tunung over the tenants. They have put in place some t�arsher regulations than were there. Ms. Moermond asked if Ms. Fish was satisfied that the other issues have been adequately addressed or would she prefer a layover of two weeks to confirm. Ms. Fish responded none of the items on the deficiency list aze being appealed; therefore, those items are going through the norxnal process. d22 �c`��Z PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOT'ES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2002 Page 4 Ms. Moermond stated the September 241etter has items circled. Mr. Smith responded they were concerned that they were not able to get the circled items done in a timely manner. Mr. Hance added that by appealing, they got more time. Ms. Moermond denied the appeal on the Deficiency Lists dated September 24, 2002, and October 21, 2002, with the following exception: a one yeaz extension is granted for bringing the gazage roof into compliance provided it does not deteriorate into a dangerous condition. 1560 Western Avenue North (No one appeazed representing l�IHPI.) Michael Harper, owner, appeared and stated he is appealing the Notice of Condemnation. He talked to Lisa Martin (NHPI), and he does not feel he was given a set time span to get the repairs done. Most of the things on the list have been repaired: two smoke detectors haue been installed, painting has been done in the two bedrooms and living room, repairs done on the kitchen floor, in the bathroom, and in the sma11 hallway between the bedrooms. He is still waifing far someone to fix the ceilings and waiting to get the floars sanded. He does not think the property is condemnable. There aze no holes in the wall; the ceiling is not leakiug. Besides paint fumes from the current repair and rehabilitation projects, there is nothing unsafe about the place. In answer to questions, Mr. Harper responded this is a single family home and no one is living there now. He goes there to let the workers in, but no one really lives there. Ms. Moermond asked about the smoke detectors. Mr. Harper responded they were installed in the kitchen, the hallway by the back door, between the two bedrooms, and in the basement by the furnace. They are all hardwired. The only thing on the list that is going slow is getting two small sections of the roof finished, but it does not leak or cave in. Ms. Moermond stated this is scheduled to go before the City Councii next Wednesday for public hearing. Because NI3PI staff is not here, she is tempted to have this come before the City Council on December 4. Mr. Harper stated a notice was put on the door that says he cannot live here. He lived at this property since he was three or four years old. Throughout the yeazs, repairs have been done and things haue changed. In the last four years, he has had about $50,000 of work done on this house: wiriug, plumbing, new kitchen floor, new bathroom floor, new windows, new doors. He was told the floors aze not curated, but there is no sign of bacteria or anythnig on the floors that would cause a health hazard. He realized they need to be sanded down and restained. He has a loan from North End Area Revitalization (NEAR). �z--����� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT I�iOTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2002 Page 5 Ms. Moermond recommends scheduling this for the December 4, 2002, City Council Public Hearing. She will request a lay over on November 20. In the meantime, she suggests tha# he talk to Lisa Martin (NHPn to determine if there are still grounds for condemnafion based on the code. These issues listed in the materials before the Legislative Hearing Officer indicate there were grounds for condexnnation, whether or not Mr. Hatper feels they should haue been. It looks like he is doing a lot of work on this properiy, and he is close to getting it to the place where it can be reoccupied. Ms. Martin can tell him what ldnds of inspection they need to reoccupy the building. Until there is cleazance frm the City, he cannot move back in again. He should look into that. Ms. Moermond will see what kind of reinspection she can get between now and December 4. If this is a problem, she will recommend that it is sent back to her for another hearing. 320 Front Avenue Bradley Krussow, owner, appeazed and stated the property is a tiny 19 X 19 foot building. It is wood. The basement is cement. The inspector was at the properry and assumed there was public assess to the basement. That is why the order for the railing was made. It is solely his office space, stated Mr. Krussow. The wall is so short. On the faz wall across the room is a staircase. There is a platform at the top and bottom. The staircase takes up the entire wall. A railing would make it prohibitive to turn. It would really be a practical inconvenience and obstruction to using the basement for storage. He cannot get a large box down there. It is not a building where the public is assessing the basement. Michael Urmann reported the railing is allowed on all steps. There is nothing to prohibit or stop someone from gaining access into a basement. Also, he does not want firefighters in an emergency to go into an area with a four foot drop. The field inspector also said that the code was written because it was required under the code and not because the basement is accessible to the public. Mr. Krussow stated the wall goes downstairs over half the way. The bottom four or five steps is where the wa11 discontinues. Mr. Urmann responded they aze concerned with someone missing that in a low light or dangerous situafion. The owner could install a removable guazdrail. The handrail