Loading...
04-934� � Green Sheet Green Sheet b� �� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � DepartrnenUoffice%ouneil: Date IniSated: co �w�� 29SEP-04 Green Sheet NO: 3022924 Contact Person & Phone• DeoartrneM Sent To Person InitiaUDate Marcia Mcertnond � 0 oun il Z ��� Assign 1 ouncil De rhnentDireeMr Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number y erk For Routing 3 Order 4 5 Total # of Signature Pages ^ (Clip All Lowtions for SignaWre) Action Requested: Approving the decisions of the Legislative Heazing Officer on Appeals for Leuers of Deficiency, Correction Norices, and Correction Orders for the following addresses: 1735 Dayton Avenue, 1144 Minnehaha Avenue fiast, 1008 Farrington Sueet, 377 Toronto Street, and 380 Seventh Street West. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? Ci8 Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a ciry employee? Yes No 3. Does tfiis person(firm possess a ski11 nof normaity possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating ProWem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advanqxles If Approved: nisadvantas�es�fnaaroved: �+ �@SeafCtl (iQf1��f S�P 2 g Zfl04 Disadvantages If Not ApMOVed; � �� � , � � �..�._._ _..» �:�,s�.'.. ..�.... . Total Amount of CosNRevenue Budgeted: Transaetion: Funding Source: Activity Number: Financial I nfortnation: (F�cplain) , C�J'-�-�31-f- ��� �� MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING LEGISLATIVE HEARING FOR LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES, AND CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, September 14, 2004 Room 330 City Hall, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 2:06 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Mike Ka1is, Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement (NfIP�; Henry Ung Public Works department 1735 Dayton Avenue; owner: Bric Christopher. (Division of Fire Prevention) Mazcia Moermond laid over to September 28, as requested by Fire Prevention. 1144 Minnehaha Avenue East; owner: Edward Schwazz and Laura Schwarz. (Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement [NHPI]) Craig Mashuga indicated a tentative agreement has been reached. Ms. Moermond stated the appeal has been withdrawn. 1008 Farrin�ton Street; owner: Lois B. Jacobs. (NHPI) Mike Kalis reported 1008 Farrington was condemned on May 18, 2004 for lack of electricity. He went there and met Aaron, grandson of the owner, and told him the electricity had to be restored, the house was condemned, it is a Category II, and a code compliance inspection has to be done. Aaron acknowledged that is what he would do. Also, there was gazbage in the back yard along the porch. He gave Aaron time to get it done, it was not done, so he gave Aazon more time. Lois Jacobs, owner, 525 Lexington Parkway South, appeared and stated she requests a complete repeal of the classification of the house at Category II, as it has not been vacant, and her. grandson is there continuously. Her grandson changed the electrical service into his name, which Ms. Jacobs did not want. She is a law abiding citizen of four generations in Saint Paul. She has never had a problem in the City. She knows that when there is a rental properiy, theze are a lot of things she has to conform to. She purchased this small house primarily for her grandson Aaron who has been in her custody for seven years. (Ms. Jacobs showed photographs of the house.) Ms. 7acobs continued: Aaron's friend Jason wanted to move in and said he' d pay the NSP bills as his share of expenses. Whenever she would call NSP, she was told that privacy laws prevented them from giving any information except to Jason, who is the name on the bill. Jason has disappeared. The gas and electric were huned off: She never got a notice from NSP or the �� ��� LEGISLA"PIVE HEARING NOTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 Page 2 City. 5he is in the phone book. NSP would not tell her how much she owed, but she was toid that if she paid $67, they would tutn on the gas and electric, which they did. They turned it on within minutes of her sending it through on her credit cazd. She was told to go to Code Enforcement. She was ordered to pay $138 before going there and the Ciry Housing people would work with her. She used her credit card again. She never got anything at her address from them. They gave her a Notice of Condemnation, properiy records, code compliance, a11 of which she had not seen before. She and her grandson Aaron worked hard to correct evetything outside. There were 65 complaints for the interior. None aze threatening. She got estimates. The plumbing and the heating wouid be not much. It is unusual, irregular, and perhaps illegal to oppose such demands and regulations on a