Loading...
05-1172Council File # � S' � �7 2. Green Sheet # 3029101 CITY RESOLUTION SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA � � Presented by Refened To Committee Date BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the December 13, 2005 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters of Deficiency, Correction Notices, and Correction Orders for the following addresses: Propertv Appealed 983 Ashland Avenue 685 Dayton Avenue 809 Dayton Avenue 813 Davton Avenue 820 Davton Avenue 941 Davton Avenue 945 Davton Avenue 947 Dayton Avenue 953 Davton Avenue ll44 Davton Avenue 1148 Davton Avenue 1178 Davton Avenue 595 Grand Avenue 689 Ha¢ue Avenue 705 Ha¢ue Avenue 969 Ha¢ue Avenue 742 Hollv Avenue 626 I�lehart Avenue 863 Iglehart Avenue 723 Laurel Avenue 725 Laurel Avenue 784 Laurel Avenue 55 Lexington Parkway North 1040 Laurel Avenue 595 Mazshall Avenue 643 Marshall Avenue 765 Marshall Avenue 777 Marshall Avenue 802 Marshall Avenue 822 Marshall Avenue 824 Marshall Avenue 825 Marshall Avenue 834 Marshall Avenue 873 Mazshall Avenue 886 Marshall Avenue Anoellant Arthur C. Benson for ChrisYs Household of Faith, owner 355 Marshall Avenue (NHPI) 574 Selbv Avenue 237 St. Albans Street North Decision: Laid over to December 20, 2005 Legislative Hearing. os- � � 7z. 276 Forbes Avenue Pamela M. Jaworski, owner (NHPI) Decision: Appeal of Inspection Report denied. (Equivalency granted on back porch windows by building inspector.) Yeas � Nays Benanav Bostrom Hams Helgen Lantry Montgomery Thune r ✓ Absent Requested by Department of: ✓ B�: J � Forrn Approved by City Attorney ✓ ✓ � D i Adopted by Council: Date �� ��` b��" a�, d6v�' :.. :.. � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: oS- � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Cp - co��a ContactPerson 8 Phone: Marcia McertnoM Z6G8570 Must Beon Council Agenda by (Date): 21-0EC-05 ContractType: RE-F2ESOLtJiION Dafe Mitiated: �5-�cos � , Assign N�m6er For Kouting Order Tofal # of Signature Pages, (Clip NI Lowtions for Signature) Green Sheet NO: 3029101 Denartrnent SentToPerson 0 oancil 1 ou e t irec[or 2 rk 3 4 5 /�7�- � Approving the Qecember 13, 20Q5 decisions of the Legislarive Hearing Officer on Appeals of Lettei�s of Deficiency, Conection Norices, and Correction Orders for 276 Forbes Avenue, and various properties owned by ClxisYs Household of Faith, 355 Mazs6a11 Avenue. Must Mswer the Following Questions: Pianning Commission 1. Has this p�'soNfirtn e�er woriced under a contract forthis department? CIB Committee Yes No Ciwl Service Commission 2. Has this persorJfirtn e�er been a city employee? Yes No � 3. Does this personlfirtn possess a skill not normally possessed by arry curterrt cily employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and aVach to green sheet Initiating Probiem, issues, Opportunity (Who, Wha; When, Where, Why): AdvanWges HApproved: DisadvanWges HApproved: DisadvanWges M Not Approved: . Tofal Amount of .. Transacfion: Funding Source: Financial Information: � (Explain) December 15, 2005 134 PM CostlRevenue Budgeted: Activity Number: Page 1 o� - ��7 a- .� �' MINLJTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING LEGISLATIVE HEARING FOR LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES, AND CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, December 13, 2005 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Keliogg Boulevard West Marcia Moermond, I,egislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 1:41 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Andy Dawkins and Dennis Senty, Neighborhood Housing and Properry Improvement (NHPn; James Seeger, License, Inspection and Environmental Inspecrion (LIEP); and Jean Birkholz, City Council Offices. OTHERS PRESENT: Pamela M. Jaworski and June O'Donneil. Appeal of Inspection Report for 276 Forbes Avenue; owner: Pamela M. Jaworski. (Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement) Pamela M. Jaworski and her mother, June O'Donneil, appeazed. Ms Moermond explained the process: this is an appeal of an Inspection Report. She also sees that there is a relatively recent Correction Nofice. The appeal talks about both documents but only the Inspection List was attached. Ms. Moermond asked if Ms. Jaworski is appealing both documents. Ms. O'Donnell explained that Pamela received one notice saying what needed to be done to the house. The City came to inspect to see if the work had been completed and they then sent out a totally different Notice. They had only the stauwells left to do according to the original list. On the second Notice, the City is telling them that a brace needs to be installed to help even out the floor (not on the first Notice). T'his will crack the ceiling that they put in which was on the first list. Ms. Moermond stated that since this is an appeal of