The URL can be used to link to this page

04-778Coimcil File # �4' 1� � Crreen Sheet # �OZ� (oZ� rr��a Referred To Date BE IT RESOLVED, that the Coimcil of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the July 13, 2004, decisions of the Legislative Hearmg Officer on Appeals for Letters of Deficiency, Correction Notices, and Coaecrion Orders for the followmg addresses: � !y�� • �. . - � RESOLUTION Q CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA —� Aropellant 1682 Crrand Avenue Beth Bergman, appellant Decision: Laid over to the July 27 Legislative Hearing. 845 Terrace Court Tom Goossen for Univar USA, Inc. Decision: Laid over to the July 27 Legislative Heazing. 405 Jessamine Avenue East Unit 1 Steve 7ohnson for Mazket Group and Properties. Decision: Deny appeal of the Deficiency List dated June 9, 2004. 990 Pavne Avenue Peter Amundson, owner Decision: Extension granted to October 1, 2004 on the Deficiency List dated 7une 16, 2004. 1921 Marshall Avenue David 7ensen, owner Decision: Extension granted to July 28, 2004 on the Deficiency List dated June 10, 2004. 2040 Saunders Avenue Ira Kipp, owner Decision: Extension granted to August 20 to bring the railing into compliance as stipulated on the Deficiency List dated June 16, 2004. 1280 RaYcnond Avenue Patricia Carlson and Wallace Zick, owners Decision: Granting an extension through October 31, 2004 on the stucco on condition that the build'mg is otherwise maintamed in accordance with all applicable codes and ord'mances. 830 Winthron Street South Arthur Wilkinson, owner Decision: Appeal denied on Inspection Report dated June 8, 2004. 833 Delaware Avenue Johanna L. Gallagher, appellant Decision: 1) Appeal is denied on Correction Notice dated 7une 24. 2) Changing the compliance date to September 14 on the Coaection Notice dated June 14, 2004. (Note: The third issue, Notice of Condemnation aud Order to Vacate, is subject to a public hearing at the City Council on August 4.) 621 Reanev Avenue Dauid S. Gageby for ERS Investments, Inc. Decision: Appeal denied on letter dated June 15, 2004 requiring a Code Compliance Inspection on a Registered Vacant Building. C� 5. 3oL1 �Zy 225 Baker Street East Cher Lor Xiong, ownzr Decision: Appeal granted on Correction Notice dated June 22, 2004. � Page2 64 Grit2s Street North Alvin C Kvaal, owner Decision: Compliance date changed to October 1, 2004 on the Conection Notice dated June 16, 2004. 1216 Mazshall Avenue - Lynn Anderson, owner Decision: Compliance date cbanged to October 1, 2004 to brmg the garage into compliance as stipulated on the Correction Notice dated June 16, 2004. 874 Davton Avenue 7erald C. Brown, appellant Decision: Comp3iance date chauged to September 17, 2004 on the Conection Order dated June 30, 2004. 1292 Davton Avenue Raymond Clvsholm, owner Decision: Compliance date changed to August 27, 2004 on the Correcrion Notice dated June 15, 2004. _�� . � :-�.�. �__ :� �� __� '��__ ��__ ��__ .� _.��- __� i �__ -�� Adopted by Council: Date / Ado� By. App� By. Requested by Department of: � Form Approved hy City Attorney � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � o�f- � 7� � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � DeWrhneM/olReehouncil: Datelnitiated: co -�� Green Sheet NO: 3021624 CoMect Peeson & Phw�e: � Sent To Person InffSallDate Marcia MoemarW � 0 o n7 � Assign 1 r Must Be on CounCil A9enda bY (Date�: Numher Z ' Qerk � 1-.4UG-04 For Routing 3 Order 4 5 Total A M Sfgnature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Sig�reture) Aetion Requested: Approving the 7/13/04 decision ofthe Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeal ofLetters ofDeficiency, Cortection Notices & Orders for 1682 Grand, 845 Tenace Ct., 405 Jessamine E, #1, 990 Payne,1921 Mazshall, 2040 Satmders,1280 Raymond, 830 Wint3�rop S:, 833 Delawaze, 621 Reaney, 225 Baker E, 64 Crriggs N, 1216 Marshall, 874 Dayton, and 1292 Dayton. Recommendafions: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service CoMracts hWSt Answer the Followi� Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this persw�firtn ever worked under a coMract for this departrnent? CB Committce Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this P�oNfirm ever been a city emptoyee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not nomralty possessed by any . curreM ciry employee? Yes No Explain all yes answars on separate sheet and adach to green sheet Inkiatlng Problem, lssues, �ppertunity (Who, What, When, Where, ylfhy): AdvaMages tf Approvetl: Disadvantages !i Approved: DlsadvaMages M Not Approved: Topt Amount W CosURevenue Budgetetl: Transaction; Funding Source: Activily Number: Financial IMormation: (Explain) ��g NOTES OF TI-� LEGISLATIVE HEARING ��\� LETTERS dF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES, AND CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, July 13, 2004 Room 336 City Hall, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 133 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Brian Krawiecki, License, Inspections, Environxnental Protection; Steve Magner, Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement (NHPn; Lisa Martin, NHPI; Phillip Owens, Fire Prevention; Jack Reardon, NHPI; Michael Urmann, Fire Prevention 1682 Grand Avenue; appellant: Beth Bergman. (Division of Fire Prevention) (Rescheduled from 6-22-04 and 6-8-04) The following appeared: Beth Bergman, 1684 Grand Avenue, appellant, and Lori Jo Krengel, 1688 Grand Avenue, owner. Ms. Moermond stated the appeal is about sliding bolt locks and a tank in the basement. The compliance date on the order is June 10. Beth Bergman explained that Wet Paint is the tenant at this location. Part of the agreement was that the owner would remove the old units and install new heating and air conditioning on the unit. The tank has been there since 1992. It has not caused any problem