Loading...
04-513Council File # � �3 Crreen Sheet # 3 Q 1��� (o RESOLUTION � Presented Referred To Date 13 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the April 13, 2004, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals for Letters of Deficiency, Correction Notices, and Correction Orders for the following addresses: Pronert�Ap ep aled OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA A�pellant 839 Seventh Street East Ciarence J. (Sam) Thole, Owner Decision: Extension granted to September 1, 2004 on Deficiency list dated February 18, 2004. 1408 Arcade Street Doreen Rued, Appellant Decision: Appeal denied on Deficiency List dated February 24, 2004. 735 Fuller Avenue Jasbir Arora, Ovv�ier Decision: Appeal denied on Conection Order dated March 16, 2004. 989 Central Avenue West Philmina Thompson, Owner Decision: Appeal denied on Correction Notice dated Mazch 16, 2004. Yeas Na s Absent Benanav r / Bostrom ,/ Harris v Helgen ,i Lanhy � Montgomery � Thune �/ � Adopted by Council: Date /d�jy / �pG/� Ado� By: Appi By: Requested by Depamnent of: � Form Approved by City Attorney � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � � .. _.� . . . ' _' '" .v." ' .. ... . , � � ` v De ������ u � c ��� ��� Green Sheet NO: 3015876 co -��� 3oawR-oa Contaet Person & Phone: �eoar6nent Se� To Person InitiallDate Marcia Mcermond ' � 0 o cil 2 � -$ �� ASSigf/ 1 ouocil De ardnentDirector Must Be on Council Agenda by �Dat¢): Number Z � Cle k For Roufin9 3 Order 4 5 Total # of Signature Pages �(Ciip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Approving the April 13, 2004, decisions ofthe Legislafive Heazing Officer on Letters of Deficiency, Correcrion Notices, and Correcrion Orders for the following addresses: 839 Seventh 5treet East, 1408 Arcade Street, 735 Fuller Avenue, and 989 Cenhal Avenue West. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Rejed (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1, Has this person/firtn ever worked under a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has tbis person/firtn ever been a city employee? � Yes No 3. Does this personlfirtn possess a skill not normally possessed 6y any curreM city employee? Yes No � Explain ali yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Probiem, fssues, OpporWnity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): � AdvantageslfApproved: ' Disadva�tapaslfApproved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: ToWI Amount of CosURevenue Budgeted: Transaction: Fundinq Source: AcfiviN Number: Financial Information: (Explain) 0�1 ,-5�3_ NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES & CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, Apri113, 2003 -130 p.m. Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Boulevazd West Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called arder at 1:30 pm. STAFF PRESENT: Mike Urmann, Office of Fire Prevention; and Jean Birkholz, City Council Offices. OTHERS PRESENT: Clarence (Sam) and Jeff Thole, 839 East 7"' Street and Jasbir Arora, 735 Fuller Avenue. 839 Seventh Street East Clarence (Sam) Thole and his son, Jeff, appeared. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Thole to explain his appeal. Mr. Thole stated that they aze a fourth generation firm on the East Side. They have been in continuous operation on the 800 block of Seventh Street for over seventy-five (75) years. Regarding the building under question, approxunately fi8een (15) years ago it was rehabbed under a federal UDAG grant in conjunction with 3M. Everything was brought up to code at that tune. Since that fime, the building has been occupied by the same tenant(s) doing the same functions. Until one (1) year ago, there were never any citations/sanctions other than two (2) past due fire extinguishers and some equipment in front of a mirror. Mr. Thole explained that the deficiency list has been taken care of except for Exterior-SPLC 34.09 (1) b,c, 3432 (1) b,c, either a fire or safety hazard which they don't understand how or why that would be a fire or a safety hazard. Mr. Urmann said that he was made aware of this case this morning because the commexcial supervisor wasn't able to attend today. He may not have history of the building however, his reseazch through the file shows that this Order was actually issued on June 26, 2003 so, he believes that the appeal is not timely and should not be heard. IY s not within the ten (10) days required by the City Ordinance. Mr. Thole responded that in June of 2003 there was a fire in the building and they were not allowed to reoccupy the building until after Labor Day 2003. Even if they had agreed with the violation, by the time they had hired contractors after getting the building fit to move back in, winter had set in, and it would not be a good idea to do brick or tuckpointing in the middle of winter. Ms. Moermond stated that the problem is that this Order is re-listed as of February 18, 2004. She / �.{ r V � �� _ LEGISLATIVE HEARING - Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 1:30 p.m. Page 2 asked staff to describe the specific violations. Mr. Urmann explained that these aze exterior violations in terms of exterior up-keep. He said that he was out at the site today and took photographs. There aze holes in the brick wall; a header above the front door looks like iY s deteriorated and damaged; some exterior wood surfaces are rotting, peeling and broken; and some exterior stucco is cracked, and some places, missing. He has no doubt that it was brought up to code fourteen (14) yeazs ago; however, now it needs work. The original Order was issued on June 26, 2003, again on September 9, 2003, October 9, 2003, November 10, 2003, and lasfly, on February 18, 2004. The same Order has been in place for almost six (6) months. Mr. Thole didn't understand how this can be classified as a safety issue. Mr. Urmann explained that this is classified under the Property Maintenance Code, not under the Fire Code. Mr. Thole had another issue: discrimination - because they're a small business. He showed some pictures of a building a block away from them at 3M in bad condition, and they