Loading...
02-756QR�GI�f�L RESOLUTION CITY OF Presented Referred To Council File # � Green Sheet # 113829 �7 Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the August 13, 2 2002, decision of the Legislative Hearing OfFicer on Properiy Code Enfozcement Appeals for the following 3 addresses: 4 Properry Appealed 5 652 Oakdale Avenue (Laid over from 7-9-02) 6 (Appeal withdrawn.) 7 8 210 Curtice Street East 9 (File closed.) A�oellant Alonzo Fernandez Bobby Markgraf 10 576 Grand Avenue Gwynne Evans 11 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming fire doors on the foilowing conditions: 1) if the 12 nonconforming doors ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated door 13 assemblies, 2) the building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with all applicable codes and ordinance. 14 All outstanding work orders will be in compliance by November 1, 2002. 15 624 Sununit Avenue Gwynne Evans 16 Decision: Variance granted on the batluoom ventilation in Units 8 and 9. All outstanding work orders will be 17 in compliance by November 1, 2002. PAUL, MINNESOTA 18 1567 Huron Street Conrad and Dawn Miller 19 Decision: The owner's interpretation that the window meets code requirements will be accepted. August 13, 2002, Property Code Enforcement Appeals, Green Sheet 113829 oL-�S� 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey ,� Coleman ,/ Harris ✓ Benanav ,/' Reiter � Bostrom i/ Lantry � 0 �d 8 9 Adopted by Council: Date: � a, �� �1c7 c� � 10 11 Adoption C� fied by Council3 12 By: 13 Apprc 14 Date: 15 By: Requested by Department o£ � Form Approved by City Attorney � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council i� . .r,. DEPARTMQJTlOFFICE/COUNCIL DaTE IxmATED City Council Offices nu 13 Zoo2 GREEN SHEET No � 13$Z9 CONTACT PERSON 8 PFKKJE In�s InNaVDate Gerry Strathman, 266-8560 ovu��mroo¢c.oa arvcanc,. MUST BE ON CWNCIL AGENDA BY (�A7EJ ASSIf.N NUYBERfOR iTYAiTOqEY ❑fJIYCLFRK ROIRIIIC �� wWMCW.aERNCFSml. wuNCJ�LaE0.11inCCfo ❑ MYGN(ORJt&SiYMII ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CL.IP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) CTION REQUESTm . Approving the August 13, 2002, decisions of the Legislative Hearing 0£ficer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 652 Oakdale Avenue, 210 Curtice Street East 576 Grand Avenue, 624 Summit Avenue, and 1567 Huron Street. RECOMMENDATION Approve (A) a Rejeet (R) VERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUSTANSWER7HE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: 1. Has this Pe��rm eexr xrorked unae� a contrad tor this dePartmeM7 PLANNINGCOMMISSION YES NO CIBCOMMITTEE 2. HasmispereoruTrmeverbea�aaryempbyee't CMLSERVICECAMMISSION YES NO 3. Does Mis G�� P� a sidll not normallYP� �' �Y u�� �Y �P�7 YES I� 4. Is this persqJfirm e targeted ventloY) YES NO E�Iain all v� ar�vew on separa[e sheet ana atlacn to preen sheet INI7IATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNITV (VJho, WhaC When, Where, Why) ADVAMAGES IF APPROVED G.4!lraC19 p���t�h ��' ��� � � DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED ' - � -' , _ -,__ �_._...-_i DISAOVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (GRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER FlNFlICIAL INFORMA710N (F�PIAIN) �� Z NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, August 13, 2002 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was cailed to order at 134 p.m. �� STAFF PRESENT: Thomas Riddering, LIEP (License, Inspections, Envizonmental Protecrion); Dauid Tank, LIEP; Michael Urmann, Fire Prevenfion 652 Oakdale Avenue (Laid over from 7-9-02) Michael Urmann reported the appellant and the Fire Prevention Bureau haue come to an agreement on how to handle the problem. The appellant is in the process of getting a structural review on the property and is withdrawing his appeal. (Appeal withdrawn.) J0203V - Towed Vehicle at 2157 Conwa, S� treet (Note: this was rescheduled from the 10:00 meeting.) Thomas Chicone, owner, appeared and stated he had two cars that the City towed. The cars did not have tabs and were inoperable. In order to get new tabs, he would have had to get insurance. On June 12, the vehicles were impounded. The City informed him that they disposed of the vehicles. He wondered why he was not notified eazlier so he could have done something about it. Gerry Strathman stated when the City becomes awaze of an abandoned vekucle—an inoperable one is considered abandoned under the law—they give the owner a notice to remove the vehicle by a particular date. If the owner does not remove it, the vehicle is towed to the Impound Lot. It is required to be held there at least 15 days. The owner is charged a storage fee for each day it sits there. After 15 days, the vehicle is put in the next auction. The towing, starage, and administrative fees are all charged to the owner. Whatever they get far it at aucrion is subtracted. In the case of these two vehicles, the City got $38.50 for each of them. (Note: Assessments for the two vehicles were $497.05 and $352.65 far a total assessment of $849.10.) Assessments