until now. As for the locks, Wet Paint was burglarized three times in eight days in the year 2001. The only way they could get the door secure in the back and to keep people from trying the door when they were closed and setting off the burglar alann was to install dead bolts. Wet Paint is a retail business and the doors are not locked when they are open, so it is not a safety issue to have the bolts to secure the building when no one is there. There is no way to secure the doors far the building in this age and condition without replacing the door and the whole door frame. Phillip Owens, Commercial Inspections, reports code requires that any tank out of service for more than one year be removed. It is an above ground tank and there is no way to abandon it in place. It apparently was left from the renovation of the hearing system. It needs to be removed, tank cleaned, and taken to a salvage facility. As for the locks, standazd exiting requirements aze no locks, latch, hatch, chain, bolt. Exits must have free access to the occupants. Ms. Moermond asked the concern for getting the tank out of the basement. Ms. Krengel responded that no one has brought it to their attention for 12 years. Ms. Moermond responded there may not be good answers. Different people doing inspections see different things. The fact that it was not called before does not mean it is not a violation today. She is not heazing anyone say that the tank is okay. Ms. Krengel responded that is correct. Also, she wanted to know if there were any other options. Mr. Owens responded there are no other options for an out-of-service, above ground tank. Ms. Moermond asked what is the public safety concern and is one of the concern fiunes. Mr. Owens responded the fiunes aze not that great o£ an issue. It is fuel/oil and not that volatile. It is more environmental than anything. Ms. Moermond asked was it larger than the doors. Ms Bergman responded she is guessing that is why it was left there. Ms. Krengel asked is it a plumbing/heating contractor that would do the abatement on this. Mr. Owens responded it is normaliy a tank contractor. They have to be a �� NOTES OF TI-IE LEGISLATIVE HEAItING OF NLY 13, 2004 Page 2 licensed tank contractor and they require a pernut from the Fire Deparhnent. Mr. Owens would not object to a period of tune to comply. If there is something in the tank, it becomes more urgent to remove the liquid and purge the tank. The stuff weighs nine pounds to the gallon and it is a 300 to 500 pound tank. He can see if there is anything in it so the appellants would not have to pay for that. Contractors are digging up underground tanks now. Finding a tank contractor would be di�cuit; therefare, he recommends an extension of 90 days. He will make arrangements in the next two weeks to determine if something is in the tank. Ms. Moermond recommends removing the tank by October 29, which will give them time to get bids and to have the situation corrected. The doors are unlocked when it is occupied because they are a retail business, said Ms. Bergman. Ms. Moermond said some businesses have a sign that says "This door will be unlocked during business hours." Ms. Bergman respanded they have that on the front door. As for illuminated exit signs on the basement, she called Peggy Schlichte, fire inspectar, who said the exit did not have to be illuminated, but safety lights in the basement illuminating and pointing at exit signs. An electrician did that, and then the electrical inspector came out and said those were not needed because the basement was not used by the public. Mr. Owens responded the electrical inspector is in error: it is not whether it is occupied by the public; it is squaze footage, travel distance, and whether it is a windowed azea. Ms. Moermond responded someone will contact LIEP and make sure they are clear on the code. Ms. Bergman stated they do not have a sign on the back door because the police department would say to keep the back doors locked. A person can get out the back door. It is a thumb hun lock. Mr. Owens asked does it haue the slide bolts. Ms. Bergman yes. Mr. Owens then said that is the issue. She cannot have the thumb turn and the slide bolts. He cannot see how she can lock the building and leave. Ms. Bergman responded there is a third door they use. Mr. Owens stated the Fire Department is not objecting to the thumb turn on the rear door. It is the second and third motion in the event of an emergency that is the problem In other words: someone has to do the slide, do the boit, and turn the door knob to get out. Ms. Bergman responded the slide bolts aze only on those doors that are slid and bolted when they leave. Ms. Moermond asked about alternative locking devices. Mr. Owens responded they could go to panic release, exit only. They only need two doors accessible to the public. It sounds like they have three. Panic release wouid remove the thumb turn and the slide bolts. They could go to a detect box, which is an alanning device so they know when someone goes out. He suggested one door knob and latch set, called a school house latch, which is always locked from the outside and always unlocked from the inside. There is one motion to get out. Ms. Moermond recommends laying over to the July 27 Legislative Hearing to give the appellants a chance to look at this. The school house latch does not sound prohibitively expensive. Mr. Owens responded he can look at the locks when he looks at the fuel in the tank. 845 Terrace Court; appellant: Tom Goossen for Univar USA, Inc. (Division of Fire Prevention) Marcia Moermond expiained this is primarily a pallet storage issue and storage of the conosive liquids. They have had a similar situation with pallets, such as 162 York, but that was contingent on the sprinkier system. Phillip Owens explained that this is the same situation. The code changed in � �� NOTES OF T'HE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF JULY 13, 2004 Page 3 th license code cycle. Previously, they had to have a sprinkler density of 30, which they have and they couid store ta eight feet. Now, the code has re-evaluated them and changed to a density of .45 to do the eight feet. He has discussed this with the Fire Mazshall, who is willing to say that it was a previously complying condition and they can do the eight feet, but the location has storage configuration restrictions that Fire Prevention can discuss with them. If they want to continue to do the eight feet, then it is 8 foot cubic pallets, space and commodity. The idea is not to have the pallets all in a dense area. Fire Prevention is willing to allow them to continue with the sprinkler system they have or reconfigure the cubic volume of those pallets to be stored at the eight feet. Tom Goossen, appeilant, appeared and stated he can work on that. He can put empty steel druins in between piles of pallets. He just needs to know eight feet by how many stacks. Mr. Owens responded it is eight feet by four stacks. Mr. Goossen responded that is generous. As for the liquids, Mr. Goossen explained the building was built in 1982. They warked with the Fire Department. To try to retrofit their 22 year old building to the new code requirements cuts down on the floor space available and makes it difficult to handle because they can't get the slope. They have an overhead floor for forkllfts to trauel and he wanted to put a ramp up and then dovm through the doorway so the forklift couid traverse it while carrying pallets of goods. That would take away about a dozen pallet space. He cannot afford this space loss. They have a very successful operation through the years without any incidents. The expansive joints were never caulked with anything, but he will caulk those and make them protective of the environment. The chemicals themselves are dangerous from a physical hazard standpoint but they are not toxic and have no long term residual toxicity. Ms. Moermond asked about the floor surface. Mr. Goossen responded it is concrete. They have false alatms and all the units that come in comment about how clean the place is. Ms. Moerniond asked is caulking sufficient in this situation. Mr. Owens responded caulking will assist where concrete abuts concrete. The material is a corrosion material, and the code requires that quantities in excess of 500 gallons have secondary containment. He asked did Inspector Bergman says 15,000 gallons. Mr. Goossen responded yes, in different sized packages. Mr. Owens then said 500 versus 15,000 is a lot of play. The code requires containment of 500 gallons. He understands there is containment on one end with a trough. The containment is not on the other end. Mr. Goossen responded the trough is to prevent flamniabie liquids from traveling into the other part of the building. That was the primary purpose of those troughs. It is fair to say that the buiiding is well maintained. It was designed in 1982 and the codes have changed significantly and the business has changed. They haue a bigger operation and it requires some attention. Mr. Owens would be glad to go out to the site. He is not a fan of the ramps, as it is difficult fo negotiate a forklift ovex them. The forkl'aft drivers would have difficulty doing fliat and stabilizing their load. Ms. Moermond asked how many gallons the trough system should accommodate. Mr. Owens responded they are looking at a catastrophic loss of the largest container. Mr. Goossen responded the lazgest container is 350 gallons. Mr. Goossen said he has warked diligently through the years because he has refused to bring in certain items. Also, he set it up with wide aisles. This type of encroachment on operating procedures in his building is not necessary. The code can be designed into a newer building, but if he had known this was going to happen, he would have added 50 feet to one end or another. o�--�=� � NOTES OF TIIE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF NLY 13, 2004 Page 4 Ms. Moermond recommends laying this over to the July 27 Legisiative Hearing if needed, as she would Iike to accompany Mr. Owens to this properry and talk about some of the options. 405 Jessamine Avenue East, Unit 1; owner: Steve Johnson for Market Group and Properties. (No one appeared to represent the properiy.) Michael Urmann reported the power has been restored. Xcel requires them to have some sort of court action or appeat on record showing that the tenant was gone from this space until it was restored. Ms. Moermond denied the appeal on the Deficiency List dated June 9, 2004. 990 Payne Avenue; owner: Peter Amundson. Mazcia Moermond asked did he wants to put off as much as he can until he sells the building and prepares it for that user. Peter Amundson, 168 Sixth Street East #3704, appeared and said that he has no challenges against the Fire Deparhnent. He corrected all but one of the fifteen deficiencies. CVS is purchasing their phannacy. He is looking at marketing the building, and he has two interested parties. There is a lease that expires with the school November L Some of these issues will apply regardless of the user, and the conidor exit Item 7 is among those. The school is there and an extension of the school district. It is called Life Skills Development. There aze a number of them around town. They have a contract with the school for troubled kids and kids they want to put on a straight and narrow track. Reverend Miller has a 9:00 to 3:00 schooi setting above the phannacy that has been approved by the Superintendent of the school district. Mr. Owens responded ihat is not entirely correct. It has not been inspected by the school district. The program and curriculum have been approved by the school district. The Fire Marshall conducts inspections of