Loading...
05-1031Council File # �S� �d3� Green Sheet # 3028678 RESOLUTION OF PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented Referred To Committee Date /O BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the September 20, 2005, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters of Deficiency, Correction Nofices, Correction Orders, etc. for the following addresses: Pronertv Appealed ✓ ✓ � D � 668 Fourth Street East Allen Woods Decision: appeal denied on the Deficiency List dated August 18, 20Q5. 984 Albemarle Street Pierre Rhodes Decision: variance granted to the Inspection Report dated August 17, 2005, to allow a maxunum of six residents on the second floor for access to the second floor bathroom facilities. 624 James Avenue Tom Gallagher for Dadders Holding Decision: appeal denied on the Correction Order on August 23, 2005. Benanav Bostrom Harris Helgen L, Montgomery Yeas � � � � ✓ Nays ` Absent Requested by Department of. Thune Adopted by Adoption BY� � Secretary Date: Appellant � Form Approved by City Attorney Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council Date/�( f}I/`r�u-�C.� �, �al� BY � � 05� ta3l � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � co �w�� Contact Person 8 Phone: Marcia Mcertnond 266-8560 on Council Agenda by (Date): ToWI # of Signature Pages Date initiated: 02-NOV-05 � Assign Number For Routing Order Green Sheet NO: 3028678 0 ouncil 1 ouncil De artmentDirector 2 lerk 3 4 5 (Clip All Locations for Signature) Approving the decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on appeals of Letters of Deficiency, Correction Notices, and Correction Orders for the following addresses: 668 Fourth Street East, 984 Aibemazle Street, and 624 James Avenue. itlatlons: Approve (A) or R Planning Commission CIB Committee Civil Service Commission � �� (R): Contracts Must Answer 1. Has this persoNfirm ever worked under a contract for this department? Yes No 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? � Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantapes IfApproved: DisadvantaStes If Approved: DisadvanWges If Not Approved: Total Amount of Transaction: Fundinp Source: C°Un R��earch Center �� 2�D5 F � � e q. "^,^.�.�.�.`�.-.. � - � ..' .,^.�: .. CosURevenue Budgeted: Activi4y Number: Fi nancial I nformation: (F�cplain) �'te.�-r. 1 C� C� 5 ` NOTES OF THE LEGI3LATIVE HEt1RING LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES, AND CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, September 20, 2005 Koom 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Boulevazd West Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing O�cer The hearing was called to order at 1:57 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Michael Cassidy, Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement (NHPn; Michael Urmann, Division of Fire Prevention; David Weisberg, License, Inspections, Environment Protection (LIEP) Appeal of Deficiency List at 668 Fourth Street East; owner: Allen W oods. (Division of Fire Prevention) Michael Urmann reported that the Fire Marshall's position on this is clear: the appeal was not filed in a timely manner and should not be heard. The order being appealed is an August 18 letter. Allen Woods stated that the inspectar indicated to him that the doors could be fixed. One of the doors had a broken lock, and it was his impression that he could replace the lock. On the other door, the tenant was locked out, disassembied the door, and Mr. Woods put it back together. He thought he could get a variance for the original doors and leave them because it is a historic building built in 1876. They are a little ornate, not real special, two inches thick, and he would like to keep them on the building. Ms. Moermond asked when was the follow-up inspection. Mr. Urmann responded August 18 was the last set of orders he sent out. The two units in question are 670 #1 and 672 #1. It is cleaz the doors need to be replaced with approved one hour fire rated doors. Mr. Woods stated there was a communication breakdown. He was under the assumption that the repair would be okay originally. Then she came back and said he had to replace them. Mr. Woods does not know why she indicated they had to be fixed. Ms. Moermond asked to see the June 28 orders. She is seeing four separate tlungs on the doors. (Note: the current Deficiency List mentions the original arders were dated June 28.) Ms. Moermond looked at a document from Mr. Urmann and said the previous list has been decreased. It clearly stated to replace the door with an approved one hour rated door. Mr. Woods responded that the only thing wrong with the door is the strike plate, frame, throw, and lock. He does not know why he cannot just repair it. Ms. Moermond wondered is there a way to make the historic door a one-hour door. Mr. Urmann responded there is no way to convert it. They were granting 20 minute fire rated door assembly appeals if the door was maintained in good condition with no damage. As soon as it is damaged, the inspector has been directed by the Fire Marshall to call the door out. Mr. Urmann feels there was an appeal granted at one time far these doars if maintained in good condition with no damage. a�� \��\ LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 Page 2 Ms. Moermond recommends denying the appeal on the Deficiency List dated August 18, Z005. The order is clean in this case on the fire rated doors. Appeal of Inspection Report at 984 Albemarle Street; appellant: Pierre Rhodes. (LIEP) David Weisberg reported this is an appeal of an inspection order dated 8-1-OS about bathroom requirements. City Code Chapter 34, Rooming Requuements, says there should be one � bathroom for every five residents with the bathroom on the same floor or adjacent