No preview available
03-266Council File # �� RESOLUTION ITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented Referred To Date I� BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the March 11, 2003, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals for Letters of Deficiency, Correction Notices, and Summary Abatement Orders for the following addresses: Propertv Appealed Ap eln lant 962 Universitv Avenue West Nghi Huynh, owner Decision: Extension granted to September 30, 2003, to bring the property into compliance as stipulated in the Deficiency List dated February 18, 2003. If the present owner plans to sell the property before September 30, the property will have to be brougj�t into comptiance before it is sold. 2500 Crosby Farm Road (Tunnel of Tenor) John Sassatelli for Saint Paul Jaycees Decision: Extension granted to November 15, 2004, to provide an additional exit on condition that two firefighters will be present during the operation of this business. This property will otherwise be in compliance with all other codes and ordinances �e stipulated in the Deficiency List dated February 10, 2003. 1094 Loeb Street Calvin Burton Decision: Appeal denied on notices dated January 28 and 29, 2003. Yeas Nays Absent Benanav ,/ Blakey ,� Bostrom � Coleman � Harris � Lanhy ,� Reiter ✓ R O �1 Adopted by Adoption C B � Approved b By: Date '` l����Lj � �°�}-O p � Council Secretarv Date Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � Green Sheet # 200572 o3•a�b DFPARTMINT/OFFICEfCOUNCIL DATE INrt1pTEp c�t Council Offices March 12, zoos GREEN SHEET No 200572 COMACT PERSON & PHONE NqylDal� InMlalmale Marcia Moermond, 266-8560 or..n�ro.�ECra� arccov,ra. MUST BE ON COUNCI� AGENDA BY (DAT� A9&GN NUMBERFIXt tliYATroRlEY CrtYCIiRK ROIfi1NG �� wll111tlu.fFxu�CFioYt FWIlC114LaERV/meia ❑ WWR(OR�iLRYR) ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) CTION RE�UES7m Approving the March 11, 2003, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals for Letters of Deficiency, Correction Notices, and Summary Abatement Orders for the following addresses: 962 University Avenue West, 2500 Crosby Earm Road, 1094 Loeb Street. RECAMMENDATION Approve (A) or Rejeet (R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACfS MUSiANSWERTNE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: 1. Hasth�persa�rmeverworkedunderacoMradforthisdepartmeM'7 PLANNING CAMMISSION VES NO CIB COMMtTTEE 2. Has mia persoMirm ever been a cay empwyce9 CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION VES NO 3. Doet this personlfirtn possess a slall not normallypossessed by any curtent dry employee? VES NO 4. Is Mis persorvF�m a taipeted vendoYt � YES NO F�lain all Yes answeis on se7a�ete sheet aM attacti to 9reen sheet INITIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORNNITV (Who, Wha[, When, Where, Why) g •, _, " {' ' ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED Council Research Cent�r � MAR 1 � 2003 - , - DISADVANTAGES IFAPPROVED � \ ' e � _ ` �' � ,.r .,°s9.scr'lo-v1a��� _�-.Nw3„`. k DISADVAMAGESIFNOTAPPROVED �_ .-.. ..� �. ^°��"�^'.-^"'-.'" .. TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION f COST/REVENUE BUD6ETED (CIRCLE ON� YES NO FUNDINC SOURCE ACTNITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORMAiION (IXPWN) c�3 zt�c� ��. NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES, AND CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, Mazch 11, 2Q03 Room 330 City Hall, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 135 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Joe Buzicky, Parks and Recreation; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement; Phil Owens, Fire Prevention; Steve Zaccazd, Fire Marshall 962 Universit�Avenue West Nghi Huynh, owner, appeazed and stated ABC Properties owns this building. It has two restrooms. The common restrooms have to be shared. There has been a complaint that one unit blocks the door so the other tenant cannot use the restroom. Whenever the Asian Community Health Center opens, they have the right to open the restrooms, therefore, providing another restroom is unnecessary because of the agreement between the tenant and the property owner. The inspector gave him a letter, and he showed the inspector the lease. Also, Mr. Huynh brought two copies of the lease relating to the restroom. Phil Owens reported this is a 5,000 square foot building with three tenants: two doctor's offices and one community center. Fire Prevenrion has received at least three complaints from people who use or occupy the building that the community center has no restroom facilities when the doctors' offices are closed. The agreement referred to by the owner has not been confirmed by the lease holders to City staff. One of the lease holders indicates that when they are