a decision/detezmination of staff, a conclusion will be made today that wiil be put into a resolution form for the City Council to rafify. If the appeilant does not agree with thaS conclusion/decision made today, an appeal can be made to the Ward 2 Office (Councilmember Daue Thune) to change the resolution. Ms. Moermond cautioned Ms. Jaworski that most of the time a councilmember is not willing to do this. The other option would be to appeal to Dishict Court. Ms. O'Donnell noted that they are complying with the Orders, but are asking to be grandfathered -in for the egress windows in the two (2) bedrooms because one can definitely get out of those windows in case of a fire. They are also appealing the installation of tempered glass windows in the back porch. In addifion, the roof (2002) is new and they have brought along the papers to prove it. Ms. Moermond noted that from what she has been able to piece together, the house was condemned in September of 2005. At that point, there was a Code Compliance Inspection required that led to this laundry list; and now, there is also a Correction Notice. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Senty to give a report. Mr. Senty, manager for the Vacant Buildings Program, explained that this address was sent to them by the Force Unit. Inspector Lippert sent it with a b�-ll��- NOTES OF THE LEGISLAT`IVE HEARING OF December 13, 2005 Page 2 Condemnarion List and the last item on the list noted that the house needed a Code Compliance Inspection because the conditions of the house warran#ed it. Ms. Moermond asked if the appellant received a copy of that list. She offered them a copy of the Notice of Condemnation. It says that the house is unfit for human habitafion and orders the building vacated. At that point, the inspector observed the following condirions: gross unsanitary conditions throughout; damage to ceilings; unusable toilet; loose lavatory; excessive storage and fire hazazds in the basement; loose handrails; and, because the inspector noted an inability to complete the inspection because of interior condirions, he ordered a Code Compliant Inspecfion. Ms. Moermond asked the appellant if she was in agreement with those conditions in September; she said that she was. Ms. Jaworski added that when she went to talk with Andy Dawkins about what was going on, he was going to try to get the Code 2 status reduced to a Code 1. As faz as she understood, that is what happened and that is why she was sent the first list. Then, after most of the work was done, and they were expected to return for a re-inspecfion, it had been re-coded to a Code 2 again. Mr. Senty provided a staff report. He noted that he was not present for any of the previously talked about conversations. He was not in the office at the time, but upon his return, he was asked by Director Dawkins to go out to the house and examine both the interior and the exterior. If in his opinion, it could be made a Category 1, he was free to do that. If not, it was to remain a Category 2. He went out, together with Inspector Richard Singerhouse, and detenniued that it should be a Category 2. He had done a re-inspection on an inspection that was done between the Condemnation and his rehirniug to determine it a Category 2. Mr. Senty told Mr. Dawkins that he felt that it was not wise to make it a Category 1 and let anyone live in that house until the listed items that were disclosed at that time were completed. He was not present for the Condemnation inspection or for the compilation of that list. Inspector Richazd Singerhouse did the Condemnation inspection and compiled the list. Ms. Moermond turned to Mr. Seeger for the next steps. Mr. Seeger explained that there was an application for a Code Compliance. The office sent it to 276 Forbes Avenue and it was returned to the office by mail. Ms. O'Donnell explained that the Post Office refused to leaue Ms. Jaworski's mail at tl�at address. She has a Post Office box nuxnber. Eventually, she received the letter. Ms. Moermond explained that from what she sees, this is a Condemned house and in order to get the Condexnnation lifted, there needs to be a Code Compliance Inspecfion, but more importantly, the appellant needs to address the items on the Code Compliance Inspection List. A lot has been done; there are just three (3) items that the appellant disagrees with the City about. Ms. Moermond asked staff if the Vacant Build'ang fees have been paid. Staff replied that they have been paid (November 7, 2005). Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Seeger to review the status of the roof, the tempered glass windows on the back porch and the egress windows. Mr. Seeger noted that he did not call it, but he sees that the list says the roof needs to be replaced Mr. Sentry chimed in that the day he went out, there were areas of the roof he couldn't see from the ground, but he didn't list that it needed to be replaced. Mr. Seeger stated that he had a record of a permit being pulled for the roof in 2003. D��ll��- NOTES OF THE LEGISLAT`IVE HEARING OF December 13, 2005 Page 3 He does not have a record of an inspector being called to look at it after it had been done. Mr. Seeger noted that he has a record of a mechanical permit, gas-line permit, aud a building permit in 2002 (t�rough I�UD) with all work done without a final inspection called for. T`here was never a final inspection done, so it wasn't approved, so there may be something wrong with the piping and that's why it might be listed here (valves missing). Ms. Moermond steered the conversation back to the roo£ She asked how LIEP handles it when they can't do a roof inspection from grade. Mr. Seeger stated that he goes up onto the roof. After the old roof has been torn off, inspectors need to go out to check to see that ail the boards are nailed properly and that the spacing is correct, eta They look to see that the shingies aze installed properly and that ice and water barrier has been put down. Ms. Moermond asked staff to describe the situation with the egress windows. Mr. Seeger noted that the egress windows in a lot of the older homes are undersized, but some are so very undersized that they need to be called, and the windows in this house were very undersized. He stated that these windows were so undersized that he felt that most normal sized people would not be able to get out of them. The appellant insisted that she and her family tried and were able to get out of them. The minimum dimension on an egress window is 5.7 squaze feet of clear opening. Ms. Moermond asked about the tempered glass windows on the back porch. Mr. Seeger explained that anything thaYs within two (2) feet of the door opening and within five (5) feet of the floor is required by Code to be tempered glass. Ms. O'Donnell stated that she got two (2) suggestions from the contractor. Instead of putting in the expensive tempered glass, plexi-glass could be used or they could be boarded up. Either way, she would agree to do that. Mr. Seeger responded that 3/16" or'/4" plexi-glass could be used but not 1/8". Ms. Moermond asked the appellant if there was anyone in the household under the age of twelve (12) or any one with disabilities. She noted that sometimes she asks the City Council to grant a Variance on egress window dimension, but she will not do it if there aze children under twelve (12) or anyone with disabilities. Ms. Jaworski replied that there are three (3) adults living there - she and her two sons ages 20 and 14. Ms. Moermond stated that she can recommend that the Council grant a Variance if staff is comfortable with it, for the duration of her ownership as long as there is no one under the age of twelve (12) or otherwise physically incapable of exiring, sleeping in those bedrooms. Mr. Seeger stated that he will need to go out to the house again before he can make that judgment. Ms. Moermond said that her recommendafion is that proper egress windows need to be instailed unless Mr. Seeger makes a determination upon re-inspection that this can be made a workable situarion and he will describe the conditions that will make it workable. Age and physical disability will be considered. Ms. Moermond noted that she is trying to make sure that no one is hurt in this house because of improper egress windows. Appeal of Rental Registrafion Invoices to the following addresses: 983 Ashland Avenue, 685 Dayton Avenue, 809 Dayton Avenue, 813 Dayton Avenue, 820 Dayton Avenue, 941 05-1/� 2- NOTES OF THE LEGISLATTVE HEARING OF December 13, 2005 Page 4 Dayton Avenue, 945 Dayton Avenue, 947 Dayton Avenue, 953 Dayton Avenue,1144 Dayton Avenue, 1148 Dayton Avenue, 1178 Dayton Avenue, 595 Grand Avenue, 689 Hague Avenue, 705 Hague Avenue, 969 Hague Avenue, 742 Holly Avenue, 626 Iglehart Avenue, 863 Iglehart Avenue, 723 Laurel Avenue, 725 Laurel Avenue, 784 Laurel Avenue, 55 Lexington Parkway North, 1040 Laurel Avenue, 595 Marshall Avenue, 643 Marshall Avenue, 765 Marshall Avenue, 777 Marshall Avenue, 802 Marshall Avenue, 822 Marshall Avenue, 824 Marshall Avenue, 825 Marshall Avenue, 834 Marshall Avenue, 873 Marshall Avenue, 886 Marshall Avenue, 574 Selby Avenue, and 237 St Albans Street North; appellant: Arthur C Benson for Christ's Household of Faith, 355 Marshall Avenue. c��n (I.aid over from 11-22-OS) Ms. Moermond noted that Mr. Dawkins has been worldng to reach an agreement with NLr. Art Benson. Mr. Dawkins acknowiedged and said that they haven't yet reached an agreement but aze very close to doing so. Mr. Moermond recommended a layover to Tuesday, December 20, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. The hearing adjourned at 2:10 p.m. /jab