often run about $600 a vehicle. Mr. Chicone could haue called a tow huck himself or gotten them out of the Impound Lot. Mr. Chicone responded that is why he didn't get the vehicles. It would cost $1,100 to get them fixed. He could also have signed the fitle over to the City. Mr. Chicone stated the slip said it would be disposed of. It did not say it was impounded or stored. To him, "disposed of' does not mean it will be put in a garage somewhere. Mr. Strathman responded not everyone knows what those words mean and not everyone understands how the law works. He is not being fined. All that is being charged here is the cost the City incurred with these vehicles. If Mr. Chicone does not pay it, the taYpayers pay it. Gerry Strathman recommends approval for the assessment. There is no error on the part of the City. The amounts being charged aze less than average. The assessment is legally correct. �z� �� NOTES OF TI� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING, August 13, 2002 210 Curtice Street East rage 2 Bobby Markgraf, owner, appeazed and stated the City owns an alley adjacent to his and his neighbor's properties. The City has in the past sent him a notice about the neighbor's caz. The neighbors haue a fence. They lrnow the alley is platted. They feel half is theirs and half is his. He uses part of the a11ey as a driveway. The house he owns has been in his family for 25 to 30 yeazs. There was always gravel there. His point in coming here is that they have cleared things up. The Conection Notice he received did not cleazly say which caz was a problem. The inspector Jack Reardon (Code Enforcement) was out. All Mr. Markgraf's cazs aze licensed, insured, and have tabs. His street is busy and he would prefer not to pazk cars on the street. He had two cars parked on the gravel and one caz on the grass. He has made those changes. Mr. Strathman asked did Mr. Reardon say the current situation is okay. Mr. Mazkgraf responded Mr. Reazdon said he was going to close the file. When he talked to Mr. Reardon a week ago Friday, he said he was going on vacation. Mr. Mazkgraf works for the City and knows that sometunes the cozrect information does not get into the correct hands in a tnnely fashion. Based on Mr. Markgraf's information, stated Mr. Strathman, the file has been closed and Code Enforcement has withdrawn the order. When that is verified, the matter will be closed. Mr. Mazkgraf responded that he would like a written statement that the file has been closed. (File closed.) 576 Grand Avenue, 624 Summit Avenue Gwynne Evans, owner, appeared and stated she would like an extension. Michael Urmann responded there has been no request to his office for an extension of time. He has made several attempts tl�rough phone messages to reach Ms. Evans. 624 Summit, Units 8 and 9, SPLC 34.14 (3) - Provide and maintain a window or approved ventilation system in all bathrooms. Mr. Urmann reported he cannot fmd a record of appeals, but that does not mean it was not done in the past and purged from their files. They would accept an appeal on both of those cases. If there is ever a remodel and it is able to be installed, they would ask that it is installed. Pat Fish (Fire Prevention) felt the appeal had been granted previously. Ms. Evans stated she ran into Ms. Fish this morning who said she remembered this issue and would get back to Mr. Urmann. This matter should not have gotten this far, said Ms. Evans. There should be something in somebody's computer. 5he would like to have a piece of paper so she does not have to take the tune, pay the fee, and appeal something again that has already been appealed two other tunes. This is a bathroom that cannot have the fan that they want. Mr. Urmann responded that he spoke to Ms. Fish who believes an appeal had been granted. He and Ms. Fish looked through their azchives which goes back five yeazs. They found no record of an appeal. Each time an appeal is granted, it is followed up with a letter from Fire Prevention stating that the appeal is granted. There is no requirement for Fire Prevention to keep their records that long. C�2� �b NOT'ES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING, August 13, 2002 Page 3 Mr. Strathman stated after the hearing today and the City Council meeting later, she will get another letter from the Fire Department. 