homeowner. Attorneys she has spoken to have not heazd of this. She taiked to someone from the City who said it was unusual and they did not remember any homeowners being persecuted by this. Ms. Moermond asked who she spoke to at the City. Aaron responded Jim Seeger (LIEP) said that usually a home is vacant or something bad has happened for it to get to this level. It has never been vacant, said Aaron. He has always been there. Ms. Jacobs added that she is asking that this arder be dismissed and hopes this can be resolved without litigation. She is surprised to find herself in this position. Ms. Moermond stated the house was condemned for lack of electricity. Ms. Jacobs responded someone told her it was not condemned yet. She feels NSP is at fault: they could have called her. The condemnation was because she was not notified. Ms. Moermond stated Ms. Jacobs allowed the tenant to live there in exchange for paying the utility bill. The bill was changed into his name. That decision precipitated this condemnation. She asked how long the house was condemned. Mr. Kalis responded that it was condemned on May 18, and he opened the file on July 1 because the power was not back on. No gas and electric is a reason to condemn a property, said Ms. Moermond. Aaron responded he was not aware of that, as he was in Texas visiting. Ms. Jacobs stated on May 13, she had a bi11 for $171.75 that she paid as soon as she got it. But she cannot check because no one would give her information. Mr. Kalis responded that on July 1, he talked to Aazon numerous times at the property. Mr. Kalis told him that the house was condemned for lack of facilities and Aazon would be getting paperwork in the mail. Aaron understood this. On July 6, on a night check, three girls were inside with candles lit. Aaron was not around. The paperwork was sent to the owner and occupant. Ms. Moermond stated she has to look at whether the inspector acted appropriately given the circumstances and the conditions. With respect to requiring him to have a registered vacant building, the inspector acted appropriately. A condemnation for lack of gas and electricity, especially of this duration, justifies the code compliance inspection and registering this as a Category II vacant building. It sounds like there are other complicating issues with the vehicle ��-�t3`� LEGISLATTVE HEARING NOTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 Page 3 and garbage issues in the yard. What he needs to do, is to have the items on the list addressed before the property will be legally occupied again. Right now, this properry should not be legally occupied because it has not passed the inspection to say it can be occupied. Ms. Jacobs responded she got a notice that it could be occupied while it was being fised. Aazon added that the Fire Inspection Department said that if it is not a rental properiy, they do not handle it. Ms. Moertnond asked why the letter from Rich Singerhouse reads "Certificate of Occupancy." Mr. Kalis responded he does not know. Ms. 7acobs stated he called the number on the phone and was told there was nothing they could do because this was not rental property. Aaron added he did get the notice, he read the letter, and he called the numbers, and they had no clue what he was talking about. If it is not a rental properry with more than one unit, than there if no way to get a certificate of occupancy. Lois Jacobs asked what address it was sent to. Ms. Moermond responded 1008 Farrington Street. If a person files that a property is homesteaded, that could be a problem. Ms. Jacobs responded that she homesteads the property because her grandson lives there. Ms. Moermond stated there was a clerical enor: certificate of code compliance should be certificate of occupancy. The owner already has the inspecrion, so it does not matter which term the letter uses. As far as occupying the building in the meantime, the answer is no. When a building becomes vacant, the City is responsible for assessing its conditions. Aaron asked was the Certificate of Occupancy a mistake. Ms. Moermond responded the letter is correct, but it should have read "Code Compiiance." It is essentially the same document. A Certificate of Code Compliance is the document for a one or two unit residence; a Certificate of Occupancy is a residence of three or more units or a business. Both documents affirm the building is in compiiance with all applicable codes. When Mr. Seeger (LIEP) goes back out with a team, the owner will receive a Certificate of Code Compliance. Ms. Moermond denied the appeal on the Correction Notice dated September 1, 2004. They may be looking at a citation for illegal occupation of the building. The building cannot be occupied now. The condemnation and order to vacate was not appealed. Mr. Seeger may have misunderstood this is a condemnafion. 