Loading...
04-817Council File # �� � �� � Presented by Referred To Green Sheet # l RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �! n —ti Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the August 10, 2 2004, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals for Letters of Deficiency, Correction Norices, and 3 Correction Orders for the following addresses: 4 Pro e�rL�Ap en aled Anpellant 845 Tenace Court Tom Goossen for Univar USA, Inc. Decision: Affirm equivalency of MSFC 31041.1 with MSFC 2701.4.1 Hazazdous Materials Management Plan; MSFC 2703.9.9 Segregation and sepazation of incompatible materials by distance within the warehouse; and MSFC 2703.9.1 Personnel Training. Remaining deficiencies have been satisfied ar waived. 9 1815 Portland Avenue Craig Miller, owner 10 Decision: Extension granted to October 1, 2004 to paint the basement walls; amend the deficiency list for item 11 7 to paint the back exterior wa11 near the rain leader and granting an extension to October 1, 2004. 12 833 Delaware Avenue Johanna L. Gallagher 13 Decision: Condemnation lifted; appeal withdrawn. 14 342 Rice Street Jean C. O'Brien 15 Decision: Extension granted for one year conditioned on inspection that wires on the third floor aze not live; if 16 inspector finds live wires, they must be capped immediately. 17 379 Sims Avenue Terry G. Gaetke, owner 18 Decision: Appeal granted; owner must obtain an encroachment easement for use of public right of way. oy- 8�7 Yeas Na s Absent Benanav � Bostrom ✓ Harris � Helgen � Lantry J Montgomery ,, Thune � Adopted by Council: Date /-�ii����T a?OO� Adoption Certified by Council Secret /��� / � .. . -� . , . �. - . Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � oN sr� � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � DepartmenUo�celcouncil: Date Initiated: � -���,� ,2-A�� Green Sheet NO: 3021752 Contact Person & Phone: Marcia Moermond Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): � Deoar6nent SentTO Person 0 ouncil I A551gn 1 ICouncil � DeoartmentDirector Number 2 '{��erk CiriClerk For Routing 3 Order 4 5 ToWI # of SignaWre Pages _(Ciip All Locations for SignaWre) Approving the August 10, 2004 decisions of the Legislarive Aearing Officer on Appeals for Letters of Deficiency, Correction Notices and Correction Orders for: 845 Terrace Court, 1815 Portland Avenue, 833 Delawaze Avenue, 842 Rice Street and 379 Sims Avenue. itlations: Approve (A) or R Planning Commission CIB Committee Civil Service Commission Answerthe Followinq QuesEOns: t. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contrect for this department? Yes No 2. Has this personffirm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this persoNfirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain ali,yes answers on separate sheet and aHath to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): AdvanTages If Approved: DisadvantaqeslfApproved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: �otal Amount of Transaction: Fundinit Source: CostlRevenue Budgeted: Activity Number: Financia{ Information: (Explain) .. ��- 6``.-g1� ll NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES, AND CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, August 10, 2004 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Boulevazd West Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was calied to order at 135 pm. STAFF PRESENT: Phillip Owens, Division of Fire Prevention; Henry Ung, Public Works, Right-of-Way Division 1815 Portland Avenue Craig Miller, owner, appeared and presented pichues of the property for the record. The properiy was inspected on a complaint so he was not present when the inspector looked at his property. He had made many of the corrections on the order, however, was requesting additional time to complete the required painting. The basement wa11s were limestone and had been painted approximately 10 years ago to retard dust and deterioration. He cleaned and sealed the walls with the intent of painting them. He requested an extension to September 30 to complete painting the basement wa11s. Phil Owens, Fire Prevention, stated the inspector on this property was out ill and he was unfamiliaz with the building. The complaint came from a tenant in the building who complained there was peeling lead paint in the basement. On inspection, it was discovered the paint was not lead, however, the paint had peeled ali the way down to the limestone. Limestone walls were no1 required to be painted, however, once they have been painted, they need to continue to be painted. He agreed to the request for the extension of time. Mr. Miller questioned the order to paint the exterior of the house. There was one wall on the back of the house that had peeling paint by the rain gutter. When he questioned the inspector on the order to paint the exterior, the inspector told him he knew what peeling pa3nt needed to be repaired. He intended to paint the exterior back wall by