education occupancies under contract with the state Fire Marshall's Office. Fire Prevention inspects ail the educational occupancies public, private, parochial, and charter. This is a school on the second floor without a fire alarm system and with inadequate exits. Mr. Amundson stated he gave a list of deficiencies to the person in charge of the school. He was also told the potential sale of the pharmacy and that the lease may not be extended. He is assuming the school will take responsibility for the items. There is a pending area where they may not be operating after October 1. All of these deficiencies may not be appiicable to the building owner at that time, whether it is him or a new landlord. He has December 31 as his target sale. They started September 15, 2003. Ms. Moermond asked were they operating a school system without a fire alarm system. Without anyone's Irnowledge it was there, responded Mr. Owens. Tlus is not unusual, They are a11 over town, and Fire Preventions finds them when they can. He would not have an objection to hinging this on a new tenancy: iYs in compliance by October 1 or there is not a tenant in this property. The City cannot wait around for a new tenant, the building seiling, etc. Ms. Moermond stated cieazly the owner should not be required to make the building compliant for a school when there is not going to be a school there. o�� NOTES OF TI� LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF JIJLY 13, 2004 Page 5 Mr. Amundson said he has a fire alann system. Ms. Moermond responded it has to be appropriate for the school usage. Mr. Amundson stated he was told that if there aze 25 students at a time, it does not meet the 50 student requirement in the deficiency notes. Yesterday, when Mr. Amundson went to check on the summer school, there was one student. Mr. Owens responded that Mr. Pvliller is not communicating the same thing to Fire Prevention as he is to Mr. Amundson. There are some cuts for student population, but the inspector felt it was a full fledged school on the second floor of the building. Perhaps the compliance could be contingent on the lease. In the meantime, Fire Prevention can find out the actual student population with the school system. Alsq they can check with the state Fire Masshall to fmd out their thoughts and concerns. Ms. Moermond stated she will accept another appeal in a revised set of orders because this situation may be changing. Mr. Amundson stated the other issue Item 7 regarding the panic release hardwaze on the exits. This may be referting to the pharmacy. Mr. Owens responded he will check. If the phannacy is moving out, he wiil not have the owner bare that expense. If it's in the school, it is required. In summary: Mr. Owens wili check with the school district and Reverend Miller to check the stories and populations and what is suppose to happen. This is just like an occupancy load: it is not necessarily how many he has, but how many can he have. He will not cause the pharmacy any problems because in 30 days, the pharmacy is supposed to be gone. Mr. Amundson responded it may be 60 to 90 days. Ms. Moermond granted an extension to October l, 2Q04 on the Deficiency List dated June 16, 2004 to make the school compliant appropriate to their population. If it is not a schooi, the items on the deficiency list do not apply. 1921 Marshall Avenue; owner: David Jensen. (Division of Fire Prevention) David Jensen, owner, 2000 Lower 5t. Dennis Road, appeared and stated he talked to the Fire Marshall again and an agreement has been reached on the repairs and what do in that building. The issue was the timing. A reinspection date is set for July 28. He believes everything will be done at that time. Michael i3rmann reported he spoke to Inspector James Thomas this morning and said that they have reached an agreement by July 28, and that is acceptable. Marcia Moermond stated if July 28 does not work out, he should talk to the Fire Department. Mr. Jensen stated the inspector came out on a Thursday, he mailed his letter on a Friday, and Mr. Jensen did not get it into Monday; therefore, he lost five days. The ten day appeal time should be changed. Ms. Moermond responded the ten day clock starts the day he receives the notices. If it was mailed on a Monday, they presume he received it on a Wednesday. Mr. Jensen stated he spoke to Lucille who said that he had to file it on a Friday. Ms. Moermond responded she wili clarify that. �� NOTES OF TF� LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF 3ULY 13, 2004 Page 6 Ms. Moermond granted an extension to July 28, 2004 on the Deficiency List dated June 10, 2004. 2040 Saunders Avenue; owner: Ira Kipp. (Division of Fire Prevention) Mazcia Moermond stated he was looking for the 1950 buiiding codes and she asked how did that go. Ira Kipp, owner, 589 Cleveland Avenue South #iC, appeazed and responded it was hard. He found it in the main Saint Paul Public Library. He has done all the work except for Item 39: Ms. Moermond read Item 39: SPLC 34,09 (2) a- Every Stairway, porch, deck or step which is more than thiriy (30}inches above grade sha11 have guardraiis and intermediate rails no more than nine (9) inches apart and in accordance with the Building Code or maintained in accordance with the Building Code in effect when originally consriucted. Mr. Kipp stated the building was built in 1950. He owned the building for about 20 years. He called the tax department and was told the building was built in 1950. He went to fmd the building code that was applicabie to when the building was built. The only one they found was 1938. After 1938, the building code they could find was 1953. It appears the building code applicable is the building code from 1938. He has a copy of that. Michael Urmann reported that the relevancy of a 1950 code is not what he is looking at here. The city ordinance reads that