377 Toronto Street; owner: Patrick Carlone. (Departsnent of Public Works) Henry Ung reported he received a complaint from AI Czaia (Public Works-Sidewalks) about the driveway in &ont of 377 Toronto. The permit had been obtained by Mr. Carlone, the properiy owner, to extend the driveway apron. After the apron was installed, Mr. Carlone poured concrete on the boulevard area, which is not permitted. A notice was sent to haue it removed, and he responded with a list of other complaints. Most of the issues on the complaint were not related to the boulevazd. �� ��� LEGISLATIVE HEt1RING NOTBS OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2604 Page 4 (Mr. Ung submitted and explained photographs.) (There was some discussion about how much of the boulevard was being encroached upon.) Mr. Carlone staxed he cailed the American Red Cross to find out the width for wheelchair service because his wife was having hip replacement surgery. He was told 36 inches. The flowers added were seasonal and will die out soon. The four by four rails ate there to guide wheeichair. He put down the brick himself. He has a permit for this work, and it includes general remodeling. Mr. Ung responded the pernut does not include that. (Mr. Carlone showed a copy of the permit.) Mr. Carlone stated his wife was born and raised in this house. The other people here (in the hearing room today) have been giving his family trouble. He has been asking these people for nine yeazs to park their cazs beyond the house. They start the engines and let them run. The toxic fumes come directly into his home. VJith a parking ordinance, they cannot park in that driveway. They have to be beyond the building, and they have to be four feet from the fence. These aze his recourse complaints. (Mr. Carlone began to read a letter to the police about a formal complaint of an investigation.) Ms. Moermond interrupted Mr. Carlone and said she is only looking at the encroachment issue. The history with the neighbors does not speak to the physical issues of the problem. She asked how much is encroaching on the city right-of-way. Mr. Ung responded the entire project is on the City right-of-way. Ms. Moermond asked was a permit pulled afterwards. Mr. Ung respoaded the permit was initially for widening the driveway apron, which was done. After that was completed, the other stuff was added on to the north, which included the concrete path, landscape, flowers, lumber. Had Mr. Carlone approached the Right-of-Way Division for an encroaclunent permit for that portion, they might have granted a permit to have that done. Whenever ttaere is an improvement on City right-of-way there needs to be an encroachment permit. Mr. Carlone stated the City could make him pay a double fee for the permit. Ms. Moermond responded yes it could. Mr. Carlone stated he had not heazd of anyone who had to take out a permit to put down the red bricks or flowers. Ms. Moermond responded the flowers do not need permitting in the public- right-way. Sharon and James Nagel, 383 Toronto Street, appeazed. Ms. Nagel stated the driveway is meant for one car. The City put theirs in. They wanted to have theirs double, but they were told they could not have it. Mr. Nagel added that they never made trouble with the Ciry about that. �� ��� LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 ' Page 5 (There was discussion about problems with Mr. Carlone that were unrelated to this issue.) Ms. Moermond's decision is as follows: Mr. Carlone will have to remove the encroachment by October l, 2004 or apply for an encroachment permit at twice the fee by September 17, 2004. As soon as the owner hears that the appiication is approved or denied, he must do what it says within two weeks_ If it is approved in part, the owner will have to remove the part that is being denied within two weeks. The hearing was adjourned at 3:20 p.m. u1 LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES FOR DECEMBER 18, 2003 O'�( �i3`( T�M \� Page 3 be put in jeopardy. They would have an early warning and then multiple ways to exit. The second level is quite small. Not many people can be there. It is a difficult situation. Ms. Moermond stated this is the building code here. As an understanding, the inspector would be empowered to determine if the alann system rating is an equivalency for ihe third floor stairwell requirement. That would make it unnecessary for him to appeal. Mr. Owens responded the fire code gives the fire mazshal the ability to make determinations of distinct hazards and alternate methods of materials. That would be the best resolution. The code is explicit. Realistically, there aze alternate methods for achieving safety. Ms. Moermond