gone, the offices aze locked, and the people in the community center have no access to restroom facilities, which precipitated complaints that people have no place to go to the restroom other than outside on occasion. An inspector issued orders to come into compliance with Saint Paul Legislative Code Chapter 34 as well as Buiiding Code Chapter 2905, which requires restroom facilities in a community space. Marcia Moermond asked are both restrooms accessible only through the doctors' offices. Mr. Owens responded there is a restroom available in each doctor's office, but when those offices are closed, they are not available. The information that was given was that the doctors' offices are closed, locked, and secure; therefore, there is no access to the restrooms. There seems to be some debate as to if the community center can use the restroom facilities when the offices are open. Mr. Hunyh stated the front entrance, side entrance, walkway, and the restroom haue to be common areas as specified in the lease. The clinic in the back hallway has a key. When they open the clinic, they open that restroom. The chiropractor in front opens that restroom. (Mr. Hunyh showed Ms. Moermond copies of the leases indicating that spaces, such as the restrooms and entryways, are considered to be shared.) O3-�� NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING FOR MARCH 11, 2003 Page 2 Ms. Moermond asked would the community center staff have a key to hand to people. Mr. Hunyh responded yes or they open it. Mr. Owens stated the code requires that the restrooms aze available in the facility. It is his understanding that they aze not. There is a secondary issue that the center is being marketed and this is becoming a buyer-seller issue. The seller says everythiug is okay and the buyer says it is not, although Fire Prevention did not want to become involved in real estate issues. Mr. Hunyh stated this issue is not related to buying. The buyer is trying to create a problem. A certificate of occupancy has been issued for several yeazs. There is no reason that now there is a problem. These lease happened in February 2000. Both sides have already cleazed this issue. He can prove that the restrooms are shared by the two tenants. The three complaints are not from the customers but from the person and his lawyer who tried to buy the building. This person had 24 violations in the City of Fridley. He is trying to make problems. It is not relevant to the buying and selling. There are no complaints from the customers. Ms. Moermond stated two codes have been cited here. One can be dealt with at this hearing and the other cannot. If she were to grant a vaziance, she could only grant it to the Saint Paul legislative code. She cannot grant vuiances to the building code. Mr. Hunyh responded the clinic is now closed due to financial trouble. There are no customers. Ms. Moermond asked is there always restroom access. Mr. Hunyh responded he has the key. Ms. Moermond stated the origin of the complaint does not matter to the City, but whether the complaint is substantiated and if the owner is in violation of the code. There should be a restroom space available for more hours and consistently. She can recommend granting a variance from the City requirement until the building is fully occupied again. If he wants to lease that space, he will have to haue restroom space available for all three of the businesses. Mr. Owens stated a11 three businesses were open when he was there. Ms. Moermond responded that her understanding is one of the offices is closed and vacant at this time. Mr. Hunyh responded it is not vacant yet, but there is no operation of the business. Ms. Moermond asked was the space still being occupied even though the business is not operating on a daily basis. Mr. Hunyh responded yes. Mr. Owens stated he would not have an objection to a reasonable extension of time to comply. He suggested six months. Mr. Hunyh agreed. Mr. Owens stated he would like to stipulate that this issue would move forward if the building is sold. Mazcia Moermond granted an extension to September 30, 2003, to bring the property into compliance as stipulated in the Deficiency List dated February 18, 2003. If the present owner d3=Zbb NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING FOR MARCH 11, 2003 Page 3 plans to sell the properiy before September 30, the properiy will have to be brought into compliance before it is sold. 2500 Crosby Farm Road (Tunnel of Terror) The following appeared: Quin Kolb, 1345 Highsite Drive, #114, Eagan, President of Saint Paul Jaycees; and David Crrounds, 444 Cedaz Street #1500, Legal Counsel for the Saint Paul Jaycees. (Mr. Grounds submitted a booklet to Marcaa Moermond and Steve Zaccard.) Mr. Grounds stated this booklet was just prepared today, and Steve