Loading...
03-1044Council File # 3' /��� Green Sheet # 3007716 Presented Refetred To Committee Date BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the October 30, � 2003, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals for Letters of Deficiency, Correction Notices, and � Correction Orders for the following addresses: Properiy Ap�ealed A� elp lant 1927 Laurel Avenue Carrie Daklin Decision: Extension granted to June 1, 2004, on the Correction Order dated September 24, 2003. 361 Bates Avenue (Laid over from 10-14-03) David J. Peterson, owner Decision: Regarding the Deficiency List dated September 29, 2003: an extension has been granted to allow a grounded refrigerator in each unit. 1941 Nortonia Avenue (Laid over from 10-14-03) Thomas R Jirik Decision: Regarding the Deficiency List dated September 23, 2003: the basement window will be brought into compliance by November 10, 2003; all other items will be brought under compliance by May 30, 2004. 2516 Seventh Street West (Rescheduled from 10-14-03) Dean Gubbrud Decision: Extension granted to November 1, 2004, to bring the hood and duct ventilation system into compliance as stipulated on the Deficiency List dated September 26, 2003. Yeas Nays Absent Benanav � Blakey � Bostrom � Coleman J Hazris ,/ Helgen �/ Lanhy �/ U Adopted by Council: Date /r//// ����pQ,� Adoption Certifie by Co�ncil Secretary By: � ' i/ Approved by : Date By: e � RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA /S Requested by Department oE � Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Coancil � ,,. : . . 03-�0�� y � � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � h, c .. � c h, DepartmeM/office%ouncil: Date Initiated: � co ���il 12-NOV-03 Green Sheet NO: 3007716 Confact Pe'son 8 Phone: Deoartment Sent 7o Person Initial/Date Marcia Moermond 0 ouncil 266-8560 pu�yn 1 ouncil De arhnent Director Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number Z i Clerk For Routing 3 Order 4 5 Total # of Signature Pages _(Ciip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Approving the October 30, 2003, decisions of the Legislarive Hearing Officer for appeals of Letters of Deficiency, Conection Notices, and Correction Orders for the following addresses: 1927 Laurel Avenue, 361 Bates Avenue, 1941 Nortonia Avenue, and 2516 Seventh Street. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service 6ontrects Must Answer the Following Questions: Plan�ing C'ommission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No , Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No � 3. Does this personlfirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any � current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportuniry (Whq What, When, Where, Why): , AdvanWges If Approved: � DisadvanWSles If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: � � ToWI Amount of CostlRevenue Budgeted: Trensadion: Fundinq Source: Activity Number: Financial 1 nfortnation: (Explain) �'-�e,� \S O� �o`�`� NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES, CORRECTION ORDERS, AND A FENCE VARIANCE Thursday, October 30, 2003 Room 330 City Hall, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 131 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Phillip Owens, Fire Prevention; Hazold Robinson, Fire Prevention; Michael Urmann, Fire Prevention 1927 Laurel Avenue Harold Robinson stated an inspector called the owner this morning. Racquel Naylor added that she talked to Carrie Daklin, owner, this morning and informed her that an extension was granted. Marcia Moermond granted an extension to June 1, 2004, on the Correction Order dated September 24, 2003. 361 Bates Avenue (Laid over from 10-14-03) Marcia Moermond stated the appeal is about the interior sleeping rooms. Dauid J. Peterson, owner, appeazed and stated he is here for an education to see how the process works. This has been a troubied building. He has worked for seven months to bring it to a respectable type that people can live in. When he first got this building, it was in tenible shape. When he purchased the building seven months ago, it had been ittspected every two years for deficiencies. He was told by the owner that things were grandfathered and up to code. The issue regarding refrigerators in the rooms was not flagged for at least two previous inspections, stated Mr. Peterson. He has eight boarding roorns and two two-bedroom apartments. There were refrigerators in every one and stoves in a couple. He talked to Michael Urmann who said that if he gets the outlets grounded and stops using extension cords, that would be sufficient. Five or six are already grounded. He received a 30 day extension. If he does not get all of them done, he would like another extension. He already has the police threatening to shut down the building. Also, there was a stove in Number 5. It is a combination stove-refrigerator-sink. The refrigerator does not work, and he cut its cord. He would like the cord to stay cut if that would be okay. Michael Urmann responded he would have to look at the appliance in