576 Grand, all units, MUFC 1111.2.1 - Provide, repair, or replace the fire rated door and assembly. The minimum zating must be 20 minutes. Reglace all unit entry doors to have a minimum fire rating of 20 minutes. - Mr. Urmann stated this is the standard appeal. Mr. Strathman stated the variance would be granted with two standazd conditions: 1) if the doors are ever replaced, they will be replaced with fire rated doors, 2) the building has to be kept in compliance with other codes. Ms. Evans stated most of her buildings aze historical and she has several on Summit Avenue. She has been through this appeals process on doors previously. Again, she has spent the money and wasted the time. She would like a letter far her files. Mr. Strathman responded she will get a letter. Painfing (various items on the deficiency lists are about painting) - Ms. Evans stated 624 Summit is a large home on Summit and Dale. The painter promises he will start within a week. He is very competent and does beautiful work. She asked what happens if the painting is not totally done. Mr. Strathman responded the inspector will determine if it is not finished. Then, it is up to the inspector to allow more time or issue a correction order. The inspectors are not likely to issue an order on November 1 about painting. Mr. Urmann responded they have already issued an exterior order. If it is not completed by November 1, they will take enforcement action for noncompliance. Mr. Strathman asked what he will do if the painting is not done by November 1. Mr. Urmann responded it depends on the stage it is in. If it is in the same stage as today, they will take enforcement acflon of some type. If the painting is reasonably completed or in the process of being completed, they will allow her time to complete that work. Ms. Evans stated that Ms. Fish works with her. Ms. Evans does more than she is suppose to, but Mr. t3rmann has an attitude. She and other owners get the feeling that he is working against them. He is sarcastic. Mr. Strathman responded that Mr. Urmann is not on trial and that she will haue to take this up with the Fire Chief. Ms. Evans stated she questions "reasonably completed." Mr. Strathman responded that would be Mr. Urmann's judgement. It is difficult to believe that if the painter started next week that he will not be finished by November 1. Gerry Strathman's decision is as follows: Variance granted on the bathroom ventilation in 624 Suminit Avenue, Units 8 and 9. Variance granted on the nonconfonniug fire doors at 576 Grand Avenue on the following conditions: 1) if the nonconforming doors ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated door assemblies, 2) the building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with all applicable codes and ordinance. All outstanding work arders on both properties will be in compiiance by November 1, 2002. 02��� NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING, August 13, 2002 Page 4 1567 Huron Street Conrad Miller, owner, appeazed. Mr. Strathman stated he read the application for appeal and Mr. Miller's basic view is the window that he plans to install, while not meeting the requirement of the code, is in all practicai purposes equivalent. Mr. Miller responded that he agrees, but would add the fiuther clarification that it is meetiing the intent of the code because the casement window installed in the same frame size presents the same obstacle for a firefighter trying to gain egress as a double hung window. He is asking that the City accept his interpretation of how the code could be applied in this property at this time. If it is some help to the City, he would offer to sign a release letter of liability or apply sfickers for operating the windows. This is a 70 year old house. They are ttying to maintain its integrity. Dauid Tank reported he wrote a conection notice for an egress window in the bedroom during a frame inspection. The window is suppose to be 5.7 square feet of openable space. This double hung window does not meet that. Thomas Riddering added it is an impediment to getting out. Mr. Strathman asked is there a remedy to suggest to Mr. Miller. Mr. Riddering responded there are casement windows that meet code requirements. People have put a horizontal baz in the middle so it would appear to be a double hung window. That might be a good solution. Mr. Miller responded he has pursued that. The current manufacturer of the window can do that. It becomes more of an issue during operation because there will be windows sticking out to the open air above it. This home has a boiler; it has hot water heat with radiators. The installafion of case windows removes any oppomuuty to install window air conditioning. Mr. 5trathman stated this building was done under permit, plans were submitted to the City, and they were approved. He asked how they were approved with this nonconforming window. Mr. Riddering responded it was overlooked. Mr. Miller responded the plans were not what the City was used to seeing. Residential construction plans tend to be one lines at best. He can understand the oversight. It was also missed by the draftsmen, the builders, and the supplier. Mr. Strathman stated he is going to accept that the window is functionally equivalent to that which is required by code. He does not believe that allowing this interpretation constitutes any significant hazazd to the safety of occupants nor does he believe it would represent any significant barrier to a firefighter trying to get in the building. He is not suggesting the inspector made an error in citing this; he should have done that. Mr. Miller responded he did not want to impiy that the inspectar made an error. He applied the code as it was written by the City. The meeting was adjourned at 2:09 p.m. �� (Note: 1078 Front Avenue has been rescheduled to August 27.)