Zaccard has not had a chance to see it. They are here on an appeal of an order by the Saint Paul Fire Marshall requiring an additional fire exit in the Tunnel of Terror. They are not disputing the need for the exit, but the time that is required to do the engineering study, the estimates, and to hire a crew to make the exit. Mr. Grounds talked previously with the fire inspector and is requesting a one year variance. In the meantime, they will hire some firefighters when the Tunnel of Terror is operating until they get the exit installed by near year's run. Steve Zaccard reported they have 250 people in this Tunnel of Terror. By the fire and building codes, a place of assembly of 50 or more people has to have at least two exits. People could be as far back as 300 feet into this cave away from the entrance they came in. He would like to see an additional exit before they use the facility this fa11. It is a distinct hazard and he is concerned with oniy one way in and out. If they were granted an extension of time, one or two firefighters on watch should be a condition of granting an extension of time. Still, he would argue for the exit. Mr. Grounds stated they do not want to dig another exit tunnel that collapses on itsel£ They have hired an engineering firm, but they have not had time to give a visual inspection. That will take at least six months. Then, it wili be a matter of hiring a firm that will do the excavation of the property. They have had contact with an excavator who has given them preliminary estimates between $75,000 and $150,000. The City of Saint Paul owns the property, but they have no money to help in this endeavor. If they are not allowed a vaziance, the Tunnel of Terrar will be shut down. It has been in its existence for 22 years. It provides funding for a number of charities, which are listed in the book. The book also contains letters of support from those charities. Mr. Kolb stated there is a lot to lose if this is shut down. He read in the paper that Mayor Randy Kelly wants organizations like theirs to take on the recreations centers for which he has cut funding. They are not able to do that if they cannot keep their chapter numing. Mr. Cnounds stated they have obtained a fire code expert, who is also at this hearing. This Fire Prevention inspection came at a result of the Jaycees own initiative. They have been rumiing this Tunnel of Terror for 22 years. All the discussions in the past have been oral and nothing was in writing in order for them to know the tunnel is safe. 03-� NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE AEARING FOR MARCH 11, 2003 Page 4 Ms. Moermond asked were two firefighters sufFicient to ensure the ordexly evacuation if necessary. Mr. Zaccazd responded it does not ensure that, but it should mitigate the need for a mass evacuation. If firefighters using their portable extinguishers can fight a fire in its incipient state, then there would not be a need for a mass evacuation; however, it does not guazantee any particular result. A fiirther condition should be to comply with the rest of the correction orders they were issued before they open this fa1L Mr. Grounds responded that is not an issue. Ms. Moermond asked is this okay with Pazks and Recreation. Joe Buzicky responded it is okay. Ms. Moermond stated she will grant a three-year variance provided that when they are in operation, two firefighters will be present. This is with the understanding that the other items in the deficiency letter will be addressed. Mr. Zaccard responded he does not think it will take three years. Ms. Moermond responded she heazs six months to do the engineering, and they probably won't dig next winter, which means maybe they will dig next yeaz if the funding is together. She was trying to put some flexibility into it. Mr. Zaccard stated he would prefer a ruling before the business opens in 2004. They would have six months to evaluate and then all next spring and summer to excavate and construct before they open in October 2004. Ms. Moermond responded she will split the difference. Ms. Moermond granted an extension to November 15, 2004, to provide an additional exit on condition that two firefighters will be present during the operation of this facility. The property will otherwise be in compliance with all other codes and ordinances as stipulated in the Deficiency List dated February 10, 2003. 