order to say yes or no. Then, he will issue orders accordingly. The other thing, stated Mr. Peterson, is there aze no other stoves except in the two-bedroom apartments. He would like to have refrigerators in the other eight. Also, there was a door issue; he was told he needs closures on every door. ��-�c��`f LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES FOR OCTOBER 30, 2003 Page 2 Ms. Moermond asked is this something to make the door automatically close. Mr. Peterson responded yes and the hallways already have that. He has never seen people not shut their apartment door. He is asking to not have closures on all the doors. He understands it is a fire issue. The door to any apartment is usually closed anyhow. Ms. Moermond stated she has heard three issues: 1) He would like to know if can be an extension beyond November 5, 2) he would like refrigerators in each unit, 3) he wants to know if the doors need to be automatically closing. As for the first issue, the date of the reinspection is December 5 or so. Mr. Urmann responded that they already allowed a 30 day extension to give the owner time to comply. He is willing to wark on time issues for specific reasons, but cannot say right now if it is reasonable to have that done. Ms. Mcermond stated the letter the Fire Department sent is dated September 29, and he is getting an extension to December 5. It is a month later now and about 2/3 of the way done. If the owner works at the same pace in November as he did in October, he should be done in three weeks. She is hearing Mr. Urmann say he will give an extension if there is a specific reason. It sounds like Mr. Peterson is on track with getting it done. The Fire Department is good at granting extensions. She asked Mr. Urmann will he be reasonable in granting an extension. Mr. Urmann responded yes. As for Item 2, Ms. Moermond stated she heazd Mr. Urmann say that it would be okay to have a refrigerator in each unit if it is grounded. The owner is in the process of getting them all grounded; therefore, it is a moot point. Mr. Urmann responded it should be okay as long as they are code compliant. In terxns of the closares on the door, Ms. Moermond stated that is one thing she cannot be flexible about. Normal adults close the door, but a lot of kids don't. Also, pets push their way through. If the owner does not like her decision, he can talk to Councilmember Lantry. It is important that people skills are used, stated Mr. Peterson. For example, the inspector noted the radiator leaked but did not look at it. Mr. Peterson did not know she wrote it down. Ms. Moermond granted an extension of the legislative code to allow a refrigerator in each unit if they are grounded as indicated by the fire department on the September 29, 2003, Deficiency List. This issue will be on the Consent portion of the City Council agenda, and there will not be a public hearing. 1941 Nortonia Avenue (Laid over from 10-14-03) Marcia Moerxnond stated this is a Correction Order far 1941 Nortonia. Included in the order is a variety of things, mostly exterior issues. The application for appeal reads that "This unit is exempt unless a complaint occurs: ' The application also has the following: Item 2—windows and screens—"is not applicable at this time." Item 4—paint on exterior walls—"may only be for �� �o�`� LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES FOR OCTOBER 30, 2003 Page 3 beautification and may be difficult now." Item S�efective stairs—"is only cosmetic." Also, the owner wanted code references to verify violations. Mr. Jirik responded he has those now. Mr. Moermond explained that this is a notification from the City to the owner that these items are in violation of the City code and the City is directing these be fixed. There are other orders the City could issue where the City would say if the owner does not fix them, then the City will. (Mr. Jirik showed photographs of the property.) (Note: the items in bold are here as they aze listed on the deficiency list.) 1. The windows and/or storm windows are in a state of disrepair. Replace all missing or broken window glass. Make all necessary repairs to frames, sashes, hardware and associated trim in a professional manner. Permit may be required. - Mr. Jirik stated all � necessary storm windows have been replaced. The basement one is not replaced because there will be a snowstorm on Tuesday and he does not want to open up the window to the outside. From looking at the photographs, Ms. Moermond asked is the basement window covered by a piece of plywood from the inside. Mr. Jirik responded yes. Ms. Moermond asked have they been back to reinspect. Harold Robinson responded no. Items l, 2, 6 are for October 10. Items 3, 4, 5 aze for October 27. The reinspections were held off because of the appeal. The window requirements are not season-specific. Mr. Jirik responded that they should be because people do not put on screens in the winter. Ms. Moermond responded screens are required as there are circuxnstances where it would be necessary to open window in the winter, such as clearing smoke. The basement window will need to be replaced. 