Loading...
03-192Council File # C � �l_C� y Green Sheet # 200569 Presented Referred To Committee Date BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the February 11, 2003, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals for Letters of Deficiency, Correction Orders, Conection Notices, and Sunmiary Abatement Orders for the following addresses: Propertv Ap eu aled 2252 Falcon Avenue (Rescheduled from 1-28-03) (withdrawn) Ak elp lant Judy Martinez 763 Minnehaha Avenue West Leslie Lucht Decision: 1) Variance granted on the height of the front room in the basement on the following condition: only people 5'6" or shorter should live in that space. This variance is only effective for the duration of Elizabeth and Leslie LuchYs ownership. 2) A sign is added to the outside of the side entry door stating "Caution, Narrow Landing, Steep Stairs." 3) The building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with a11 applicable codes and ordinances. 1554 Bush Avenue Jaime Dela Torre Decision: Appeal denied on Vehicle Abatement Order dated January 28, 2003. RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA a� 469 Whitall Street Kevin R. Johnson (withdrawn) Green Sheet 200569 03 -19 a. Yeas Na s Absent Benanav � Blakey ✓ Bostrom � Coleman � Harris � Lantry Reiter �/ � \ Requested by Department of. � Form Approved by CiTy Attorney � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � Adopted by Council: Date �_� �..C °� o p 3 C5� ..1R 1 OFPARTMINflOFFICElCWNC�L oATEIxRWiED � City Council Offices February 11, 20 3 GREEN SHEET NO 200569 C0�ITACT F92SON& PFIONE InM1aWri In� Marcia Moermond, 266=5560 oF...,�rowrs�ra� rnrcarnz MUST 8E ON COUNCILAGENDA BY (OA7� I�SS�GN M�FOR anAiioR1EY ❑attClixlt - ROU7IHC. �� wt�11C14LaENMCFioYt ❑ n1411C1i1LaFRYIKCTo ❑ WmrtloRnamt�up ❑ TOTAL # OF S(GNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR S(GNATURE) CTION REQUESTm Approving the February 11, 2003, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals for Letters of Deficiency, Correction Notices, Correction Orders, and Summary Abatement Orders for the following addresses: 2252 Falcon Avenue, 763 Minnehaha Avenue West, 1554 Bush Avenue, and 469 Whitall Street. RECOMMENDqTION Approve (A) or Reject (R) PERSONALSERVICE CONiRAC75 MUSTANSWER iHE FOLLOWING QUf57ION5: t. H� this person/firtn ever vrorked under a conhact for this depaRmerit') PtANNINGCOMMISSION VES NO CIBCOMMITTEE 2. Hasthispereavfirmeverbeenacilyempbyee9 CIVILSERVICECAMMISSION vES No 3. Does fhis Pe��rm DD�� a sldli not iwm�alb0��ed M' anY wrteM cilY emWoyee? YES NO 4. Is Mis peisoMrm a tarp�etl venrbYl YES NO F�qflain all�yes answers on sepeiate sheet aM attach to 9reen sheet INITIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNI7Y (Who, What, When, Where. Why) ADVANTAGESIFAPpROVED DISADVANTAGES IFAPPROVED DISAWANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED TOTAL AMOUMT OF TRANSACTION S COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDIN6 SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORMpiION (IXPWN) o� -��a- NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTIONS ORDERS, CORREC'ITONS NOTICES, AND SUNIMARY ABATEMENT ORDERS Tuesday, Febniary 11, 2003 Room 330 Courthouse Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 1:40 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Officer Dean Koehnen, Police Department (assigned to Code Enforcement); Lisa Martin, Code Enforcement 2252 Falcon Avenue (Rescheduled from 1-28-03) Mazcia Moermond stated that the correction order has been withdrawn per an e-mail from Craig Mashuga (Code Enforcement) indicating a plan has been worked out. (withdrawn) 118 Litchfield Street Lisa Martin reported that she is not sure why this issue is being appealed. Back in November, Mr. Steinhauser had 21 issues on a Correction Order. All of them ha�e been taken care of, and he has done a good job of complying with the orders. Now, he has a tenant who has interior sanitation issues. There was a child at home missing school due to lice. Ms. Martin would like to get back into the unit to inspect and make sure the occupant has cleaned up the conditions of that unit for the safety of her child and herself, and to get them help if they need it. The following appeazed: Frank Steinhauser, owner; Patricia Whitney, attorney for Mr. Steinhauser; and Sarah Anderson, Project Hope, advocate for the tenant. Ms. Whitney explained that the tenant is at wark and the tenant's attorney could not attend because she has another hearing. They aze here because Mr. Steinhauser has been issued a Correction Notice. The only item on the notice is for interior sanitation, which falls under Secfion 34.16 of the Saint Paul City Code. This is not a landlord responsibility, but an occupant responsibility. That is the main reason they have appealed. It is not Mr. Steinhauser's obligation to clean up his tenanYs apartment, but he has received notification and order to do so. On the correction notice, the occupant herself has not been given written notice. It was sent to 188 Litchfield, and that address has nothing to do with 118 Litchfield. It is a violation of the tenant's right to privacy under the state statute if Mr. Steinhauser were to interFere in her basic household without evicting her. The eviction process would take longer than