weren't cited. Mr. Urmann explained that he cannot tell what the condition of that building is or whether there's Orders on it because he hasn't looked into that building. This meeting is in regard to Mr. Thole's building not any other. He stated that he will go to look at that building later today since Mr. Thole brought it to his attention. Mr. Thole insisted that he wanted to know why 3M is not being cited if they're being cited. Ms. Moermond stated that this hearing is to talk only about Mr. Thole's property. This type of structure is inspected every three (3) years. The fire triggered inspections, too. With respect to how other buildings are handled, if they are residential buildings with three (3) ar more units or any kind of a business, they will be inspected once every year, once every two (2) yeazs or once every three (3) years. The other cases are complaint cases, which the City checks out. She noted that Mr. Thole has a complaint about another property with similaz code violations that the City has not been awaze of. The Office of Fire Prevention inspects more than just the state's fire code that the City has adopted by reference. They are also authorized to do other kinds of inspections for code or make the appropriate reference to other inspectors within the City, if they see the need to do that. Ms. Moermond, reading Mr. Thole's materials, saw that a major chain drug company has made a proposal for the purchase of the properiy and Mr. Thole is waiting for a response. Mr. Thole acknowledged that was another ongoing issue. The people from Walgreen's have been dealing with that corner on and off for three (3) years. The activity of the Phalen Corridor has seemed to renew their interest. They made an offer shortly before the first of the yeaz. At tlus point, there is no resolution. Ms. Moermond asked if that would involve the demo of this property. Mr. Thole responded that is would, so why put money into the building that would be torn down in the near future? Ms. Moermond asked how long these negotiations have been going on. Mr. Thole replied since December 27, 2003. Mr. Urmann noted that he had been informed by the commercial supervisor this moming that these negotiations have been going on and off again for the last three (3) years. There is no sagned Purchase Agreement, no signed specific dated time where the City could shoot for a goal. If the City had those issues, the City would deal with those issues. Mr. Thole stated that there have been verbal conversations for the past three (3) years, and he does have a firm Purchase Agreement dated December 27, 2003. He added that another part of whaYs going on is that they have a tenant who would be out of a lease (the tenant �.'S�'� _ LEGISLATTVE HEARING - Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 130 pm. Page 3 has a lease that extends beyond the time that they may want to acquire the building). There's discussions as to who would buy out his lease. Ms. Moermond noted that this seems to be a very protracted kind of situation. She stated that she is looking for a time certain when Mr. Thole has committed to sell the building or to have the exterior maintenance completed. Mr. Thole asked if the date June 1 or 15, 2004 could be set to begin the work. Mr. Ilrmann added that a date certain is what is needed from the appellant. In this case, they should be working that out with Fire Prevenfion because the appeal is basically uxlawful because of the length of time. Ms. Moermond explained that extensions of time can be worked out through the appeai process. Whether ar not the appeal should have been accepted and processed is another thing. She recommends giving the appellant untii September 1, 2004 to get the building fixed or be sold. Ms. Moermond added that the Correction Order is attached to the property, so the new owner wi11 need to know that this is an outstanding Order. 735 Fuller Avenue Ms. Jasbir Arora appeared. Ms. Arora explained the reason for her appeal: the trash from a neighbor's fire was out in the yard. Whoever did the inspection could not tell from one property line to the other and both of them were billed Ms. Arora does not want to be responsible for her neighbar's trash. Ms. Moermond suggested that Ms. Arora get a sutveyor out to properly divide her property more cleazly from her neighbor's property. Ms. Arora displayed a photo showing where the vague property line is. A fence seems to be the property line. Ms. Moermond added that even if someone else dumps on your property, you are responsible for it. Then, it's a matter of pursuing them for the damages that you incurred. Ms. Moermond stated that since the inspectar is not here today, she will ca11 the inspector to see what the situation is from his perspective. She will call Ms. Arara in three (3) or four (4) days to let her know how it turns out. Ms. Moermond recommends denying the appeal. 989 Central Avenue West No one appeared. Ms. Moermond recommends denying the appeal. 1408 Arcade Street No one appeared. Ms. Moermond indicated the appellant had asked to reschedule the hearing to �3-- - LEGISLATNE HEARING - Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 130 p.m. Page 4 April 27, 2004 due to illness. Mr. Urmann introduced photographs he took of the properiy. They showed a very narrow stair and walk way, a blocked exit, cluttered with stuff, which presents a significant life safety issue. Ms. Moerxnond asked Mr. Urmann about enforcement. Mr. Urmann reported that they had already met with the appeliant and toid them what they would have to do in terms of a life safety issue - just basically, move it. The division would take action of either a citafion or condeznnation if there's no progress made. Ms Moermond noted that even if action were taken today, there's no way that it could be cleaned up by the end of the day. Mr. Urmann reminded her that the appellant has already had almost thirty (30) days. He suggested that ten (10) days to comply would be reasonable. Ms. Moermond said that she will recommend denying the appeal, if the situation is not corrected within eight (8) days. The hearing was adjourned at 1:50 p.m. jab