Loading...
05-276�t ; � �l �� �� °`l-l� - D.S RESOLUTION OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented Referred To Council File # �5' e1 � Green Sheet # 3025926 C ��.1� S" �a /b BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the Februaz�y 22, 2005, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters of Deficiency, Correction Notices, and Correction Orders for the following addresses: Propertv Avpealed Appellant 2000 Davton Avenue (Laid over $om 1-25-OS) John Jacob Lieberhen, owner Decision: A six month extension is granted following the adoption of this resolution on the Deficiency List dated December 16, 2004. 833 Delaware Avenue 3ohanna L. Gallagher, appellant Decision: Appeal denied on the Vacant Building Registration Notice dated Januaty 7, 2005. 76Q Vandalia 5treet #100 McRae Anderson, appellant Decision: Extension granted to bring the properiy into compliance by March 31, 2005, as stipalated on the Deficiency List dated January 31, 2005. 655 Wells Street Kendall and Ann Burton, owners Decision: Appeal denied on the Vacant Building Registration Notice dated February 2, 2005. 412 Lexineton Parkwav South Deb Thyen, owner Decision: �ppeai-decricdYm-t�0€£reevf�I£-F�n-f�m Jammrp�9; �&E)5. Referred back to a Legislative Hearing 157 Front Avenue Austin Fang, owner Decision: Extension granted to bring the properiy into compliance by April i, 2005, as stipulated on the Correction Notice dated January 31, 2005. 3 c�ZS�cZ( p5- a..�G Yeas Nays Absent Benanav � Bostrom '� Harris J Helgen � Lantry � Montgomery � Thune � � � � Requested by Departrnent of � Form Approved by City Attorney Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: Adopted by Council: Date ri � � a G �S Adoption Certified by Council Secretary � Green Sheet Green Sheet Csreen Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � rF,-1'1l, �- - DepartrneM/office/wuncil: Date Iniliated: co -��� �-05 Green Sheet NO: 3025926 Cor�et person 8 Phone: ���e� SefR To Person InifiaUDate Marcia Mcertnonii � 0 oon "1 2 ��� Assign 1 onn' De artmentDirector Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 2 rk Por 3 Routi� Order 4 5 Tofal # of Signature Pages _(Clip Atl Loeations for Signature) Action Requested: Approving the decisions of the Legis]ative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters of DeBciency, Correction Orders, Correction Notices for the following addresses: 2000 Dayton Avenne, 833 Delawaze Avenue, 760 Vandalia Street #100, 655 Wells Street, 412 Lewngton Pazkway South, and 157 Front Avenue. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answsr the Following Questions: Planning CommisSion 1. Has this person/firtn ever worked under a contrad for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civii Service Commission 2. Has this perso�rtn ever been a city employee? Yes No ' 3. Does this personfffttn possess a skil4 rrot nortnaity possessed by any current city employee? Yes No EzpWin all yes answecs on separate sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: s Disadvantaqes If Approved: GouncA R���rch Cerrt� - MAR � � 2QQ5 Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of CasURevenue Budgeted: � Transaction: Funding Source: Activity Number: Financial Information: (Explain) es-z� c� �'-�e � � � NOTES OF 1`HE LEGISLATIVE HEARING LETTERS, CORRECTION NOTICES, AND CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, Febniary 22, 2005 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Boulevazd West Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer STAFF PRESENT: David Kenyon, License, Inspections, Environmental Protection (LIEP); Steve Magner, Neighborhood Housing and Properry Improvement (NIIPn; Tom Riddering, LIEP; Paula Seeley, IVHPI; Dennis Senty, NHI'I; Michael Urmann, Division of Fire Prevention The hearing was called to order at 1:36 p.m. Appeai of Deficiency List at 2�00 Davton Avenue; owner: John Jacob Lieberherr. (Division of Fire Prevention) (Laid over from 1-25-OS) Michael Ursnann explained that he hasn't heard from the appellant. Mr. Urmann has been auailable, but they have not allowed him any access. Ms. Moermond asked would a two week layover help. Mr. Urmann responded that he is not sure two weeks will do it. It has been a month he has been trying to get in there. All he is asking for is a pian for the overoccupancy. Ms. Moermond stated that unless she heard from them by the end of this week, the overoccupancy order will stand. If Mr. Urmann does hear from them, another