what the City allowed for the cieanup, which is another reason they filed an appeal. Finally, the inspection itself is an issue because neither Mr. Steinhauser nor the tenant gave the City access. The tenant was at work. Ms. Whitney wonders if this is an issue of the City breaking or entering or if they obtained entrance by a minor child. ff the City wanted to deal with Chiid Protection issues, there is a a'� -��a. LEGISLAITVE HEAIZING NOTES FOR FEBRUARY 11, 2003 Page 2 depaztment for that. The only jurisdiction the City has is under Saint Paul City Code 34.16, and they did not follow the requirements of that. Ms. Moermond asked about the original inspecrion. Ms. Martin responded there was a complaint on the property. There were two small children at the property alone being chased by a doberman pinscher. She called auimal control. They contacted the mother at work. Ms. Moermond asked was the doberman pinscher in the yazd at 118 Litchfield. Ms. Martin responded it was ruiming around in the front chasing the four year old and ten year old. The ten yeaz old was at home watching the four year old. After getting the children inside, they contacted the mother at work to discuss the living conditions. They gave her the benefit of a doubt and did not piace the children with Child Protection. They asked her to clean up her unit and put away all medication. Ms. Moermond asked how they obtained access to the unit. Ms. Martin responded the ten year oid who was in control of the property at the time let them in. Ms. Martin had an understanding with the tenant that she would take care of things, and this would not happen again. At that point, Ms. Martin scheduled to come back and do a reinspection. On January 7, they did a reinspection with Mr. Steinhauser who obviously did not inform his attorney that he let them into the unit at that time. He explained to them that the child was home alone and that he had one of his workers working on some of the items there. That is when they found out the little boy was home with lice. Ms. Martin and Mr. Steinhauser had a conversation about the sanitation issues upstairs, and she informed him she would be sending him a copy of the letter, and that she was asking the tenant to clean the interior of her apartment. It was not his responsibility, but she wanted him to know that she would be sending this letter. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Steinhauser if this is consistent with his recollection. Mr. Steinhauser responded no, he was not at the property on January 7. The day they inspected it was Wednesday, December 17, for the sign off on the repairs that were done. Officer Koehnen asked Mr. Steinhauser if they did not physically meet him at the property when the workers were already in the upstairs unit. Mr. Steinhauser responded they were there, but on a different day. Ms. Martin asked did he let them into that unit. Mr. Steinhauser asked is she referring to January 7. Officer Koehnen asked if they met him in front of the properiy where his workers were in the unit, at which time they discussed him having issues with them writing up the correction. Mr. Steinhauser responded he did let them into the apartrnent whenever they came back to inspect. Ms. Whitney added that was December 17, 2002, which was one week after they were at a previous Legislative Hearing on December 7. 03 -� qa. LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES FOR FEBRUARY 11, 2003 Page 3 Officer Koehnen stated he does not believe Ms. Whitney was at the property during the inspection. Ms. Whitney responded that she was not, but she did negotiate via fax the inspection dates. They did not negotiate January 7. Ms. Moermond asked about the tenant working today. Ms. Anderson responded she works from 5 a.m. to about 4:30 p.m. Ms. Moermond asked is the tenant aware that there is a Correcfion Notice to clean up the unit. Ms. Anderson responded yes. She was in the tenant's unit on the day they were out to inspect on December 17. They made the tenant come home from work, but she does not have vacation, sick time, or leave time. She does not get paid for leaving work. She was told what needed to be done. The cop was very rude to her and commented on a toy squirt gun that was on the floor and told her that guns kill. What her children play with is between her and her children, said Ms. Anderson. They told her they would be back to reinspect on that Monday. Her client took that Monday off work to sit at home and wait for them to show up. They never showed up. Her client missed a full day of work. She feels they pushed there way in when her children were at home. She thought her ten yeaz old could be there during the day with her four yeaz old. Since that has happened, the apartment has been cleaned up. Ms. Anderson has been in the unit. It is not spotless, but the tenant is raising three boys and she is single. The three boys are doing whatever they want until their mother gets home. When she gets home, the place is cleaned up. On Saturday, Ms. Anderson did a surprise inspection. Again the house was not spotless, but it was not a filthy mess. Ms. Anderson does not know what it looked like when the inspectors were there, but she was there after the tenant was told to clean it up. As for the pills on the entertainment