1094 Loeb Street Calvin Burton, owner, 362 Ruthie Lane, Hudson, Wisconsin, appeared and stated the work orders ha�e been taken caze o£ The property was registered vacant due to a water meter that was broke, and the gas was off. There was no tenant there and no complaints at the property far quite some time. One issue was linoleum. He thought it needed cleaning a little better. The inspector was going to show up one day. They waited three hours at the one properiy. The inspector called and said he would be a haif hour late. They waited another three hours, and then the inspector called and said one of the tenants had hepatitis and tYae inspector would not be able to make it there. They could not turn the heat on until an Orstat Test was done, and they could not get the Orstat Test done until the gas was turned on. In the meanfime, the water meter broke. A tenant was ready to move in on Section 8 and had belongings already there. Ms. Moermond stated it is not clear to her whether he is appealing the condemnation or the vacant building registration notice, but she thinks he is appealing the registration. Mr. Burton responded he is appealing both. Steve Magner reported this property was inspected by Lisa Martin (Code Enforcement) on November 20, 2002. At that time, a suuimary abatement was issued for exterior violations, primarily storage in the yard. An inspection was conducted in December and numerous additional violations were identified. A correction notice was issued and the owner failed to get �� Z�o� NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING FOR MARCH i l, 2003 Page 5 compliance. Code Enforcement then issued a condemnation, which is standazd procedure. The buiiding was condemned on January 28, 2003, and the properry was placarded. When a building is unoccupied and condemned, it meets the definition of a registered vacant building. On the 28�', the vacant building inspector opened a file. Another summary abatement was issued for gazbage and securing the building. They received a phone call from one of the owners. The owner on record with Ramsey County is Ann and Rodney Burton. Based on common lrnowledge, Rodney and Ann aze Calvin's brother and sister-in-law. Code Enforcement did not hear anything from any of the Burtons until the appeal was received. The appeal was taken 30 days after the date of the nofices. Mr. Magner would request that the properiy is brought up to code before occupancy is allowed based on the condemnation. He is looking for the code compliance inspection to be completed and permits pulled. The condemnation would be lifted after the work is done and legal occupancy is allowed. Ms. Moermond asked does he have a problem going through the code compliance inspection process. Mr. Burton responded that was not justified. The refuse was on the front porch in bags on a chair or couch. There was a tenant ready to move in. The new tenant needed belongings out of there and took the window off. He put a new storm and screen in there afterwazds. The kitchen floor had two holes that he patched. The other thing was windows, doors, and screens. The sanitation problem was due to things on the front porch. Those were the only items. They put new storms and screens on many of the windows that needed them. The kitchen floor was taken care o£ He contemplated appealing that because it was an expensive linoleum and it was installed not too long ago. Ali the items on the list have been taken care of. He thought if it was registered vacant for 30 days, then he had to go through the code compliance. The tenant was on Section 8. He does not see the legitimacy of paying to go through a code compliance of six things that he considers minor. Ms. Moermond asked about a 30 day policy for code compliance. Mr. Magner responded that is strictly for the payment of fees. He has 30 days to return the vacant building registration form and pay the fees. His office would have no problem giving him another 30 days to bring the building into compliance and holding off the enforcement of the fees, but they are concerned with the condition of this property since it has frozen and they believe there is more than one leak. They would like to see a code compliance inspection completed on this property. Code Enforcement has a long history with Mr. Burton going back to 1993. The City should not be in charge of managing his property, such as issuing him orders to maintain the yard. Since November, inspectors have been out to this properiy on 13 occasions. Mr. Burton stated Section 8 does a tharough inspection. He is not going to let water ruin his buildings. He has good tenants and very seldom has a tenant call the City. These people are homeless and staying temporarily in another place. They shouid be able to move into the property. The house was rewired. There was a new meter installed. Mr. Magner stated they could register the building today and the fee could be held off if that is what Ms. Moermond would like to do. Ms. Moermond responded it sounds like Code Enforcement would do that on their own without her recommendation because that is their policy. C�3-�2,.b� NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING FOR MARCH ll, 2003 Page 6 Ms. Moermond