if it is deemed hazardous, then it will be corrected and brought up to today's code. The distance between these separations is twelve inches. Today's code requires four or less inches. There are children in this location, and Fire Department feel it poses a hazazd to those occupants. Inspectox Pat Fish told him the same thing. (Ms. Moermond looked at documents and photographs. Copies were made of two photographs. Everything was returned.) Ms. Moermond stated she wonders if a carpenter could replicate the railing design. Mr. Kipp responded he has bids around $20,000. The problem is that it is not compliant, said Ms. Moermond, and a human body could pass through it. Mr. Kipp responded it has been this way for 55 years. This has not been a problem. He and others like what it looks like. Pat Fish inspected the building in May. He received a list May 18, 2004 and there was nothing about the railing on the list. There was a follow up list on June 11, 2004, and there was nothing about the railing. There was a list on 7une 16 with this item on it. Ms. Moermond asked about plexiglass that would not effect the aesthefic. Mr. Kipp responded that Ms. Fish talked about wire mesh that is $9 a squaze foot but it wi11 be sharp. He would like to explore the option of plexiglass. Mr. Urmann responded the owner could provide the design information to Fire Prevention befare he makes the correction. They are willing to work with the appellant on the time issue. Ms. Moermond will grant an extension to August 20 to bring the railing into compliance as stipulated on the Deficiency list dated June 16, 2004. Fire Prevention can grant a fiuther extension as they see fit. The inspector will come out by July 21 to look at everytiiing else on the list Mr. Kipp stated it has to look right and not tacky. �� NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF JULX 13, 2004 Page 7 1280 Raxmond Avenue; owners: Patricia Carlson and Wallace Zick. (Division of Fire Prevention) Mazcia Moermond stated ths is about storage of an electricallawn mower and a citation about maintaining the foundation elements. The appeal application reads the structural problems with the foundafion are aesthetic and not based on the foundation eracking. Wallace Zick, owner, Box 3, Stockhoim, Wisconsin 54769, appeazed and stated the concrete block does move. The cracks have been repaired many tunes. It is an electric lawn mower. Mr. Urmann responded the electric lawn mower is not an issue. The issue was that the field inspector found a gas can sitting on or neaz the lawn mower and assumed it was gas powered. Mr. Zick stated all the other things are being handled by the maintenance contractor. They will be taken care of by the July 19. Some tenants asked about the surge protectors. Mr. Urmann responded the surge protection protects the equipment from overcurrent coming from the wall, but it does not protect the wa11 from overuse or overcurrent. He can use the power strip. He cannot use only surge protection because it is not legal. It can be used for any piece of equipment. Mr. Zick stated they had bids to do the whole building for the stucco. (He showed Ms. Moermond paperwork.) Ms. Moermond asked how much rime he thinks it will take. Mr. Zick responded a year, although he would like to get it done this yeaz. He can keep Ms. Moermond updated. Ms. Moermond asked did Mr. Thomas have anything to add. Mr. Urmann responded the pictures are a good representation of the fact that there is settling in the wall. There is some mortar coming out between the bricks. That would be repair, tuck pointing to make sure the foundation is sound. The exterior walls fall into the category of sound and in good repair. Ms. Moermond granted an extension to October 31, 2004 on the stucco if the building is otherwise maintained in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. 830 Winthrop Street South; owner. Arthur Wilkinson. Arthur Wilkinson, owner, appeared. Marcia Moermond stated the appeal is about how often this septic system is to be inspected. The owner is looking for it to be inspected every third yeaz instead of every second yeaz because of the low volume of usage. She asked what kinds of things go into the thinking of how often a septic system is inspected. Brian Krawiecki reported the water use is part of how often the tank is pumped. The other part is that they have no idea when things will faiL Hopefully they will be able to catch them before things will fail to the extent of causing poliution to another property. That is why they want to maintain the two year interval. If there is less water use, then pumping could be extended. Having someone out to see if the systexn has not failed, is another issue. They have a range of septic systems to ones that were built before the code and ones built after the code. �� NOTES OF THE LEGTSLATIVE HEARING OF .TL1LY 13, 2004 •..- . Mr. Wilkinson said his house was built in 1976. Mr. Krawiecki responded that it was built up to code. Ms. Moermond asked is there a recommendation to this appeal. According to the ordinance, responded Mr. Krawiecki, no action can be taken to exempt the owner from meeting the inspection for recording requirements. Something like this would entail modification of the current ordinance. Ae doubt that Mr. Wilkinson's system is any cause for alarm if he extended the amount of time between pumping. Mr. Wilkinson asked is that a tank problem or a drain field problem that he is concemed about. Mr. Krawiecki responded that the tank needs a certain amount of retention time, which is why the tank is built a certain size. If the solids settle out in the tank, the affluent to the drain field would get into the drain field without clogging it up. If the drain field gets clogged up, then the owner would have to replace it. A lot of the properties don't have azea to put a new drain field