center, the four yeaz old is usually not there. Her client has a ten year old that needs to be on medication, and she leaves the medication on the entertainment center because he needs to take that pill when he gets home from school in the afternoon. She is not there to give it to him. She did take off all the medication, but she does leave one pill on the entertainment center. Ms. Moermond asked to see the Code Enforcement file and the photos. She is interested in any inspection dates. (A photograph was submitted.) Ms. Martin stated she and Mr. Steinhauser have different dates, but the facts still remain that this is a properiy in which the tenant is in distress and needs some help. Had she known that Ms. Anderson was there to help her, they could have worked with her, but they never heard from her nor the tenant. At this point, Ms. Martin is asking to do a reinspection. The tenant has been told verbally. It does look like there was a mistake made on the notice given to the occupant; 188 Litchfield is a typographical error, but she has had verbal warning since November that the home needed to be cleaned up. Ms. Anderson responded they did not show up for the reinspection, and the tenant complied. The inspectors were there December 17 and said they would be there the following Monday. Ms. Martin responded that Bonnie Frederick (tenant) told her that she would not be home, her son is 24 years old, and there is another roommate. Ms. Martin is not sure os _�qa. LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES FOR FEBRUARY 11, 2003 Page 4 where the other children come in. The child that they met claimed he was the only child there. He was a ten yeaz old named Nicholas. The adults there can help pick up as well as the ten yeaz old. Again, Ms. Martin is asking that they be able to go back in and verify. If it was cleaned up back then, it should stili be clean at this point. Ms. Moermond stated it is unfortunate the occupant address is listed as 188 Litchfield as opposed to 118 Litchfield; however, it is clear from her conversation with Ms. Martin and Officer Koehnen that the tenant was awaze there was a conection order and correction dates. Ms. Whitney responded she knew from the begimiing that Ms. Anderson and Lega1 Aide were representing this client, but they did not inform her until after the expiration of the orders. They never received it. Ms. Moermond asked if she is representing Legal Aide or another organization. Ms. Anderson responded she is a community advocate that puts the homeless back in housing and makes sure they stay in housing. Bonnie is her client that she placed with Mr. Steinhauser. Ms. Anderson is not an attorney, but she is here on behalf of her client. Ms. Whitney added that Ms. Anderson works with Project Home, which is an arm of Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services (SMRLS). Ms. Moermond asked has Bonnie secured the services of SMRLS. Ms. Anderson responded she has. Her client feels she has been harassed. It states on the Conection Notice that they were there on January 7. No one was home. The kids were in school. Those records can be checked. She was in court, and that record can be checked. And she was at work, she punches in and out, and that can be proved. If the inspectors were in there on 7anuary 7, they entered without anyone's permission. Officer Koehnen responded they do not practice breaking into units. Ms. Anderson responded she did not say that they did. Either they went in there without permission or the correction item was what they had seen prior. Either way, that statement is false. Ms. Moermond stated the issue is moot in a way. If the inspection was on December 17, and the reinspection was a week later, she would expect that the conditions were sanitary on January 7 and that it would get clean and stay clean. It appears the conditions did warrant the Correction Notice to be issued. It is the tenant's responsibility to keep the apartment sanitary. There clearly are owner responsibilities for the overall property maintenance. Ms. Moermond denied the appeal. She will handle this in an expedited fashion, so the appeal is concluded at the City Council level, and she can get a reinspection done. Hopefully that can be rescheduled now or in the near future, so everyone is on the same page about when the inspection wiil happen. The inspection should occur when the tenant can be there or could arrange for someone to be present in order to affirm that it is all taken caze of. Since Ms. Anderson is representing the tenant, Ms. Martin suggested setting up a time and date today to do an inspection within the next week. Ms. Anderson responded she cannot do that until she has spoken to Bonnie to see if someone can be at the unit or if there is a day she can go into work later or get off eariy. Ms. Anderson has no problem calling Ms. Martin later. oa -�qa- LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES FOR FEBRUARY 11, 2003 Page 5 Ms. Moermond stated it seems reasonable that this reinspecrion be done within the next seven days. Ms. Moermond's decision is as follows: The appeal is denied. A reinspection will be done by Wednesday, Febiliary 19. �63 Minnehaha Avenue West John Betz reported his office was informed there was a problem in the lower unit, where there was a bedroom in the basement that lacked heat. He inspected the properiy on January 16 and found code violations later. He issued a letter to Leslie or Elizabeth Lucht. Mr. Lucht responded they aze both landlords at the property. Mr. Betz stated the orders were issued and the appeal has been filed. Leslie Lucht, owner, appeared and stated he feels he is being hazassed by his tenant and the City. The list of things cited—a doorbell that doesn't work, a hinge, etc.