asked about the expense for detectars. Mr. Alizadeh responded the alarm system expense is no problem. Mr. Owens responded it would be hard wired smoke detectors. Ms. Moermond stated she will lay this over to January 27, 1:30 p.m. Between now and then, the issue may be solved. An inspector should meet with the owner, talked about the alann systems, get the contractors out to take care of it, have a reinspection. Ms. Moermond would accept a phone call from Mr. Owens that it has been taken care of. Mr. Owens stated he will make a recommendation to the fire marshal and Mr. Owens will call Mr. Alizadeh. Mr. Alizadeh should not make any contractural obligations until he knows it is approved in writing. � 380 Seventh Street West (Note: this is an appeal of a fence permit application) (LIEP staff arrived later in the hearing.) The following appeared: Patrick O'Shaughnessy, 199 McBoal Street; Tony Bonfe, Bonfe Auto Service and Body Repair, 380 Seventh Street West; Tim Durhaug, Kelier Residential, 1429 Mazshall Avenue. Ms. Moermond stated the fence was built and then the owner got a permit. It is a six foot fence. She asked is the six feet inclusive of the bazbed wire. Mr. Bonfe responded it is six feet tall plus the strands of barbed wire. Patrick O'Shaughnessy stated that Mr. Bonfe began erecting a fence. He talked to Mr. Bonfe and requested that a six foot fence with barbed wire not be installed because of its impact on the neighborhood in regards to its aesthetic appeai. As a representative of the neighbors, Mr. O'Shaughnessy sought some sort of a compromise solution and asked that at some point Mr. Bonfe and he speak further about it. Mr. Bonfe expressed that Bonfe Auto Service needed that fence. They did not have an opportunity to have further conversation, said Mr. O' Shaughnessy. The fence started to be erected. Mr. O'Shaughnessy found out a permit had not been issued. Zoning and Licensing went out and told them to stop construction and then they began conshuction again. A permit had still not been issued. Then they stopped it again. Then, he had � �3�4 LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES FOR DECEMBER 18, 2003 Page 4 a meeting with Wendy Lane in Zoning and they reached a concensus that the way the code is currently written, Bonfe Auto Service is within its right to have a pemut issued by the Zoning Office as tbey aze a commercial properry. City statutes do not adequately address a commercial properry that abuts a residential groperiy. Bonfe has just gone through a major expansion along West Seventh Street, and they have built a garage. That was important for them to have additional parking for vehicles. Residents would arguably tell you that the expansion would damage the value of the neighborhood. The fence in question is about Mr. Bonfe hying to garner three or four additional secured parking spaces outside. It goes along Mr. O' Shaughnessy's properiy and along the sidewalk. There is a pazking lot across the street that holds 25 to 50 cars in secured pazking. Right where this new fence is erected, there are 20 to 25 secured pazking spaces. The neighbors felt that should be adequate. Neighbors pazk their cars on the street. They have not had many incidences of theft to warrant this kind of affront. Mr. O'Shaughnessy went on to say that the remedy solutions they recommend is to remove the fence and erect a wooden one. They would also be willing to put up nine foot bushes. Or, rip it down and utilize the secured pazking they have. That should be sufficient for their business. Mr. Durhaug stated he incorrectly made the assumption that the fence was part of the building permit. He did not have the fence covered under the building pemut. They appHed for the permit under the commercial application. They clearly stated there would be bazbed wire. There is a residential property east of Bonfe's exisring building. There also is currently a six foot high fence with barbed wire. Once the permit was reissued, they commenced construction. That is his fault regarding the timing of the permit. The fence is set back along McBoal Street with rose shrubs in front of that. On Mr. O'Shaugl�nessy's side, it is set back 5'/z feet. Mr. Bonfe showed Ms. Moermond photographs, and said the fence matches the existing setback and the existing fence that was there. Mr. O' Shaughnessy stated there was a pre-existing four foot tall fence that they took down. When he bought the house, there was a fence there, but it did not have barbed wire; it was covered in ivy. Aesthetically, it was not an issue. His understanding is that the zoning requirement for newiy built fences is a seven foot setback. Continuing the fence where it began previously would not fit today's code. Tim Bonfe stated they added a