on. Mr. Wilkinson stated the State of Minnesota Pollufion Control Agency says the norm is every three yeus. A lot of septic system are built differently. His tank is 1,200 gallons. For a two to three bedroom home, the minimum tank capacity would be 1,000 gallons. That is if he has a number of individuals in the home. He is a single individuai. He is doing this appeal on principle. This is not a big money issue; it is $20 on average per year, but he feels he should not be spending money that is not necessary. There are only about 125 systems in Saint Paul, and there is a blanket policy that everyone has to do it every two years. His system gets little use. He uses low flow shower heads, one low flow toilet, he doesn't use his appliances, he has one to two loads of laundry a week. Ms. Moermond denied the appeal on the Inspection Report dated June 8, 2004. This appeal is really a request for a variance from the legislative code. She will bring this situation to the attention of the Councilmember for this area. Saint Pau1 is stricter than the State on this issue, but Saint Paul is stricter on various issues. It is hard to grant a variance that is time limited or owner limited. A new homeowner may not have the same type of usage of the present owner. It would be difficult to word it so that when the property is sold, the variance is over. 833 Delaware Avenue; appellant Johanna L. Gallagher. (Neighbarhood Housing and Property Improvement [NHPI], Correction Notice dated 6-14-04) 833 Delaware Avenue; appellant: Johanna L. Csallagher. (NHPI, Correction Notice dated 6-24-04) (Note: it was found out during this appeal, that ttus properiy is also condemned. Ms. Moermond is including the appeal of this condemnation.) Johanna Gailagher, owner, 381 Christine Lane, West St. Paul, appeared. Marcia Moermond asked is she the executor for the estate, the person who will have control of these properties with title eventually. Ms. Gallagher responded that is correct. Ms. Moermond stated the City saw these orders issued originally in 7anuary. The reason for wanting a delay was the person had died and it is in probate. She asked has it been in probate for 6'/z months. Ms. Gallagher responded yes. ��-'�- � � NOTES OF'T'I� LEGISLATIVE T-IEARING OF JULY 13, 2004 Page 9 In answer to several questions, Ms. Gallagher responded she did not realize these things were City ordered. The deceased is her mother. She had brothers living there who were going to fix the property, but they did not. They aze not working. She got the painting done and has a bid for siding. She needs to get financing for the siding and hopefully sell the property. Lisa Martin reported that this file has been open since May 8, 2002. Ms. Gallagher lives close to this property. There are many issues there. Several notices were issued to the property owner. NHPI has been dealing with her brother, who had several watrants. He was picked up on those wan All of these were housing related. On March 12, 2004, she was told this was stilt in probate. They had their legal intern check, and there was nothing on the probate court at this time. Ms. Martin talked to Ms. Gallagher in April, who said she was in control of the property and sent a form that showed she was the executor. In the meantime, the home was condemned far a lack of electricity. At this time, Ms. Galiagher had mentioned in her appeal that it would be switched over to her name and the power would be turned back on. As of this morning, the power is sti11 of£ She said the home is vacant, but could not produce an address or te11 her where her brothers had moved. When Ms. Martin went baak there, people were at the home. Ms. Martin asked Ms. Gallagher to fi1e an appeal on the Conection Orders in order to get a further extension and to prevent any more excessive consumption bi11s. Right now, it is $150 every time she goes out to the property; however, the appeal should be denied on the condemnation due to the circumstances, as the electrical service is sti11 of£ There aze sti11 people coming and going. If police go out there in the evening, they will be arrested for being in a vacant building. Ms. Moermond stated she has a conection notice dated June 24 for lack of electricity. It was subsequently condemned for the same problem. Ms. Moermond wiil assume that the owner is also appealing the condemnation. She requested copies of the materials for the condemnation. There was a reinspect date for June 25. Ms. Moermond asked did the owner have bids from contractors with her. Ms. Gallagher responded she has one for the siding. (Ms. Gallagher gave Ms. Moermond a document.) Ms. Moermond stated the documents seem to be a receipt for painting. Ms. Gallagher stated she spoke to someone at Xcel. She thought she had gotten things transferred into her name. Ms. Moermond asked is there electrical service and are people living there. Ms. Martin responded no. In answer to several questions, Ms. Gallagher said the people living in the house aze members of her family. She asked them to move on June 30. There are no kids there. Ms. Martin stated that Xcel will be going out to look because they did not hvn the power back on. The vacate date is June 28. There aze people occupying a condemned building at this point. As for the probate, said Ms. Moermond, it looks like the probate issue has been a misrepresentation on the family's part. Ms. Gallagher responded she thought it was probated. Ms. Moermond explained that the probate office is in the basement of the courthouse and Ms. Gallagher should check in that office. Looking at the Correction Orders, she sees one estimate on the siding, but she sees a lot of problems besides siding listed in the orders. The orders were ou=� � � NOTES OF T'F� LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF JiJLY 13, 2Q04 Page 10 originally issued more than six months ago. She