2. The window and/or door screens are missing, defective or in a state of disrepair. Provide proper window and door screens for all openable windows and doors. Screens must be tight-fitting and securely fastened to the frames. - Mr. Jirik stated he will not put screens on in the winter because it is foolish. Ms. Moermond responded she will not grant a variance. � Item 3- The eaves and soffits are in a state of disrepair or deterioration. Repair all defects, holes, brakes, loose or rotting boards, to a professional state of maintenance. Permit may be required. - Ms. Moermond stated this is not mentioned in his Application for Appeal. Mr. Jirik stated that people will not be working on these items with a snowstorm coming. He asked what a soffit is. (Ms. Moermond explained what it is.) Ms. Moermond stated one photograph shows peeling paint on a supporting beam in a corner of the roof. She does not see anything about the rest of the roof and she does not know about the condition of the wood underneath the peeling paint. She asked is he saying that the eaves and soffits are not in a state of disrepair. Mr. Jirik responded it is exaggerated. ���o�� LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES FOR OCTOBER 30, 2003 Page 4 Item 4- The esterior walls and/or trim have defective, peeled, flaked, scaled or chaiking paint or has unpainted wood surfaces. Scrape and repaint to effect a sound condition in a professional manner. - Mr. Jirik stated this is debatable. From looking at the pictures, there is nothiug there. None of this is to be done in the winter. Paint freezes. Item 5- Defecfive Stairs. Stairs are broken, defective, or in disrepair. Repair in a professional manner. Item 6- Repair/replace broken gutter. (Ms. Moermond read Items 5 and 6, but there was no discussion on them.) Ms. Moermond stated he makes a good argument that some of these things aze much better done in warmer weather. She will accept an extension to May 30, 2004, for everything except far the basement window. Mr. Jirik responded that he likes her reasoning except for that window. He asked how he can debate this further. Ms. Moermond responded he can go to the Councilmember for this property and the next stop would be district court. Mr. Jirik stated the window will not seal in the winter. Ms. Moermond responded there aze windows that need to be replaced in the winter and there are companies that can handle that. Ms. Moermond gave the following decision on the Deficiency List dated September 23, 2003: The basement window will be brought into compliance by November 10, 2003; all other items will be brought under compliance by May 30, 2004. 2516 Seventh Street West (Rescheduled from 10-14-03) Ms. Moermond stated this is for Starting Gate Restaurant and Lounge. This appeal has to do with the hood and duct ventilation. Dean Gubbrud, appellant, appeazed and stated the system has been there since he bought the restaurant. It is not a big restaurant. Business is only about 50% food and the rest is bar. It would be about $4,000 expense, which is a lot for him. He does not want to fix it if it is not broken. Phillip Owens reported the system has been there for years. The last hydrostatic test was in 1996. The system is at least 20 yeazs old and has served its service life. It is not the technology that it takes nowadays to extinguish a fire. Mr. Gubbrud asked would it put out a fire. Mr. Owens responded he did not know, but it probably would not put out a fire as quickly as one would expect. Mr. Gubbrud stated nothing has changed. Mr. Owens responded the way food is prepared has changed and the cooking medium. In tests, the old systems worked relatively well on animal fat, �� �o�L� LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES FOR OCTOBER 30, 2003 Page 5 but they don't wark on vegetable oils. The code requires that there be a UL 300 system. The Fire Department would agree to a time extension to comply. In response to several questions, Mr. Owens responded Mr. Gubbrud probably has a system with powder. The new system has a wet chemical. The last test was done in 1996 during which they disassembled the system, took out the powder, hydrostatically tested the cylinder, refilled the cylinder, and then reconnected it to the cylinder. Everyone is being made to change their old system as the Fire Deparfinent comes to the properiy to inspect. Mr. Gubbrud requested to keep his old system until it breaks. Mr. Owens responded the Fire Department considers it broken now. Ms. Moermond asked are there alternatives to this, such as a sprinkler system. Mr. Owens responded that is an option. Mr. Gubbrud stated his bar and restaurant does not haue a sprinkler system. Mr. Owens stated this is important. That fact that it has been there a long time, it has never gone off, let's wait to see if it works when it does go off: those are ludicrous hypotheses. He is willing to go with an extension of time to comply. This is not inexpensive; it may cost $3,000 to $4,000. The Fire Department does not have much margin to negatiate with this matter. By Mr. Gubbrud's own admission, the system is antiquated. Ms. Moermond asked would a hydrostatic test add a level of security about the functionality of the system through the length of the extension. Mr. Owens responded it would not. The test only tells that the cylinder will hold the pressure. There still is the issue with the extinguishing media which his powder. It will not extinguish the hazazds the owner has now with the food prepazation materials he is using. Ms. Moermond granted an extension to November l, 2004, to bring the hood and duct ventilation system into compliance as stipulated on the Deficiency List dated September 26, 2003. The owner will get another letter at that time; if there still is a problem, they can finesse a little more time. 291 Ravoux Street #6 Ms. Moermond explained that this is an issue that should have been on the morning agenda as it involves property rights and there are more due process requirements; therefore, this will be on the City Council agenda for a public hearing on November 19. The following appeazed: Ron Michaelson, attorney, Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services (SNIRi.,S), 46 Fourth Street East, representing Albert Gustafson, tenant; Jeff Provo, Ramsey County, Mental Heakh Case Worker, 1821 University Avenue N464; Keith Cron, American Engineering Testing, Inc., 550 Cleveland Avenue North. C� �c�4`� LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES FOR OCTOBER 30, 2003 Page 6 (Michael Urmann submitted photographs to Ms. Moermond.) Michael Ricketson reported that he received a complaint in September about a gross unsanitary problem in Unit 6 at 291 Ravoux. He did an inspection on September 8, three days after receiving the complaint. He approached the unit with the manager because he didn't know if the tenant would be home. When Mr. Ricketson got about five to six feet from the door, he detected a strong odor. Part of the complaint was odors emanating out into the common azeas. He knocked on the door and explained why he was there. Mr. Gustafson allowed him into the unit. What Mr. Ricketson found was severely soiled carpet throughout, food stuffs and other debris stuck on the walis and on the appliances in the kitchen. There were cigarette burns through the linoleum in the kitchen making the floor not impervious to water. In layman's terms, the apartment was very diriy, the walls were diriy, the floors were diriy, the ceiling was smoky, and there was a lot of storage. It appeared the debris had built up around the edges of it. He advised Mr. Gustafson that he was going to issue an order, and Mr. Ricketson did so on September 9 with a reinspection for September 15 because it appeared to be serious enough to be a health hazard and it looked terrible. When he went back on September 16, stated Mr. Ricketson, he met Mr. Michaelson. On that visit, there had been some improvement, but the kitchen floor and carpet were in the same condition. Mr. Ricketson issued a second set of orders with a reinspecrion date of September 30. He detected an odar which he can described as cleaning agent covering up other odors. The kitchen floor was cleaned, but the cigazette burns were still there. The living room carpet was stiil in the same condition. The back bedrooms had been cleaned. The main room was still in the same condition. Mr. Ricketson then found out the appeal has been filed, so he forestalled any further action until today. Management indicated they would be willing to work with getting the carpet changed out, the occupant told him that he will take care of it and pay for it himself if he has to. These things never transpired. Ms. Moermond asked if anyone was here from the management company. (No one responded.) Ms. Moermond asked when the photographs were taken. Mr. Urmann responded September 22 when they met with the attorney. They were also there October 17, but the tenants refused photographs. From looking at the photographs, Ms. Moermond stated, the carpet in the living room is heavily stained and a variety of colors, including yellow. She asked were they urine stains, if the odor gave any indication of what the stain came from, and is it cleanable. From his experience, responded Mr. Urmann, he could not determine what was causing it. It was pungent and definitely a sanitation issue. He does not think it is cleanable. Ms. Moermond asked is this an issue of replacing the carpet and the subfloor. Mr. Urmann responded it is hard to tell. Also, there is an incense stick stuck on the wa11 in food product or what he thinks is food product. 