—could have been addressed by the tenant to him according to the lease agreement. His property has been inspected for the fifth time. The tenant is from Section 8. He did not let her out of her lease, so she talked to Robert McLean (phonetic) to do an inspection in September. The City Council has a letter on file after she said numerous things. Section 8 inspected the property in early August and it passed. She wanted to get out of the lease, and she wanted to contact Mr. Mcl,ean. He cited some things. Section 8 came back, found some damages, made him go through another inspection to fix things. Getting back to the bedroom, stated Mr. Lucht, he filed a permit in 1997. He was told by Section 8 and the City to make sure there is a clothesline, a door, a window, and heat. If the heat was not adequate at that time, the inspector should have said something. He has a copy of the building permit for the window to make it a legal bedroom. An inspector came there, they talked about it, Mr. Lucht told him what the room was going to be used for, and he wanted a permit to make an egress window for a bedroom. He signed off for everything. The inspector made a comment to the tenant that he did not think it was a legal window. He must have done a littie research and found it was a legal window. John Betz responded he did not make any comments. Mr. Lucht stated the tenant made comments to Robert McLean and passed it on to Mr. Lucht. This tenant has filed a sexual harassment claim against him. She says she wants out of the lease and then says she does not want out of the lease. She changed the locks without his permission, and now he gets something from Code Enforcement. He fixed the things that were deemable to fix. He is being cited because the ceiling is not tall enough. He can't raise the floor joists 8'/z inches to accommodate the height requirement to make it a legal bedroom. The City made him prep the site, get it ready for a rough out, and then they asked him why he is doing it. He was told that would be fine as long as he got the window in right, which is what he did. They said that was a legal bedroom at that time. As for the doorway, it was there when he purchased the building. It is there mainly for an exit out of the basement, and not to be used as an entry. The o�-tq�. LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES FOR FEBRUARY 11, 2003 Page 6 tenant took it upon herself to use it as an entry. Because the doorbell does not work, she wants people to come in through the side. They gave her two notices not to do it. If the City wants him to seal the door, then he will seal it, but it is a fire exit for the basement. It is not suppose to be used as an entry. Section 8 says it is a three bedroom. If there was a problem with the ceiling height, they should have told him, and he would not have wasted the money to put the window in. He has three years of leases. Now, he is being told it is a two bedroom unit. Ms. Moermond asked what is the height. Mr. Lucht responded it is about 6'1" or 6'2". The statute for the universal code right now is 7'i l". The inspector quoted 7' which is the next code that comes into play. It would be costly to raise the room. If they have to do that, he and his wife will sell all their properties in Frogtown, and he has so indicated to Andy Dawkins (Code Enforcement) and the Mayor. He has invested over $250,000 in this area. He works full time and manages eight houses. He has warked with the FORCE Unit (Police Department) and the community. Ms. Moermond stated his biggest concern is the height of the ceiling. He has a list of things to be corrected. She asked if the seven foot requirement is City code or State building code. Mr. Betz responded it is the City code. Ms. Moermond stated he could get a waiver from her on the ceiling height if it is under the City's code. Mr. Lucht responded he has an understanding with the tenants in Section 8. Most of his tenants that haue lived there are ten yeazs of age and under. He does not expect an adult to live down there. Ms. Moermond stated Section 8 is the federal program for rent reimbursement. There are two layers of codes he has to deal with. Section 8 can say it is a three bedroom, and the City can say it is a two bedroom. Mr. Lucht responded he understands that. Ms. Moermond asked is he willing to repair the doorbell. Mr. Lucht responded it has been repaired. Only the bedroom and the door are cited on his appeal. He put in a cordless, wireless doorbell. A latch has been put in. The loose gas main has been braced up. He called LTEP (License, Inspection, Environmental Protection) to ask what permits aze needed. They toid him none. The hinge was fixed also. For the basement, an electrician installed an electric regulated space heater. Ms. Moermond asked has this been reinspected. Mr. Betz responded that was the