floar. There is a bedroom and bathroom in the basement, three bedrooms and a bathroom on the second floor, and no bedrooms nor bathrooms on the first floor. Each of the bathrooms can accommodate five people on that floor. If there are going to be more than five residents on the second floor, there needs to be a second bathroom on the second floor or a bathroom on the first floor. The bathroom in the basement is more than one floor away so it cannot be used to satisfy the requirement. Pierre Rhodes reported this is a group home for boys. They applied recently for a vaziance to have eight boys. They are considered disabled. There are two boys in the basement, although it can house four. They would like a vaziance for ten boys Ms. Moermond asked how many they can accommodate on the second floor Mr. Rhodes responded there aze five there right now. He is looking for a variance for one person off the bathroom requirement. They are 10 to 17 years of age. The younger boys stay downstairs. Ms. Moermond granted a vaziance from the Inspection Report dated August 17, 2005, to aliow six boys for the second floor bathroom, but no more than six boys. Appeal of Correction Order at 624 James Avenue; owner: Tom Gallagher for Dadders Holding. (NFIPI) Ms. Moermond stated the appeal is regazding tall grass and weeds, furniture on sidewalk, and an entertainment hutch, that was picked up by the Epilepsy Foundation. Mike Cassidy reported the tall grass and weeds are cut. (Mr. Cassidy showed photographs to Ms. Moermond and Mr. Gallagher.) Mr. Cassidy stated he did not know the hutch was going to be picked up. Mr. Gallagher explained that 80% of the properry in quesfion is not his property. The tall weeds does not belong to them. It is R& H Motors that owns the building adjacent. (Mr. Gallagher explained by using the photograph what part is owned by him.) Mr. Cassidy stated he thought it was established that the properiy behind the house is Mr. Gallagher's, to which Mr. Gallagher responded it wasn't. O�-�o�� LEGISLATIVE F3EARING NOTES OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 Page 3 Mr. Cassidy asked was it his tenants that threw stuff out there. Mr. Gallagher responded he does not know. He hires a lawn service to maintain all the properties. Appazently, they were doing the boulevard there and not going along the side. (Ms. Moermond viewed a diagram.) Mr. Cassidy stated he thought it was measured out. The work is done. He will get the plat map and make sure everything is cohesive. Ms. Moermond asked what he is looking for. Mr. Gallagher responded he is riying to get clarification on the excessive consumption. Mr. Cassidy responded that is for failuze to maintain an exterior structure, which was sent out June 2004. He checked this morning, and everything is done except for the second floor exit. Mr. Gallagher responded there is a two-by-four screwed in across the door. It always was secured. Mr. Cassidy stated there was never any communication about that. The steps are repaired, the siding is repaired. (Note: the excessive consumption issues are not part of this appeal.) Mr. Gallagher asked what he is supposed to do with the excessive consumption. Ms. Cassidy added that Mr. Gallagher was sent a$75 noncompliance bill for not finishing the exterior work. Ms. Moerxnond responded she did not see that and it was not covered in the appeal. Ms. Moermond asked was precipitated the inspector going out on the tall grass. Mr. Cassidy responded a reinspection date for trash in the exterior that was removed when he got there. Ms. Moermond stated it looks like the tall grass and weeds did exist, if only in that narrow area part of 644 James. The furniture was picked up right away. She is looking at a question about whether the Correction Order was written or not. The conditions did exist. She has nothing in front of her for the excessive consumption, and she would look at that in the excessive consumption assessment appeal process. Her understanding is that there would not be any negative repercussions far not paying it. Mr. Gallagher responded his concern is revocation of his rental registration. Mr. Gallagher stated he does not want to be in the nature of letting inspectors into a11 his rental properties. If thaYs the case, responded Mr. Cassidy, he would like to see the door taken out and siding put over the opening. Mr. Gallagher stated that he does not want the inspector in his house to see, for example, an extension coxd or a cracked outlet cover, and ali of a sudden the house has to be made code compliant. Mr. Cassidy responded he is right. Mr. Gallagher stated that Mr. Cassidy said earlier it is okay if the doar is secured from the inside if he could get in there. But, securing it from the outside make more sense because no one can take it off from the inside. The door opens out. Mr. Cassidy asked is he against putting siding over it and finishing it off. Mr. Gallagher responded he is against the fact that it will cost a lot more money and pulling permits. He is O� ���1 LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 Page 4 trying to figure out a way to do this without trying to match the siding. Taking the door out and trying to re-side it does not seem reasonable. He asked about putting four two-by-fours across it with square headed squares to make it impossible to open. It has been like this for 30 years. If there is a way that can be assured that it will not open, responded Mr. Cassidy, he could go along with it. Mr. Gallagher asked about painted plywood. Mr. Cassidy responded he will go along with that. When Mr. Gallagher asked if he could get a week, Mr. Cassidy responded yes. Ms. Moermond stated the appeal is denied on the Correction Order dated August 23, 2005. The hearing was adjourned at 2:28 p.m. rrn