the rain gutter and would complete it by September 30. Ms. Moermond recommended granting an extension to October 1, 2004 to paint the basement walls; amending the deficiency list for item 7 to paint the back exterior wall near the rain leader and granring an extension to October 1, 2004 to complete the wark. 833 Delaware Avenue Ms. Moermond stated the condemnation had been lifted since the power had been restored and the building was no longer vacant. Therefore, the appeal had been withdrawn. LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES OF AUGUST 10, 2004 842 Rice Street �`-�-� 1`1 Page 2 Jean O'Brien, appellant, appeared and stated she was appealing the order to repair wiring on the third floor of the building. She had tested the wires and they were all dead. The azea was used for storage and she did not believe they needed to be capped off at this point in time. Mr. Owens stated the inspector issued orders to repair wires that were not in the junction box. There were wires in the stairway, on the third floor and in the basement. The wires on the third floor were too high that the inspector was unable to test them. The wires the inspector tested on the lower levels were hot. The order was to place the wires in the junction box and if there were wires that were disconnected, an electrician would need to seal the wires and certify they were disconnected. Ms. O'Brien stated she was only appealing the orders for the third floor and the other orders had been made. They had purchased a tester and tested all of the wires on the third floor. If the wires had been live, they would have installed lights. Hauing an electrician test the wires and cap them was cost prohibitive at this time. She offered to test the wires in the presence of the inspector. Ms. Moermond recommended granting an extension for one year conditioned on inspection that wires on the third floor were not live; if inspector found live wires, they were to be immediately capped. 845 Terrace Court This matter was laid over from the July 13, 2004 Legislative Heazing. The appellant was not present. Mr. Owens stated he had sent an e-mail outlining Fire Prevention's conditions to grant the equivalency to the Fire Code. He believed this wouid be the best alternative for the appellant and the appellant had agreed to the conditions. Ms. Moermond affirmed the equivalency of MSFC 3104.1.1 with MSFC 2701.4.1 Hazardous Materials Management Plan; MSFC 2703.9.9 Segregation and separation of incompatible materials by distance within the warehouse; and MSFC 2'103.91 Personnel Training. Remaining deficiencies had been satisfied or waived. 379 Sims Avenue Henry Ung, Public Works, Right of Way Division, appeared and stated the orders were issued based on a complaint. According to the plat map, the properiy owner had his fence approximately 2'h feet on the alley which is public right of way. This was an assessed and improved alley. Terry G. Gaetke, owner, appeared and presented pictures, maps and a survey of his property. The fence on his property lined up with the rest of the properties in the alley. There had been a fence t�-1- S �1 LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES OF AUGUST 10, 2004 Page 3 on this properry since 1958. The fence had been in disrepair and he had replaced it in 1997 with a siY foot privacy fence. He believed there was 20 feet access on the alley and that his fence was not on the public right of way. He did not believe he should be required to remove the fence. Mr. Ung stated he measured the lot which is determined by the edge of the sidewalk in the front of the street. This was how he detemrined the fence was located on the public right of way. Kathy Arionus, 936 Weshninster Street, appeared and stated she had lived in her house for the past seven yeazs. It came to her attention the fence was on the alley right of way when a new house was being built on a lot two doors from her on Westminster. She had issues with the fence in the winter as it was difficult to back out of her driveway in the winter and there was no place to put snow. 3ohn Sisson, 932 Westminster Street, appeazed and requested the a11y be restored to 20 feet. He had lived in his home since 1951. He had a difficult time maneuvering in and out of his garage because of the location of the fence. He also did not have any place to put snow in the winter. Mr. Ung stated there were several other property owners who were encroaching on the alley public right of way and he was fearfiil other orders would need to be issued if this owner was ordered to move the fence. Ms. Moermond recommended granfing the appeal based on the advice of the City Attorney's Office. The owner must also obtain an encroachment easement for use of public right of way. She also explained public right of way, that owners are responsible for maintenance and only the property owner had the right to put snow on their own property. The hearing adjourned at 230 p.m. vms