03 K»� LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES FOR OCTOBER 30, 2003 Page 7 Mr. Michaelson asked does this have to be condexnned pursuant to Section 34.23 of the code, Unfit for Human Habitation. Mr. Urmann responded that is correct. Mr. Michaelson stated he has seen the photographs. The combustibles have been cleaned up. Mr. Urmann responded they haue been reduced to a safe level. Mr. Michaelson stated that Mr. Gustafson has physical and mental disabilities that require medical caze and treatrnent. He has needed supervision, but has not had it like he needed over the last several months. Mr. Michaelson first became involved in this on a conviction, which was based on Mr. Gustafson playing his music too loud and things of that nature. He asked did the landlord complain. Mr. Urmann responded they are restricted by law from discussing complaint information. (Mr. Michaelson presented photographs.) Mr. Michaelson stated he has been rushing to get Mr. Gustafson the help that he needs to maintain independent living. Jeff Provo is now a case worker for Mr. Gustafson and quickly assessed the situation to find out what Mr. Gustafson needs to live independently there, said Mr. Michaelson. One of the things he needs is housekeeping. Mr. Provo has had people from the Wilder Foundation Cleaning Service clean up the place. They vacuumed the carpet. Mr. Michaelson took photographs yesterday, and the apariment is still clean except for the carpet. The walls have been cleaned. Mr. Urmann responded that he saw those pictures before the hearing started and there is still a spot on the wa11 that has food or something on it. Mr. Michaelson stated he would assume there was physical or scientific testing. Mr. Urmann responded that is not City policy. Mr. Michaelson stated he found a company called American Engineering Testing, Inc., which deals with this type of situation. A representative lifted the dirtiest part of the carpet, checked the linoleum, and did an air qualiry test. The report says the carpet is dirty. He also tested to see if the water would go through the linoleuxn. His determination was that it would not cause a problem. The dirt on the carpet is really no more than human skin cells that someone would find on a mattress. He further determined that there were human skin cells in the air, but not at a bad leveL Nothing would render the carpet unfit for human habitation. He also looked under the carpet. Underneath the whole thing is concrete. It did not present a risk to human habitation. It could be cleaned with a water extraction method. Mr. Michaelson stated that he was arguing with the landlord there and finds out now that they were offering somehow to pay for the carpet. Mr. Provo has offered to pay half through funds he has available. The management wants the tenant out of there. To get a place condemned for this is not fair and not due process. ��3 -\��� LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES FOR OCTOBER 30, 2003 Page 8 Mr. Urmann stated that he spoke to Mr. Michaelson on September 22. If it is ciean, then the City can lift the condemnation. They aze concerned about what is causing the odors. There were no signs of animals. They would like the kitchen floor to be impervious to water, cleaned, and sanitized. This is miuimum code compliance. Ms. Moermond stated she does not see a report about the surface not being impervious to water. Mr. Urmann responded it was not issued for that; it was issued for not being clean and sanitized. ` Mr. Ricketson stated he would like to correct what he said. He was told that they have a carpet cleaner that works for the company. He didn't mean to say they were willing to pay part of the carpet. Regarding the kitchen floor, underneath the kitchen sink, the edges of the linoleum aze curled exposing the wood. That is where the food stuffs aze jammed in. Mr. Urmann added that the floor by the stove has food product along the wall where the linoleum floor is missing. Mr. Michaelson responded that the floor is clean now. The burns on the linoleum do not look nice, but that does not make it hard to clean. Caulking would take care of the area where the food is getting by the linoleum. They will volunteer to do that. Ms. Moermond asked about the eviction situation. Mr. Michaelson stated that Mr. Gustafson was a part-time caretaker and it erupted into a situation that was unpleasant. They sent a notice that he was going to be evicted. It is a lot of petry stuff. He and his brother aze doing well there now. It is not a health hazard. They are planning on doing a bleach-water extraction method on the carpet in the next two weeks. Ms. Moermond stated that it seems that the apartment is likely in a sanitary condition; however, she does not have a reinspection report to confirm that. She will have this come forward to the City Council on Wednesday, December 3. Around November or 26, she will find out from the Fire Department how the reinspection went. The larger issue is he needs the support of housing services. She would like the apartment to be clean months from now. (Mr. Michaelson showed 2 documents.) Jeff Provo, Case Worker, Ramsey County Mental Health, reported that he made a referral to Mr. Gustafson to a program called CADI, Community Alternatives for Aisabled Individuals. It is a special program through medical assistance that provides housekeeping, Meals on Wheels, nursing, independent living skills, and whatever