denied the appeal on the 7anuary 29, 20Q3, notices. She is concemed that the building has been frozen. In addition to the requirements of the Section 8 program, the City code needs to be met. Mr. Magner added that if the following is done within 30 days, the owner does not have to pay the vacant building registration fee: the code compliance inspection is completed, all the work is done from the inspection report, and the code compliance certificate is issued. J0207AAAAA Property clean-up at 2168 Minnehaha Avenue East. J0205VVVV Towing of a6andoned vehicle at 2168 Minnehaha Avenue East. (This appeal was laid over from the this morning's hearing to accommodate the owner's schedule. There are two suuunary abatements: the clean-up is $448.50 and the tow is $457.05.) Steve Magner reported he does not have the videotape with him. This was a summary abatement to remove a refrigerator, paint cans, pails, vehicle doors, and debris azound the house. The order was mailed on July 30, 2002, with a compliance date of August 6. A recheck was done on August 9. Parks and Recreation completed the work on August 21. They removed a refrigerator, 5 gallon pails, vehicle doors, and debris around the garage for $448.50. Mazcia Moermond asked was this his home and was it condemned in June. Mr. Luedtke responded yes to both questions. Ms. Moermond stated the City came out in July and wrote up the problems on the exterior informing the owner to clean it up ar the City will. Steve Magner added that July 26 was the day the inspection was conducted. A summary abatement order was issued to Fred Commers at 1320 Medora Drive, Mendota Heights and to James D. Luedtke at 2168 Minnehaha Avenue East. Ms. Moermond asked did he talk to them about the cleanup. Mr. Luedtke responded he called a couple of times to no avail. He would get a retum call at 9:00 a.m. and that was about it. Ms. Moermond asked did he appeal the orders back in July. Mr. Luedtke responded he got a letter about paint cans, brush, etc. He did not realize the City would come out with five people, two armed police offices, break and enter, trespass, destroy his property, destroy his fence, push his Cadillac around with the Bobcat, and put deep ruts ttu�oughout his backyard. The City stole his work truck because he did not have $38 worth of tabs on it. Mr. Magner stated there was also a work order on a Chevy pickup truck. It had August 2000 plates. It would meet the definition of an abandoned motor vehicle according to state law 90 days after the tab expires. (Mr. Magner showed Ms. Moermond photographs of the cleanup. Mr. Luedtke looked at the photographs also.) Ms. Moermond stated he got the orders, he tried to call a couple of times, he was not available when they called back, and the City did the cleanup as the abatement order said they would. She asked did he file an appeal on the orders at that time. Mr. Luedtke responded no. ���� NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE F3EARING FOR MAIZCH 11, 2003 Page 7 When he first got the order, stated Ms. Moermond, that would haue been the point when they discuss was it right, wrong, and what the City should take. Now, it looks like the bill is for 1%z hours of work. She will recommend that the City Council deny the appeal far the assessments. There is someone from Real Estate here that can make arrangements for payments more reasonable. Mr. Luedtke responded that sounds good, but he asked about getting reimbursed for the smoke house that was stolen off the properry, his work truck, the gate that was wrecked, and the yazd destroyed. Ms. Moermond responded he needs to go to the Office of Risk Management and file a claim against the City. Mr. Luedtke asked were there any photographs taken of the yard with ruts or the Cadillac creased. Ms. Moermond responded there is a photograph showing some rutting. Mr. Luedtke asked was all this legal with breaking and entering and destroying the property for no good reason. Mr. Magner responded he would not put it in that realm. The City issued a legal notice which would be a suminary of an abatement, in which they declared the property to be a nuisance. Mr. Luedtke stated the City generated a bill of over $700 for a$70 tab issue over a truck with a flat tire. � � Mr. Magner asked did he reclaim the vehicle at the Impound Lot. Mr. Luedtke responded he did not know who had it. Mr. Magner stated he had a conversation with one of the inspectors who said that he had spoken to Mr. Luedtke and specifically indicated the vehicle was impounded. Ms. Moermond recommends approval of both assessments. This will be a public hearing before the City Council on March 26 and he can address the Council at that time. (Note: Racquel Naylor mailed the owner a claim application on March 11.) The meeting was adjourned at 2:42 p.m. r�:