Loading...
03-676Council File # �(p Presented Referred To Committee Date BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the July 8, 2003, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals for Letters of Deficiency, Corrections Notices, and Correction Orders for the following address: ProperC�ppealed Anpellant 880 Juno Avenue Karen A. Flynn Decision: Laid over to January 13, 2004, to allow the owner time to reduce the number of violations as stipulated on the Correction Notice dated June 12, 2003. Yeas Nays Absent Benanav . ,/ Blakey �/ Bostrom �/ Coleman ,� Harris � Lantry ✓ Reiter ,/ RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Green Sheet # 3002460 �, Requested by Department oE � Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � Adopted by Council: Date Green Sheet Green Sheet _ �_. �3��, Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � DeparhnerM/office/council: Date IniGated: co -�a��il ����-03 Green Sheet NO: 3002460 Confad Person & Phone- Deoartrnent Sent To Person InitiaWate Marcia Mcermond � 0 uncil 266-8560 q��yn 1 Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number Z For Routing 3 Order 4 5 Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for SignaWre) Action RequesMd: Approving the July 8, 2003, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on an Appeal of a Correction Notice for 880 Juno Avenue. Recommertdations: Approve (A) or Rejeci (R): Personal Service Contrects Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this personffirm ever worked under a contract for this tlepartment? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No � 3. Does this person/firm possess a skitl not normalty possessed by any � current city employee? Yes No Ezplain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): AdvantageslfApproved: DisadvanWStes If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of CosHRevenue Budgeted: Transaction: Funding Source: � AdiviW Number: � � Financiai Information: (Explain) � O� � (o �s _ NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING LEGISLATIVE HEARING FOR LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES, AND CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, July 8, 2003 Room 330 City Hall, 15 West Kellogg Boulevazd Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 134 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Steve Magner, Code Enforcement 880 Juno Avenue Steve Magner reported that on April 11, 2003, Inspector Lisa Martin was at an adjoining property, and Mr. Magner advised her to look at the gazage at 880 Juno. Inspector Martin looked at the garage and issued a Correction Notice to Karen Flynn at 880 Juno Avenue. The order read that "All gazage and accessory structures must be in sound condition and secure from unauthorized enhy. Repair or replace any missing doors, windows or hardware for same." It also read to "Repair or remove dangerous garage, which is leaning." On May 27, there was no compliance. Around that time, Code Enforcement received a phone call from Ms. Flynn indicating she thought she had completed the repairs necessary to the garage. Mr. Magner said he would look at the garage and get back to her. On June I 1, Mr. Magner looked at the garage, found that it had a dilapidated roof, and the asphalt siding was damaged, torn, and deteriorated. Marcia Moermond asked about another Conection Notice. Mr. Magner responded it was his impression that the properry owner was not clear as to what was needed to completely rehabilitate the garage to minimum standazds. He said he would look at it, which he did, and issued a new Correction Notice dated June 12, 2003, which indicated the following deficiencies: 1) The roof is deteriorated and defecrive. Replace the roo£ 2) The siding is damaged; torn and in a state of disrepair. Repair or replace. 3) The eaves and soffits are in a state of disrepair or deterioration. Repair all defects, holes, breaks, loose or rotting boards, to a professional state of maintenance. Permit may be required. 4) The vehicle doors are deteriorated with holes and ill fitting. Repair the doors or replace. 5) All wood surfaces need to have protective covering. Properly scrape-paint all exposed wood surface. Karen A. Flynn, owner, appeared and stated she is appealing the Correction Nofice dated June 12, 2003. She received the original Correction Notice dated April 14, 2003, and contacted Inspector Martin on April 16. The gazage was leaning, but that was because it was in bad condition when she purchased the home. She received assistance from the City to purchase the home, and the City did not have any problems with the home or garage at that point. The wall had been braced and was not going to move. A storm that came through a few years ago, put another garage in the street, but Ms. Flynn's garage did not move. Ms. Moermond asked when the property was purchased. Ms. Flynn responded 1996. Inspectar Martin informed her the garage still needed to be repaired or removed. Ms. Flynn stated she was O`� - �o� �o NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEAIZING OF JiJLY 8, 2003 Page 2 not handy, and had no idea of scope they were ta.lkiug about and that she thought repair or remove was vague. She asked to be referred to a building code inspector who could inspect the gazage and inform her what needed to be done. Ms. Martin put her in touch with Jim Seeger (Office of License, Inspections, Environmental Protection), and he met her at the properiy on April 18. Ms. Flynn indicated to him that she planned to replace the garage in a few years and that it functioned as a gazden shed. She asked what she could do minimally to make this right. Her intentions were to put forth a good faith effort to do it right the first time so that she would not receive a subsequent notice. She wrote down what he told her needed to be done. He gave her an approxunate price of