will give her two months. That will mean that she had eight months total and she will recommend NHPI has no flexibility on this. Steve Magner reported that until the probate has gone through and the executor has title and possession of tl�e property, she would be putting money into a properiy she does not own. Ms. Moermond said Scott Bixby is mentioned in the paperwork as the mortgage holder. She asked was ttris properry purchased on a contract of deed. Ms. Gallagher responded that his name is not on the properiy. Mr. Magner added that when they ran ownership in May 2002, Ramsey County records indicated Minnie Vandenbosch is the owner. Since then, the last worksheet shows Scott Bixby, caze of Fairbanks Capital Corp, as the fee owner and Minnie Vandenbosch is still the tas owner. That leads him to believe Ramsey County changed their records. It could be a typographical error. Normal procedure is that once a dwelling is condemned and it is unoccupied or iliegally occupied, it gets transferred to Vacant Buildings. He would assume that is the next step. Ms. Moermond recommends the following: 1) Appeal is denied on Correction Notice dated June 24. As long as the power is out, the notice stands as it is. 2) The Notice of Condemnation is subject to a public hearing at the City Council on July 28. If the power is restored, the department can lift the condexnnation. 3) Changing the compliance date to September 14, 2004, on the Conection Notice dated June 14, 2004. If it is not done by then, i�iHPI can write criminal citations. 621 ReanetiAvenue; appellant: David S. Gageby. (NHPI) David Gageby, owner, 20120 Hillside Drive, Corcoran, appeared and stated he has no issue with the vacant building notice. He has owned several properties in Saint PauL He bought this property a few months ago. It was owner occupied. They were mm�ing a daycare out of there. When it was cleaned up, everyone was dumbfounded. This property was an older property. Seven 20 yard dumpster loads were taken out. There intent is to sell it right away. The citation said it was unsecured. It has been secured since the day he bought it. A realtor left the back door open. Mr. Gageby just came from the properiy. The yard is the cleanest on the block. There are no broken windows. There are no issues. There is something mentioned about the foundation, which is unfounded. They acquired the property, cleaned it up, put it on the market to sell. They had a potential buyer for owner-occupied, but because of the disclosure requirement, they showed it to the potential buyer which killed that dea1. Circumstances where they have a vacant building that needs work, they have no issue with that. This particular one was owner occupied. They were allowed to stay there until they found another place. Mr. Gageby had his guys there to clean it up the same week that the people moved out. The properly is significantly approved. As for as curb appearance, it is the best one on the block. It could have been sold to another owner-occupant with no issues until this vacant notice. He is here to appeal because Mr. Gageby does not feel it is reasonable that this is registered as a vacant building. Ms. Moermond asked what occasioned Lisa Martin coming out. Mr. Magner responded he does not have that paperwork, but his assumption is that it is something that came to the problem property unit based on the condition of the building, calls far service, or both. Ms. Martin found the dwelling unoccupied. She was then transferred over to Vacant Buildings. This came in on June 14 when Inspector Singerhouse went to the property. inspector Singerhouse mailed out the notification which include the Vacant Building Registration Form and also a letter that indicates that this building is a registered vacant building which requires a code compliance per Chapter 43. The code compliance can be obtained through LIEP. The intent of the Vacant Building Notice is to protect �� NOTES OF TI� LEGISLATIVE HEAI2ING OF JiJLY 13, 2004 Page 11 public health, safety, and welfaze. This is also to identify properties that need to be solved that are nuisance or to become nuisance. Mr. Magner talked to Mr. Gageby and said this meets the requirements for the vacant building notice. He could sell the property, but he would benefit from obtaining the code compliance inspection. We did check to see if the properiy was secure by Mr. Gageby's firm. They have cut the grass. NHPI issued a stmunary abatement for those two items when they went out there. There was a question as to what violations were seen. Mr. Magner sant another inspector out to identify those. It was a June 28 memorandum. He also can submit photographs. In one of the photographs, the bottom of the door is missing. This is a distressed property that needs to be brought into compliance befare someone moves back into it. There are a number of violations. He indicated there was a daycaze going on there. (Mr. Magner submitted photographs.) Mr. Gageby stated the conditions were honendous. He closed on the properiy in Mazch or April. The occupants vacated and left behind everything, including the food on the table. Mr. Magner stated his office tries to work with owners. His reai concern is that they can allow someone to move back into this. They usually condemn something in this condition in order for it to be vacated. They would like to see a code compliance inspection performed on the property, and Mr. Gageby uses it as his marketing tool. A new owner should know up front what needs to be done with the code compliance certificate until Jim Seeger (LIEP) signs off on this issue. Ms. Moerxnond staxed that Legislative Code 43.03(a) reads: The owner shall register with the enforcement officer not later than thirty (30) days after any building in the City becomes a vacant building, as defined in section 43.02(7). Ms. Moermond read Legislative Code 43.02(7): A buiiding or portion of a building which is : a. Unoccupied and unsecured; b. Unoccupied and secured by other than normai means, c. Unoccupied and a dangerous structure; d. Unoccupied and condemned; e. Unoccupied and has multiple housing or building code violations; f; Condemned and illegal occupied, g. Unoccupied for...over 365 days. Ms. Moermond denied the appeal on the letter dated June 15, 2004. The owner has to get a code compliance inspection. It is cheaper and more thorough. Mr. Gageby responded he always does Uie TAH in Minneapolis and Saint PauL The code compliance inspection can be substituted for that. (Some photographs were returned.) Ms. Moermond denied the appeal. 