a person needs to maintain a level of independent living. Mr. Gustafson has mental and physical limitations, and this is what the program is designed to work with. He is hopeful Mr. Gustafson is eligible. In the meantime, Mr. Provo will continue to be involved with this case and meeting with him every two weeks. If it will take a while to get CADI in place, Mr. Provo also has case management teams that can work with him. Ms. Moermond stated there is a program called House Ca11s that keeps people from losing their housing in this situation. o� ���� LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES FOR OCTOBER 30, 2003 Page 9 Ms. Moermond recommends g�anting the appeal unless she heazs from the Fire Department that things aze not looking good. In that case, she will change her recommendation to the City Council to deny the appeal. She is granting it so that Mr. Gustafson can continue habitation in this unit. Mt. Michaelson stated he did not notice the odors. He would like to be present during the reinspection. Mr. Provo added that he did not norice odors to the extent that he heard from staff. Mr. Urmann stated the placard can be removed from the properiy. Ms. Moermond recommends granting the appeal on the Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated September 30, 2003 and allowing the tenant to remain in Unit 6 at the property. This matter will go to the City Council, on December 3, 2003. Fire Prevention will inspect the properiy before that time. If their inspection is not favorable, Ms. Moermond may change her recommendation. 297 Burgess Street Kelly Brisson, owner, appeared and stated the reason the City came to his house is bogus. They said he had a methamphetamine lab in his gazage. The only thing he had in his garage is 400 gallons of latex paint. He does not understand how they considered it toxic because it is all latex and nonflammable. Lisa Martin (Code Enforcement) said she could smell fumes from outside the garage, which is impossible because it is latex paint and is designed by the manufacturer to be fire resistant and not have odor. Mazcia Moermond stated she has paperwork that reads that there was an inspection that occurred on October 9 conducted by Harold Robinson. That was occasioned by a meth lab raid on the garage. Mr. Brisson responded that the warrant to come to his house was a lrnock on the door warrant. It said to announce and say why they were coming. They kicked in his door and arrested him naked. They pulled all the smoke detectors out of the ceiling, they wrecked the bathroom plumbing by kicking it, piled his furniture in piles, dumped the tools in the household garbage, they tracked paint through the entire house, put holes in the wall searching for something, broke his counter top, trashed the house. The house looked like a herd of animals went through it. Then, Mr. Robinson came through and inspected it. The worst part about it was they did not find anything in the house. He has been trying to find an affidavit of finding a reason why they went there. Harold Robinson stated he was with a police officer and received a call to go to 297 Burgess as they wanted to to an interior inspection. He inspected the interior of the second floor unit. The occupant had been taken away. There were exposed electrical wires and boxes, plumbing repairs done poorly, large accumulation of household items, furniture strewn throughout, holes in walls and ceilings, window and doors not framed, smoke detectors missing, and other numerous items. �� � LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES FOR OCTOBER 30, 2003 Page 10 Mr. Brisson stated the inspector could recognize tUat the police did it. Ms. Moermond has seen footage of his house from a previous legislative hearing, and Mr. Robinson should recognize that Ramsey County tUrew the Lazy Boy chair on its front, smashing a mirror, rip the smoke detectors out of the box, etc. Ms. Moermond responded no one is thinking on that level. An inspector observed those circumstances and they are not contributing it to any act that led to that condition. Mr. Brisson stated his house was clean. It is his choice if he wants one room set outside for all his junk, such as trim work, saws, and tools. He cannot keep anything outside because they will get stolen. He works on the house and works a full-time job. It is not unsafe far the tenant downstairs. He has sheetrock on the walls where he is installing a closet. He has spent $3,000 repairing the damage to the house. Ms. Moermond asked have the permits been closed out for fixing the roof or replacing the windows. Mr. Brisson responded the windows are done and have been signed off by Dave Tank (License, Inspections, Environmental Protection). Mr. Tank said he would send Ms. Moermond a copy. Mr. Brisson worked 80 hours a week because he was so far behind in bills. He stopped working on his house so that he could get food in his refrigerator again. He tried to get ahold of the electrician, but he owes Mr. Brisson money. Ms. Moermond stated that if the sheriff