legislative hearing can be scheduled. Ms. Moermond granted a six month extension following the adoption of the resolution to bzing the property into compliance on the Deficiency List dated December 16, 2004, Appeal of Vacant Building Registration Notice at 833 Delaware Avenue; appellant: Johanna L. Gallagher. (NHPI) Johanna L. Gallagher, owner, appeared. Dennis Seniy reported that a Category II Vacant Building file was opened. It had numerous ea�terior violations. It was a11 pending a Correction Notice. (Mr. Senty snbmitted photographs and showed where the interior application of plaster shows through the open dormers. He also indicated the rotking wood.) Johamia Gailagher stated that she is looking for fime to get this done. She needs a line of credit. She has a new proposal from a contractor that will do the repairs. She replaced the fascia. The chumiey flashing needs to be done. as-a7� LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2005 Page 2 Ms. Moermond stated she sees a Miiuue Vanderbosch listed. Ms. Gallagher responded that is her mother. In response to other questions, Ms. Gallagher responded that she is in the process of going through probate. As faz as she knows, paperwork has been filed in probate court. Ms. Callagher lives in West Saint Paul. ITltimately, she plans to rehabilitate the house and live in it. Ms. Moermond stated she is looking at an appeal of the requirement to register this property as a vacant building. Ms. Gallagher responded she does not want to do that because she wants to live in it. She has been in and out trying to fix and zeplace tivngs and does not want it vacant. Ms. Moermond stated there is a citation. Mr. Senty responded the properiy was cited for numerous ea�terior code violarions. Ms. Moermond asked how long her mother has been deceased. Ms. Gallagher responded since 2001. Her brothers were living here. Ms. Moermond asked have inspectors been inside the house. Mr. Senty responded no. Ms. Moermond asked is part of getting this into the Registered Vacant Building to precipitate a Code Compliance Inspection or any other kind of interior inspecrion. Mr. Senty responded it is not to force entry into a home. A Code Compliance Inspection would be the City's best oppoxCuuity to make sure the entire house is taken caze of. They are asking for a Code Compliance Inspection at this time. Ms. Moermond stated it cleazly meets the definition of vacant building. She agrees with that assessment. Ms. Moermond stated the advisement of her attorney is wise in terms of getting this through probate. ff the owner wants to sell this house, she will need one of two inspections that will have to be done: truth in sale of housing inspection or Code Compliance Inspection. The code compliance inspection is the best; four trades inspectors go through the property and tell you the concerns and it is cheaper. Also, the owner does not have to have it fixed up to sell it. Ms. Moermond asked has this been condemned. Mr. Senty responded no, but it qualifies. Ms. Moermond stated to haue anyone living there, the owner would have to address everytl�ing on the City's list. The owner needs to do some tliinkiug. The City is pushing to come to some resolution. Right now, the owner needs to pay the $250 and get this in the Registered Vacant Building Progam. Ms. Gallagher stated that when the blue placard was put up, it was due to an NSP bill. That is why it was not suppose to be lived in. 50, the outside stuff is what is making it a vacant building. She could move in tomorrow. The utilities aze on. Ms. Moermond responded if Ms. Gallagher moved os-a �� LEGISLAT'NE HEARING NOTE5 OF FEBRUARY 22, 2005 Page 3 in, the house would be condemned. There aze enough problems for the inspectors to condemn the place. It has been unlived in for a period of time, which is what triggers the requirement for a registered vacant buildittg. Steve Magner stated he was the staff member the first time they went through the vacant building issue. His recollection is that NHPI had a condemnation outstauding for utilities, they were restored, and there were exterior code violations. She had a time period to bring these into compliance. Their opinion is that it stiil should have been code compliant. They would be more than willing to have this go back to problem properties for monitoring purposes provided the items were taken care of under that time line. The City has expended its time trying to get this compliant. He does not see anyone named