new addition and lost their back parking lot. It is a two story building and the upstairs is an enclosed secured parking lot. They lost the old fenced in parking lot which is on Seventh Street. They have eight enclosed secured parking stalls. By adding this fence, they gain three more. They needed to do this because they have nondriveable vehicles. They can't get tow trucks up there, and the trucks have to be secured. A secured alarmed lot was needed. They added the fence to gain three mare spaces. There is so much crune in the area; police aze called every six to eight weeks. They have had people jump the fence, cut the fence, and break into cars. They do not turn many into insurance because it costs more every time. T'hey need the barbed wire to secure cars. C�t-�t3y LEGISLAITVE HEARING NOTES FOR DECEMBER 18, 2003 Page 5 Betty Moran asked do they make police reports. Mr. Bonfe responded yes. Mr. O' Shaughnessy stated Lloyd's Automotive pazks undriveable cazs right out in the open. It seems that Mr. Bonfe should seek a compromise solution and be a good neighbor. Also, N1r. O' Shaughnessy recently appealed a fence variance denial for a fence between his property and Women of Nations and spent $3,000 of their money to build that fence to be a good neighbor. Ms. Moermond asked aze they interested in removing the barbed wire. Mr. Bonfe responded that he hired them to install a fence for security purposes. They applied for that permit. They tried to not take this up to the property line. Mr. O' Shaughnessy responded that would not be accurate. That was not a barbed wire fence that ran into his front yard. (Tom Riddering appeared.) Mr. Riddering stated the person who got the notice of appeal is not an inspector and she thought she was just receiving notificafion and did not realize someone needed to be at this hearing. Ms. Moermond explained that this is an awkward situation and she asked for LIEP's take on this. Mr. Riddering responded that what Mr. Bonfe wanted to do was in accordance with the code, and LIEP had no choice but to issue a permit. Mr. Riddering is not sure what is being contested and what the appellant is asking for here. They are limited to three strands of barbed wire and the bottom strand has to be at least six feet high. Mr. O' Shaughnessy stated an eight foot barbed wire fence should now run along McBoal Street. With the improvements in the neighborhood, Mr. Bonfe should offer a compromise solution. The direct comparison is Liopd's Auto Body without a fence at a11. Women of Nations putting up a$3,000 wooden fence. He wouid be interested to see the economics on the benefits of secured parking spaces. Ms. Moermond asked did the district council discuss this. Ms. Moran responded no. The neighborhood has given quite a bit to Bonfe Auto Service. He has torn down a few houses. The compromise should be to remove the fence and put up something that is pleasing. The neighborhood has changed and Mr. Bonfe needs to understand that and wark with the neighborhood. Mr. Bonfe responded that he agrees with that, he does work with the City, and the neighborhood. He spent $40,000 to make the front not look like a wazehouse. That was a concern Tom Beach (LIEP). They installed the old style lights. The City was happy with their plans. Mr. O' Shaughnessy stated Mr. Bonfe has not made a major overture to communicate with the neighborhood about any of its plans. They were unaware of the large expansion and the fence. If one is trying to incorporate about how peopie feel, he did not adequately meet that standazd. It seems they only follow the letter of the law when administrators—like Tom Beach puts demands on them. c�y-�3� LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES FOR DECEMBER 18, 2003 Page 6 Ms. Moermond asked about the setback. Mr. Riddering responded there was discussion about setback, but he does not remember what the code spec9fied about that. He is not sure what fence they are talking about. Mr. O'Shaughnessy responded that it was his understanding that the new fence must be set back seven feet, and this one is 5�/z feet. They aze not hying to get them to move it back; they aze asking them to change it to a wooden fence or take it down and utilize their secured pazking. Ms. Moermond stated the code reads that all fences erected between the front property line and the front setback can be no more than four feet in height. The reaz of the property is McBoal and that would be considered the side of the properiy. There is a similaz case on the same block where we are talking about the Women of Nations fence, which was the back of their property; therefare, they could erect a fence that was six feet in height. Ms. Moermond asked the fence height requirement. Mr. Riddering responded