Loading...
04-121Council �ile # ��� Green Sheet # �O \\���j RESOLUTION PAUL, MiNNESOTA Presented Referred To �� Committee Date BE IT IiESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the 3anuary 13, 2004, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals for Letters of Deficiency, Correction Norices, and Conection Orders for the foliowing addresses: Properf�ppealed Aunellant 528 Ashland Avenue Patricia Callahan for Phoenix Condominium Assoc. Decision: Extension granted to October 8, 2004, to repair or remove the pillars on the Deficiency List dated December 8, 2003; laid over to the October 12, 2004, Legislative Heazing for followup. 880 Juno Avenue (Laid over from 7-8-03) Karen A. Flynn Decision: Appeal denied on Correction Notice dated June 12, 2003; Code Enforcement staff will issue a Suumiary Abatement Order to remove or repair the garage by May 15, 2004. 501 Shenazd Road (Laid over from 11-25-03) Mary C. Smith for NSP-H3gh Bridge Generating Plant Decision: Appeal denied on the Deficiency List dated October 30, 2003. � Yeas Na s Absent Benanav ✓ Bostrom ✓ Harris ,i Helgen ✓ Lantry ✓ Montgomery ✓ Thune ✓ � � Adopted by Council: Date ___���,./ /�i dOl/� % AdoF By: App[ By: Requested by Deparnnent oE � Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � � Green Sheet Green Sheet 6�,- � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Depar6ne�Uofficetwuncil: Date lnitiated: co -�� 04-FEB-04 Green Sheet NO: 3011355 CoMaet Person 8 Phone: ���eM SeM To Person InitiaUDate MacciaMoem�ood � 0 ncil Z �� Assign 1 0 0'1 De artmentDirec or Must Se on Councii Agenda by (Date): Number 2 � � For RouUng 3 Order 4 5 Totai # of Signature Pages �(Clip Ail Locations for Signature) Action Requested: � � � � � Approving the January 13, 2004, decisions ofthe I,egislative Hearing Officer on Appeals for I.etters of Deficiency, Correction Norices, and Coaecfion Orders for the following addresses: 528 Ashland Avenue, 880 Juno Avenue, and 501 Shepud Road. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Followmg Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this persontfum ever worked under a contrad for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civii Service Commission 2. Has this person�rm ever been a city empbyee? Yes No 3. Does this personffirm possess a ski{I iwt normally possessed by any curcent city empbyee? Yes No F�cpiain all yes answecs on separate sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, Whe�, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: � , � Disadvantages If Approved: , Disadvantages If Not Approved: ToWI Amount of CosURevenue Budgeted: Tra�saction: Fundinp Source: Activity Number: Financial lnfortnation: (Explain) �� ��� 1c� NOTES OF T'I� LEGISLATIVE HEARING LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTTCES, AND CORRECTTON ORDERS Tuesday, 7anuary 13, 2004 Room 330 City Hail, 15 Kellogg Boulevard West Mazcia Moermond, L.egislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 139 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Douglas 7ohnson, Fire Prevention 528 Ashland Avenue The following appeazed: Walter Merz, President of Phoenix Condominium Association; and Patricia Callaghan, Treasurer of Phoenix Condominium Association. Ms. Moermond asked is he appealing the pillazs. Mr. Merz responded they haue a letter from Mark Macpherson, Macpherson-Towne Company, who has done tuckpointing on the building and examined the pillazs. (Mr. Merz submitted the letter from Mark Macpherson.) Ms. Moermond asked is Mr. Macpherson writing about the structural soundness of it. Mr. Merz responded that Mr. Macpherson does not feel he is qualified to taik about engineering, but he has stated his opinion about what could be done in terms of repair to make the pillars waterproof and stable. Douglas Johnson reported it is the front brick pillars that need repair. He left it generic on the report to leaue the options open: repair them or take them down. They look unstable and aze statting to sepazate from the walls. It is hard to predict how much ice or snow will get in there to cause them to come down. They could cause damage to a person or property. (Mr. Johnson submitted photographs.) Mr. Merz stated he feels that the structure will not collapse, and Mr. McPherson feels caulking wouid be sufficient. Mr. Johnson responded water is so thin it can get behind anything. Someone could pull on them and the pillars could come down. Nothing is 100% water tight; caulking will not prevent water from getting behind there. Has he seen the letYer, asked Ms. Moermond. Mr. Johnson responded he has not. {Mr. Johnson looked at a copy of the letter.) Mr. Merz stated he would like permission to have Macpherson-Towne do sufficient caulking to keep the water out. Until such time they are able to finish the tuckpointing on the building, they would like to caulk as a temporary solution for a few years. o�-�Z� LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOT'ES OF JANUARX 13, 2004 Page 2 Ms. Moermond asked are they tuckpointing azound the building in stages. Mr. Merz responded all the building has been done in the last s� yeazs except the front stages. That will be done when they raise the funds in three to four years. Ms. Moermond stated she is hearing that caullciug is sufficient for water mtrusion, but she is not hearing anything about the pillars falling. Mr. Merz responded an engineer would need to look at it. At that time, they would do the repair. Ms. Callaghan added that they did not understand that was part of the opuuon. They would like the opporhanity to get an engineer. This is not a roof that will cave in on someone, stated Ms. Moermond. It is a cosmetic problem with possible shuctural implications. The code says to maintain the properry in a workmanlike manner. A three or four year extension is excessive. This is a code violation whether it is cosmetic or structural; it is not in a sound posi6on because of the cracks. Mr. 7ohnson stated he gave them until May 4, 2004, to bring the property into compliance. By that time, if they obtained a written contract from a masonry establishment, they could get it done in the contractor's time frame. Ms. Moermond asked can they go forwazd with the caulking now. She wonders if that would affect the masonry wark later. Mr. Merz stated that they do not know if the pillars need to be torn down or rebuilt. They would depend on the engineer as to what could be done. Ms. Moermond responded it looks like the original members of the building. Ms. Callaghan responded they are not. They were somehow added later. These buildings often had porches in the front originally. She asked could they have the alternative of tuckpointing or tearing it down. Ms. Moermond resporided that they do not know what is behind the pillazs, but she is happy wifh a repair or remove of these pieces. Mr. Johnson stated if they want to take them down and not replace them, that is fine. If they want to rebuild them so they are structutally sound, that is fine. Whatever they decide to do is fine as long as the pillars look right. Ms. Moermond stated this is a historic distriet, so there aze concerns there. They may want to give the HPC (Historic Preservation Commission) a phone call. Ms. Moermond stated she does not think caulking would be sufficient. They do not know whether it is shucturally sound or not. If they need to go through the appeals process again, that can be done. Ms. Moermond granted the appeal to an extension to October 8, 2004, to repair or remove the pillazs. Also, this issue will be laid over to October 12, 2004, Legislarive Hearing for followup. o�-�z� LBGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES OF JANUARY 13, 2004 Page 3 880 Juno Avenue (Laid over from 7-8-03) (The appellant did not appeaz.) Ms. Moermond stated Karen A. Flynn has been ordered to remove or repair the garage. She no longer wants to repair it, but she wants until spring to remove it. Ms. Moermond denied the appeal, and is recommending Code Enforcement staff issue a Summary Abatement Order to remove or repair by May 15, 2004. 501 Shepard Road (Laid over from 11-25-03) (The appellant did not appear.) Ms. Moermond stated the appeal is denied as the appellants have complied with the deficiency list. The filing fee will not be refunded. The hearing was adjourned at 2:03 pm. rrn