requirement would be put on the wall side. Mr. Krussow stated this is an unnecessary inconvenience as well as a violation of the code. If photographs could be seen of the staircase, it would be cleaz that no one could take more than a two foot step off of the staircase. He just took possession of the building. It was a dump; he totally remodeled the property. The building has been in existence since the 1970's and past fire inspectors haue not ordered a railing. He has not changed anything stnxcturally. If there was a photograph of the property, the Ms. Moermond could understand what he is saying. Ms. Moermond asked does he continue to have concerns about installing a handrail on the full wall side. Mr. T�nassow responded it would narrow the staircase and it still would not satisfy the fire department. Ms. Moermond responded that is half of what they want. a2 �o�Z PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2002 Page 6 Ms. Moermond asked about the removable guardrail. Mr. Urmann responded a removable guardrail is acceptable. F3e has not seen the stairs and is forbidden by law from designing. There aze some manufaciurers for guardrail systems that would easily help the appellant. Mr. Urmann would be willing to go wrth the field inspector and offer suggesrions. Ms. Moermond asked when does the requirement begin far handrails. Mr. Urmann responded the City ordinances require three or more rises. The State requires two or more. Mr. Urmann is more than willing to take the tune to consult on the actual staiiwell. Mr. Krussow stated the fire inspector said he could add a wa11 to the bottom. A railing to the left side is an impediment of any pracfical use. This would impede the use of his tiny building. Even if the railing on the right side, that would narrow the staircase, but it would not impede him from turning and going back into the basement azea. Ms. Moerxnond denied the appeal on the Certificate of Occupancy With Deficiencies dated October 8, 2002. She encouraged the owner to use the removable guardrails for the space. She would encourage the Fire Deparnnent to provide assistance space-wise and design-wise. 1785 St. Clair Avenue Richazd Leyh, owner, appeared and stated he just purchased the properiy in August. He had two units. One is occupied and one was vacated by the previous owner. He called the County and was told that with two or mare occupants, it is 50 square feet of sleeping space per occupant so two people would require 100 square feet. He rented to two sets of tenants. Both units are 95 squaze feet, which is five square feet short of the requirement. Michael Urmann reported he spoke to the Fire Marshall. Fire Prevention is not opposed to granting this appeal if it is lnnited to the terms of the tenancy and the lease. At that point, it can be rented to the conect size. The 95 feet meets the intent of the code of 100 feet. Ms. Moermond asked is the issue two people instead of one. Mr. Urmann responded it is two occupants in a bedroom of 95 square feet versus 100 square feet. They aze five feet ofF. This is the case in both units. Ms. Moermond granted the variances on the following condition: the occupancy in these units do not exceed two people. This variance shall remain in force for the length of the current tenants' occupancy. 2135 Case Avenue (No one appeared representing NHPI.) c�� ���Z PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2002 Page 7 Daniel Lissick, owner, appeazed and stated he is appealing Item 2: Remove dirty water from pool. He talked to Andy Dawkins (NHP�. Mr. Lissick has an inground pool with a liner, and the City was not familiar with how they operate. Water has to be kept in them all the time because it holds the liner in place. There is no concrete there. He was told that it is not an issue. He would like it to be removed from the Amanda Report, and he was told they cannot remove it. He talked to Gerry Strathman (former Legislative Hearing Officer) who said it can be removed. From Labor to Memorial Day, the pool is not operating. He works hard during the swiinuiiug season to keep it clean. From September 1 to Memorial day, there should not be an issue with dirty water. Ms. Moermond stated she could send a letter to that deparhnent indicating that was a finding in error on the part of the inspector and that it should be so reflected in the file that this was not a code violation and to alter their records accordingly. She cannot guarantee that a11 record pertaining to his address is deleted, but she can ensure that there would be a record indicating it was a finding in error on the part of the inspector, the situation was not "abated" as it was not a code violation to begin with. She would include in the letter referencing that the information management systems should be altered at the same time. She asked will that meet his needs. Mr. Lissick responded in the �rmative. Ms. Moermond will write a letter to the Office of Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement that the issue regarding the pool was not a code violation and that City records should reflect this. The meeting was adjourned at 2:57 p.m. � Page 1 of 1 oa-� oSa Nancy Anderson - Correctioo on Item 21 From: Racquet Naylor To: Anderson, Nancy; Erickson, Mary Date: 11/20/2002 1:46 PM Subject: Correction on Item 21 CC: Moermond, Marcia; Rider, Chris I have a minor correction to make on Item 21, which is the Property Code Enforcement Appeal resolutlon. The appellant's name for 1785 St. Clair Avenue should be Richard Leyh. Sorry for any inconvenience this has caused. -Ratquel file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00018.HTM 11/20/2002