what needed to be done and that she should do the following: jack up the gazage by the side that was leaning, pour a concrete floor because the garage sits on dirt, buy treated lumber, drill holes through the lumber, anchor them using a particular material, trim off the bottom of the wa11, push the wall back in, and nail it to the new fitting or foundation. She told Mr. Seeger that she needed to await her parents return from Florida. Ms. Flynn then contacted Ms. Martin to say she wanted an extension of time, she had a plan, but was not sure of the time frame. Ms. Martin sent a return e-mail asking for a plan and a tune frame. Ms. Flynn ouUined the plan and said her father was trying to get in touch with a structural engineer. Ms. Martin's response was that it sounds great. In an e-mail dated May 14, Ms. Flynn let her know the shuctural engineer was coming on Friday. Ms. Flynn left a voice mail for Ms. Martin after Memorial Day and informed her the property was ready for inspection. Ms. Martin inspected the property on June 2 without Ms. Flynn's knowledge. On June 11, Ms. Martin sent an e-mail that the garage was upright and that the garage doars needs to be reroofed and the garage doors painted. Ms. Flynn was confused because the original notice did not have these violations. Mr. Seeger told her the garage looked to be shucturaliy sound and the roof interior showed no sign of leakage. She contacted Ms. Martin and explained her fiustration because Mr. Seeger had not indicated any of these things and the whole intent of having him fhexe was to figure out whaf to do. He had indicated if would be $200 for the lumber. She thought it would be worth the funds to keep the garage. Ms. Martin's first response was the garage should have been tom down, stated Ms. Flynn. That upset Ms. Flynn because the Conection Notice said repair or remove. Ms. Flynn indicated that if Ms. Martin wanted it removed, then it should only haue said remove. Ms. Martin indicated that Mr. Magner had been with her at the time of the inspection and that Ms. Flynn could call him. Ms. Flynn called Mr. Seeger and asked if he had been the supervisor with her and he said no. That was confusing to Ms. Flynn. She told him she was concerned about the additional instructions. Mr. Seeger stated he would go to the properry, look at it again, and let her know his findings. She asked to be notified so that she could be there. Mr. Seeger called the next day, said he had been out to the property, and thaY he was issuing her another Correction Notice. Ms. Flynn said she had complied with the original Correction Notice. She would like to note that when she compiained to Mr. Magner and asked him how many of the Correction Norices had been issued to garages in the area, he indicated the only reason she had received the Correction Notice was because he was at an adjoining property. That made her feel discriminated against. ��-�� � NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF NLY 8, 2003 Page 3 She asked Mr. Magner where he was getting the authority for all of this and how he had the right to inspect the property while she was not there. He said the authority came from Cbapter 34 which gives the inspectars the authority to inspect. She asked where she could find it, and he said it was on the web page. Ms. Flynn read from the following chapters: Chapter 34.08(5) Accessory Structures: "All accessory structures including, but not limited to, detached garages, sheds and fences, shall be maintained structurally sound and in good repair. All exterior wood surfaces, other than decay-resistant woods, shall be protected from the elements and decay by paint which is not lead-based paint or by other protective covering or treatment. Service doors to residential garages shall be provided with securing locks." Chapter 34.083 Initial Exterior Inspection by Enforcement Officer: "When an enforcement officer conducts an initial inspection of an exterior property azea and deternunes that violations of secfion 34.08 exist, the enforcement officer shall, in addition to any other action the enforcement officer may undertake, serve written notice of the violation in conformance with the requirements set forth in secfion 34.21 of this chapter. The initial notice must contain a notice of warning informing the owner that subsequent exterior properry area inspections at that same location within the next consecutive twelve (12) months may be deemed an excessive consumption of exterior inspection services and that the owner may be liable for an exterior inspection services fee." Chapter 34.09(1) Foundations, wa11s, roof and other exterior surfaces: "Every foundation, exterior wall, roof and all other exterior surfaces shall be maintained in a professional state of maintenance and repair." Chapter 34.09(1)e: "The roof shall be tight, impervious to water and have no defects which admit water or dampness to the interior of the building. No building roof shall be used for starage ,. of any materials, things or objects unless approved by the enforcement officer." Ms. Flynn stated to Mr. Magner that the roof did not leak, and there is no indication of water leakage. He stated the asphalt had failed and the point of replacing the roof is to contain the problem before it happens rather than after. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Flynn what she was looking for. Ms. Flynn responded relief from further proceedings. She would like the dismissal of this Conection Notice. She wouid like the garage to stay as is or a compliance date of two years from now to replace the garage. Or, she would like to minimally be reimbursed for what she spent to repair the garage so that she may use those funds to get a dumpster to remove the garage. Ms. Flynn feels she made a good faith effort. She was misled ar not given enough information. She complied with the first Correction Notice, which should have negated the need for the second Correction Notice. �� �� � NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF JLTLY 8, 2003 Page 4 Regarding the excessive consumption of Code Enforcement services, stated Ms. Moermond, it has not been enforced for a while. It has not been mentioned because it is not being done. As for discriinination in how the inspection came to be, almost all of the inspections as a City would be complaint-based. Somebody has called and said it is a problem. When an inspector is out at a complaint, the City Council has encouraged inspectors to look both ways. If there is something else that should be cited and if they have tnne, they should cite it. Most of the inspectors do not have time. Ms. Moermond is not hearing that Ms. Flynn was singled out. Ms. Moermond stated they cannot take back an inspection and a finding. They can only do more. She does not know if Mr. Seeger thought he was giving Ms. Flynn information on the soundness of the structure in terms of its leaning or if he was giving information on the entire situation. The items listed in the April 14 Correction Notice could reasonably include the items listed in the June 12 Correction Notice. It does not really matter. There is an August 5 deadline in the new letter. It sounds like the garage is lined up again, sound, and connected to the foundation. Ms. Flynn responded she does not have a problem with painting and scraping wood. She can hy to repair the asphalt siding, which had a couple of tears. She would tear the garage down before she would reroof because that is going beyond her capabilities financially, knowledge-wise, and physically. Her dad could help her, but her mother just had open heart surgery. Ms. Moermond asked are there any notes about Mr. Seeger's inspection. Mr. Magner responded there aze no notes that Inspector Martin had a conversation with Mr. Seeger. Mr. Magner had a conversation with Mr. Seeger on June 11 about correspondence or interaction with Ms. Flynn. Mr. Seeger said that he was advising her on how to stabilize the garage so it would be structurally sound. Mr. Magner asked further did he make any statements to the fact that anything else needed to be done as far as maintenance. Mr. Seeger said no. Mr. Magner told Mr. Seeger that existing built structure, unless otherwise ordered by Code Compliance, fall under the domain of Code Enforcement. Mr. Seeger said he understood that. Mr. Magner stated Code Enforcement is not picking on anyone. Evidently, there is a breakdown in communication between what Ms. Martin and Ms. Flynn thought needed to be completed. It seems Ms. Flynn thought if she stabilized the garage, that is enough to satisfy the intent of the ordinance. Ms. Martin indicated that is not enough to meet the minimum of the ordinance. It is Mr. Magner's responsibility to call out these items that are noted, specifically the paint and the door. He is not here to give Ms. Flynn financial advice as to what to do. Mr. Magner believes she can still meet the minimum requirements of the ordinance and the orders by making the repairs to the buiiding and still having the functional structure she can use until she feels she wants to move on. Mr. Magner stands by his orders as written. It is ultunately the recommendation of the Council that determines that either way. As he has been here for 14 years, it is standard practice to issue orders on garages like this. There also was a concern with the roo£ The shingles need to be brought into compliance. To hire a contractor to reroof the garage would be expensive, but there are other ways to repair the roof subsequent to shingling. �� �� � NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF JLTLY 8, 2003 Page 5 Ms. Flynn stated she appreciates the information that Mr. Magner has provided her regazding other roofing materials that are available. She does not know how to get specifics on what he is referring to. Mr. Magner responded she could check with local community development corporations. She could also speak to someone at the West Seventh Federarion. There aze community groups that help people who meet the financial criteria. Ms. Flynn stated she is an 18 yeaz employee with the State of Minnesota. She took a pay cut of about $500 a month as a result of budget cuts. She would like that to be taken into consideration. Ms. Moermond stated it seems that everyone is operating in good intentions. This is an honest misunderstanding. What she sees in the June 12 Correction Notice is an expansion of the earlier notice, clarifying the issue, which added more items to the list. It is Code EnforcemenYs job to point these things out. When Mr. Seeger is called in, it is usually when he is called to go through a building and determine all the things that need to be done to bring it into compliance with a11 the relevant codes. He is a specialist at doing these things. Ms. Moermond is sorry that confusing information was given. It seems the leaning dangerous gazage is no longer in play. Mr. Magner responded she has repaired the garage so it is not in peril of immediate collapse. Ms. Moermond stated she can lay this item over for a few months or extend the compliance date. If another order is written, it can be appealed. She asked what Ms. Flynn would prefer. Ms. Flynn responded she would like it laid over for six months. Ms. Flynn asked about the eaves that were rotten on the structure. Mr. Magner explained where the azea is located and how to tell if if is deteriorated. Ms. Moermond laid over this issue to the January 13, 2004, Legislative Hearing. By that time, she would expect that a lot of these violations have been addressed and she would also expect a plan as to how to bring the garage into total compliance. The owner should schedule an inspectar to come out the week before the January 13 hearing. The hearing was adjourned at 231 pm. rrn