initial inspector. The inspector for this district has been unable to get into the property. He has left a message with the tenant. Mr. Lucht stated if he gets a notice to fix something and it is reasonable, then it is fixed. To raise a basement with all the joists is about three months of work and about $40,000. Ms. Moermond stated she will grant a variance on the bedroom from Chapter 34 to the 6'2" on the following conditions: 1) only people 5'6" shorter should live in that space, 2) would only be 0 7 _�O�s.. LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES FOR FEBRUARY 11, 2003 Page 7 effective for the durarion of Elizabeth and I,eslie LuchYs ownership. In terms of the heating, she would like demonstration that this space is adequately heated and vented. With those conditions on it, the height can be 6'2". Mr. Lucht stated there is the door issue. There is no landing for it. He asked can it be used as an exit. Mr. Betz responded the only reason he cited the door is because if someone enters the door, is not familiar with it, and it is dazk, that person can fall down the basement stairs. The only thing that he considered dangerous is using that door as an entryway. Mr. Lucht responded the tenant said she used it because the doorbell did not work. He could put double latch locks on there, but he would need to get approval through Section 8. Mr. Betz responded the City code doesn't allow them either. Mr. Lucht asked should he boazd up the door. Mr. Betz responded he will leave that up to the Legislative Hearing Officer, but someone will always use the door as a means of entering the dwelling. Ms. Moermond asked is there a hazdwaze fixture that can be used so that is only an exit door. Mr. Lucht responded there is something that can be put on the door. Ms. Moermond stated that it sounds expensive and it is probably better to close off the door. She asked would that unpede the fire department personnel. Mr. Betz responded the bedroom is in the basement and has a legal egress window. Also, he doesn't know if the stairs can be altered to allow for a landing. Mr. Lucht responded he had two carpenters come in and they said there is no way to increase it. This tenant is the only one that uses it as an entrance. Mr. Lucht asked about a note indicating there is no landing. Mr. Betz responded he does not have a problem if it is not being used as an entry door. If there is a fire, it would make it easier for the fire department to get in there. As long as it can open, someone will be using it as an entrance. Ms. Moermond responded it may be a violation of the code to remove the handle from the outside of the door. Mr. Betz responded that most of the ordinances require that a person get out. Mr. Lucht stated to go outside, it would be pushed open. If the door knob is removed, a person could not get in. Ms. Moermond recommended doing that and also putting a sign on the door with a statement about a steep staiitivay so any person would understand about the first step. Also, the removal of the handle on the outside. She asked is that consistent with the building code. Mr. Betz responded the code requires a landing. She can give a variance on the door handle. Chapter 34 that he enforces says that all things that are supplied are suppose to be maintained in the manner in which they were installed. The sign should indicate there is no landing and a person is going right downstairs. Ms. Moermond asked has he consulted any carpenters to find out if doing a landing is a feasible project. Mr. Lucht responded it is feasible, but a heavy structural problem. 03 -.�y} LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES FOR FEBRUARY 11, 2003 Page 8 Ms. Moermond stated she can grant a variance to the City code, but she can't grant it to the state's building code. Mr. Betz responded the landing is part of the building code. Ms. Moermond stated she will tallc to Fire Prevention about this issue and get their advice. Ms. Lucht responded he would be willing to let them come out and look. After consulting with the Fire Department, Ms. Moermond's decision is as follows: 1) Variance granted on the height of the front room in the basement on the following condition: only people 5'6" or shorter should live in that space. This variance is only effective for the duration of Elizabeth and Leslie Lucht's ownership. 2) A sign is added to the outside of the side entry door stating "Caution, Narrow Landing, Steep Stairs." 3) The building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with all other codes and ordinances. 1554 Bush Avenue Marcia Moermond stated she received a phone ca11 about this today. The owner said that the problem has been fixed and he wanted to cancel his appointment today. John Betz reported that he went by there today and the problem has not been fixed. It is exactly the same as it was. Racquel Naylor stated she talked to the owner today. He said he has tabs on two of the vehicles and the third vehicle will be gone soon. She told him that if he does not appear today, then the appeal will be denied. He said that was fine. Ms. Moermond denied the appeal. 469 Whitall Street Marcia Moermond stated that Code Enforcement-Vacant Buildings has closed this file. (Withdrawn) The meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m. firil