225 Baker Street East; owner: Cher I,or Xiong. (NHPn Cher Lor Xiong, owner, 72� Edmund Avenue, appeazed and stated Jack Reardon sent him notice. At the same rime, Mr. Xiong was going through a divorce, which will be finished in February. He was given a citation and has gone to court. By 3uly 1, he is to paint the outside of the house. It is expensive to go through a divorce. (Mr. Xiong showed photographs to Ms. Moermond.} o� -�-� � NOTES OF TI� LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF .TIJLY 13, 2004 Page 12 She asked is he living there. Mr. Xiong responded it is his income properiy. He rents it out. Both families moved out in Febniary. He has a family moving in on August 1. Ms. Moermond asked what occasioned the inspection of the properiy. Mr. Reazdon responded the neighbors were calling about the property being in bad condition. He has tried to work with Mr. Xiong while understanding he is going through a divorce. In the meantime, Mr. Reardon continues to get calls. Ms. Moermond stated the City does not haue a choice. When someone calis about property in violation, the City inspectors are compelled to investigate. Ms. Moermond stated it looks like he is close to having everything done. Mr. Reardon responded he was at the properiy the other day and it looks 100% better. There are two storm windows missing. That was the only violation he could see. Mr. Xiong responded one tenant wanted to put an air conditioner in and that is why the storm windows aze missing. They will need storm windows in the winter. Mr. Reazdon said he is willing to ciose the file on this. Ms. Moermond granted the appeal on Correction Notice dated June 22, 2004. 64 Griggs Street North; owner: Alvin C KvaaL (NHPI) Ms. Moermond stated the appeal has that the owner is looking at three items: exterior walls and trim, window and(or door screens missing, eaues and soffits. Alvin C. Kvaal, 64 Griggs Street North, owner, appeared. He asked what is a soffit. Mr. Magner explained it to him and said this is a property that was picked up during a sweep of the area. The inspector indicated the eaves, windows, exterior walls. The wood has started to rot and Mr. Magner explained where the rot may be located.. Mr. Kvaal stated he retired June 9 after warking over 40 years. He signed a pre-lease agreement on a new apartment building. It will be ready for occupancy March L He then got the order from the City. He is not disputing anything from the City, but the timing is inconvenient. If he plans to sell it, then they would not be surprised about the problems. He only owns half of the garage. Ms. Moermond stated this is not a large scale project. Mr. Magner stated most of the house has aluminum trim and siding. He asked about the screens. Mr. Kvaal responded someone tried to break in and a corner of the screen is ripped. Both doors have a screen in the middle and glass that they can turn a lever to open. Mr. Magner asked is there wood on the front or back. Mr. Kvaal responded there is wood trim on the front. It is peeling. Mr. Magner stated the screen doors aze not that big of a dea1. A handyman can do the screens and saffits. Then, they wiil just be looking at the trim. These aze minor exterior maintenance issues. c�`� �� g NOTES OF T� LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF JULY 13, 2004 Page 13 Ms. Moermond asked is notice sent to the other owner as well. Mr. Magner responded he could go out in a month to see if the house is taken care of and not deal with the garage unless there is a complaint. Ms. Moermond stated she does not thiuk this is so large a project that it is not doable before he moves. It is zeasonable that this be done in construction season. Mr. Kvaal suggested a compliance date of October 1. Ms. Moermond changing the compiiance date to October 1, 2004 on the Correction Notice dated June 16, 2004. Mr. Magner said he will go out after October 1 to see if these violations are conected. 1216 Marshall Avenue; owner: Lynn Anderson. (NHPI) (No one appeared to represent the property.) Ms. Moermond changed the compliance date to October i, 2004 on the Correction Notice dated June 16, 2004 to bring the gazage into compliance. The painting on the house will be deleted. 874 DaYton Avenue; owner: Jeraid C. Brown. (NHPI) (No one appeared to represent the properiy.) Ms. Moermond changed the compliance date to September 17, 2004 on the Correction Order dated 7une 30, 2004. 1292 Da�ton Avenue; owner: Raymond Chisholm. (NHPI) (No one appeazed to represent the property.) Racquel Naylor stated that there aze two e-mails regazding a Brush of Kindness, who are painting the house on August 14 or 21. Steve Schiller (NHPI) is in agreement with Brush of Kindness painting the house on those dates. Mr. Magner stated he would like time extensions to be deny the appeal but hold off enforcement until the extension time is set. That enforces the fact that the wark still has to be completed, but the Council is giving mare time to do the work from the original time. Ms. Moermond changed the compliance date to August 27, 2004 on the Correction Notice dated June 15, 2004. The hearing was adjourned at 338 p.m. rrn