deputies allegedly did the damage, Mr. Brisson should fill out a claim form for Ramsey County. Mr. Brisson responded he tried doing that. They were not nice to him, to say the least. Ms. Moermond stated she stood in front of the City Council and told them that Mr. Brisson was working on this properry and it would be done in a week. She got the condemnation lifted off both units thinking that Mr. Brisson was going to get it cleaned up. Gary Torgerson sat right beside Mr. Brisson at a previous legislative hearing and said that Mr. Brisson bought this house where there were drug dealings on in the streets. Now, Ms. Moermond hears that the sheriffs are raiding the place because of a meth lab in the garage. This is not good. Ms. Brisson stated they went in his garage. He has paint that he got for free. He has to let paint dry because he cannot take it to the landfills when it is wet. He took the pigment, dumped it into a druui. The Ramsey County Sheriff's Office took about 110 gallons of paint pigment. They got that, some plastic tubing, paint thinner to clean his brushes, they took his bucket of cement tools, troweis. None of it was even together. He is not using it for drugs. Ms. Moermond stated she is not going to go before the City Council again to grant this appeal after this situation. This one is on Mr. Brisson to figure out. She will recommend that the condemnation stand as it is. She went to bat for him, the things she thought were done aze not, and she does not have a signed off permit for the roof. The electrical is not done. Mr. Brisson responded that he should not be punished for something he paid the electrician to do. The roof is done. d� ���� LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES FOR OCTOBER 30, 2003 Page 11 Ms. Moexmond recommends denying the appeal on the Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated October 14, 2003. Ms. Moermond stated there seems to be conflicting information from the Ramsey County Sheriffls Office, Property Code Enforcement, and Mr. Brisson. Mr. Brisson can talk to the City Council on November 19 at 530 p.m. The Councilmember for this ward was the late Jim Reiter. By November 19, there should be a new councilmember in place. Ms. Moermond has been working with Council President Dan Bostrom on issues affecting Wazd 5. Mr. Brisson can talk with Mr. Bostrom's Office ar someone else. Mr. Brisson responded that he is curious that the law says there has to be an affidavit for the reasons they did what they did. It has been a month and the reasons have not been given to him. If he has to follow laws, they should also. Now, he is being punished for being a drug dealer and he didn't do anythiug. 73 Leech Street; Appeal of Fence Variance Request; owner: Women of Nations Greg Johnson reported that Women ofNations and their neighbar Patrick O'Shaughnessy applied for a fence height variance. Mr. 3ohnson inspected the property. The lots are essentially leveL There is no elevation change. It does not meet the legislative code criteria for unusual terrain conditions. (Mr. O'Shaugnessy submitted photographs.) $ Marcia Moermond asked how high is the existing fence. Mr. O' Shaughnessy responded it is about 5'h to 6 feet. The code is set at 6`h. VJhen looking at the picture, the foundation of the house has risen up from the ground level about 3'h to 4 feet. When he is looking out his dining room window, he is looking at car headlights, people that sit out and smoke, and into the parking lot. There was a tree line of about 15 to 20 trees that were decimitated by dutch elm disease. These trees provided privacy and security. It is fair to say there is a height differential. Both parties mutually benefit. The fence line is between the two properties. It does not create aesthetic design issues for neighbors. The neighbars are in favor of it. Within the condo association which is comprised of three units, they are looking at about $60,000 devaluation by abutting next to a commercial properiy and looking at a parking lot. Mr. O' Shaughnessy stated he has four key reasons why Ms. Moermond should grant the variance: 1) There is a security issue. This is a battered women's shelter. A six foot fence is not enough. When they were putting up the posts this last weekend, one of the women thought it was a good idea because her kids keep hopping over the fence. 2) They are trying to create privacy and a sound barrier. Women o£Nations has people coming and going at all hours. There are people on the back porch talking until late. 3) There is an aspect of aesthetic appeal by not having a metal fence and creating some privacy. 4) The properiy is blocked in by Women of Nations on one side and Bonfe's Auto on another side. They just built a major expansion. Now, they eclipsed a view of the Cathedral. They aze inundated by issues that affect the value of the property. 