this is one of the places where the code does not make sense. If it is a commercial properiy, there is no limit. If they can build an unlimited height fence on their side of the property line and only 6'/a feet on the other side, that does not make any logical sense. Mr. Durhaug stated the bottom of the permit specifically says that the fence can be built up to but not on the property line. He asked is that taken directly from the code. Mr. Riddering responded a fence has to be on your own properry obviously. This drawing does not show the property line or where the fence is. There was some discussion about the setback. They decided that the permit as described could be approved. There was understanding that the fence needed to be a certain distance from the property line may be true, but does not prevent LIEP from issuing a pernut as long as the documentation that came with the permit does not show anything in violation of the law. That may be something we leave up to the building inspector to make sure it is properly setback even though it was not specified on the drawing. There was some discussion, but he does not remember the details. The setback they were discussing was one that was only invoked in a certain situarion. He does not remember exactly what it was. Generally, a person can build a fence up to the property line as long as it is on your property, but there was discussion about setback that had to do with parking lot or something special that invoked this setback. Mr. Durhaug asked did the code say any specific about setback. Mr. Riddering responded it does. He is talking about a code section that applies only to certain situations. It had something to do with a parking lot. Ms. Moermond stated she may have to take this under advisement and give everyone a written response. She asked is there a certificate of insurance indemnifying the City of Saint Paul from Bonfe's. Mr. Riddering responded yes as it is required for the issuance of the permit. Ms. Moermond asked were there any last comments. Mr. Q'Shaughnessy responded the spirit of the law is at stake regardless of the letter of the law. Economically, these four parking spots are O`� G3y LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES FOR DECEMBER 18, 2003 Page 7 not crucial to this business success. There are a lot of neighbors azound whose homes are unpacted by Bonfe's expansion. Regazdless of the outcome of this hearing, they are going to take this further. They are asking for a compromise: the Bonfes can talce it down and use their existing fence, put up a wooden fence, or put up shrubs. These are not costly solutions. Ms. Moran stated the community agreed to remove the pernut parking on one side of the street for employees of Bonfe Auto Service. Mr. Bonfe should also do something far the community such as removing the fence and doing something better. The fence makes a statement as faz as he feels about the neighborhood. It is an insult. Ms. Moermond stated the extra barbed wire has to go. She received a call today from Thomas Schroeder at 194 McBoal Street to alleviate some concems. LIEP did exactiy what they were suppose to do: issue a permit. The business should have gotten the permit ahead of time. Talking to the neighbors is always advisable, but that is not required by City law. Her role is to heaz and decide appeals of orders, decision, and determinations made by enforcement officers relative to all of these codes. She needs to find a little more about this issue. She would have like to have some more informafion about the security concerns they have had. Perhaps they can talk to the Police Department-Western District about having problems. Mr. Bonfe stated his back lot is alarmed. He would rather not have any fence, but that is not practical. Mr. Bonfe asked about putting something else in place of the fence, such as buckthorn. Ms. Moermond responded anything except buckthorn, which is considered an obnoxious weed. Mr. Riddering added that they are legally required to remove buckthorn Mr. Bonfe responded there has to be some sort of vegetative cover that does not make such a statement. Ms. Moran responded that they haue been working hard to improve West Seventh, and this corner is a gateway. Mr. Durhaug stated the aesthetic value of the fence is an opinion. The Bonfes have tried to do this in code. The concern as a contractor is that these things are looked at on a case by case. Ms. Moermond responded there is a problem when residential abuts commercial. Mr. Bonfe asked if they could take down the barbed wire and put up a ten foot fence. Mr. O'Shaughnessy responded that is within the letter of the law, but he would appeal that, too. The hearing was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. rrn