11 �� l ��� LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES FOR OCTOBER 30, 2003 Page 12 Mr. Johnson stated that when he evaluated the site, he considered all the arguments within the context of whether there was anything unusual about the site. The grades aze IeveL The cars headlights are going to shine into a fence if it is constructed there. As for site lines, the extra 18 inches will not make any difference. Mr. O'Shaughnessy responded he is talking about people on the ground level looking in. Mr. Johnson stated he exauiined the zoning code as to whether or not Women of Narions is zoned as commercial property, in which case it could be a different fence heaght permitted, but Women of Nations is zoned as residential property and it is a residential use. The ordinance applies to residential properiy. He considered things like whether someone could see into his windows, but that is just like kus house, stated Mr. Johnson. If he does not close the vines, people can see into his house. With regard to security, putting up an eight foot fence, when the remainder of the property is surrounded by six foot fence, does not do anything to enhance security because people just go over the lower fence. As for property de-evaluation, Women of Nations existed in that location before Mr. O'Shaughnessy purchased his property. Mr. O' Shaughnessy responded that is true, but there were 20 dutch elm trees that created the privacy issue that went away. Also, he is representing everyone in the condo association. Brian Fitch, Resource Manager at Women of Nations, appeazed and stated they haue a transient population. It would suit them to have a higher fence in the backyard for the simple purposes of getting along with their neighbors and not infringing on their neighbor's privacy. Women of Nations' parking lot can be full and noisy. They tried to take measures to curtail that. This fence will also give their residents a sense of security. Ms. Moermond stated it looks like the properry line that goes from the sidewalk back to the rear of the property. Mr. O' Shaughnessy responded the proposed fence line is really only between the two properties. It will not impact on anyone else. Mr. Johnson stated this is not a unique circumstance in the City. There are multi-family residential properties adjoining single family residential properties in many locations. He regards this as one of the things that is inconvenient about living on 40 foot lots. The intent of the C ordinance is clear. Mr. O' Shaughnessy responded he understands multi-family units, but this not what Women of Nations is. He asked how many tenants are there. Mr. Fitch responded 46. Mr. O' Shaughnessy stated this is 46 people coming and going. Mr. Pitch stated people can stay there from a few days to a month and can come there on the spur of a moment. Ms. Moermond requested details on the fence which will run this side of the yazd and the back of their property. Mr. O'Shaughnessy responded the metal fence in the photo is 5'IZ feet tall. They aze proposing a wood slat vertical fence that is eight feet tall. The variance would add 1'/z feet from the 6'h feet which is what they would do if they were forced to build. ��j' ���� LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES FOR OCTOBER 30, 2003 Page 13 Ms. Moermond asks does it go to the sidewalk. Mr. O' Shaughnessy responded they would like to bring it in line aesthetically with the rest of the fence that goes along the front. Where the ground is graded, they will slowly grow it up until it is eight feet. Ms. Moermond stated it looks like a pedestrian safety concern. Someone could jump out at a person walking by with a solid fence up to a sidewalk that is any height at a1L Mr. Johnson responded the zoning code will pernut it because the fence in question is the rear yard fence. Ms. Moermond responded she will condition the variance so that it is tapered. Mr. Johnson stated they aiready have an existing privacy fence in place that fa11s within the requirements. They are not talking about the corner that Ms. Moermond is concerned with. (Mr. O' Shaughnessy explained on the photographs where the fence would be located.) Mr. O'Shaughnessy stated they will keep in tact the same fence line that is already in place and then grade it as it hits the house. Mr. Johnson stated he could make this clearer by saying the harborage is already there and what is existing is legal. Ms. Moermond stated she will look at the site. The only question in her mind is how it slopes downward, how it meets that, and if there is any length to put in the resolution. She will hy to get it on the November 12 agenda. She will wark with staff to make sure that it makes sense to the person that has to enforce it. Note: a resolution was brought under suspension at the November 5 City Council meeting with the following decision: The fence variance is granted to a11ow an eight foot high privacy fence between 73 Leech Street and 199 McBoal Street starting at the front of the properties where the new fence will start at six feet and meet the existing six foot fence, the new fence will gradually increase until it is eight feet tail, and the new fence will end 138 feet back. The hearing was adjourned at 3:45 p.m. rrn