as executor of the will showing the properry is in probate. Also, he does not see verified guarantee that the work will be complied with. In answer to other questions, Ms. Gallagher responded her brothers lived there and she is now taking a leadership role in all of this. She has not talked to her brothers in a couple of months. She has an attorney who is getting this settled. Ms. Moermond asked clarification for the request to conduct an interior Code Compliance Inspection and what they are waiting for. Mr. Magner responded it is open as a Category II and it meets the definition as defined by the legislative code. The owner does not have to apply for a Code Compliance Inspection if she does not want to, but sometime she would have to obtain a Code Compliance Inspection. If she was to market the property, that would give her a list of the items to bring the property into compliance. Ms. Moermond denied the appeal on the Vacant Building Registration Notice dated January 7, 2005. Appeal of Deficiency List at 760 Vandalia Street #100; appellant: McCaren Designs. (Division of Fire Prevention) McRae Anderson, tenant in the building, appeared. Michael Urmann reported that the Fire Code requires that any storage over five feet in height is considered to be high powered combustible storage and shall have a sprinkler system that is adequate to handle the hazazd or the storage has to be reduced. This has a 24 foot high ceiling and storage in some cases go to the deck. There is a sprinkler system of .2, which is an ordinary hazazd sprinkler system incapable of handling the hazard. Ms. Moermond asked was there a change in the code. Mr. Urmann responded no. Mr. Anderson stated he is looking for a variance from the code because the materials stored is fire retardant holiday decorations in cazdboard boxes. The amount of cazdboard would amount to 3'h inches if stacked flat. Mr. Anderson does not believe it is a hazardous material. He was told by the inspector that he could stack nonflaxnmable items above 12 feet. He has ceramic pots and a�.az� LEGI5LATIVE HEARING NOTES OF FBBRUARY 22, 2005 Page 4 other things. They are complying with the order in the azeas that are not flame retardant. Mr. Urmann stated the packagiug makes it a combustible storage whether it is laid flat or open in boxes. Anything over 12 feet that is combustible storage is required to be moved down or have a sprinkler system that is adequate. Noncombusfible materials, such as metals or ceramic pots, would be acceptable. Mr. Anderson responded that the lease is up in August. He cannot get these materials on the floor. He closed another wazehouse to maintain pzofitability. He would have to rent additional wazehouse space. He understands the code, but it seems he could stack two feet of cardboard on the top shelf and he would be in compliance. Yet, what is burnable there is 2%z inches of cardboard. Ms. Moermond stated it is considered combusribie when it is in box form. She cannot see herself clear of granting a variance from the code. The sprinkler system is not adequate. Ms. Moermond granted an extension to bring the property into compliance by Mazch 31, 2005, as stipulated on the Deficiency List dated January 31, 2005. Appeal of Vacant Building Registration Notice at 655 Wells Street; owners: Kendall and Ann Burton. (NHPI) (The appellant did not appeaz.) Steve Magner reported that he received a phone call from a Sean who claimed to be representing Kendal and Ann Burton, the owners. He asked was there a reason this was required to be registered as a vacant building, and Mr. Magner informed him that it met the criteria set forth by the legislative code and it was condemned, so it would haue to be brought into code compliance. Mr. Burton said it was previously a registered vacant building, and had been code compliance in the last 365 days. Mr. Magner informed Sean that he agreed with that statement, but once the code compliance certificate was issued and the properky was reoccupied, certain things can happen, and the City cannot verify that the property was code compliant after it becomes occupied. Mr. Magner offered him the snnple fact that he would be given the fu1130 days of registration, a time period, plus an addi$onal 15 days to obtain a Code Compliance Inspection, make the remedial repairs, and bring the building into compliance. He said that he would take that back to the Burtons, but he did not agree with that, and he would file an appeal. This was a registered vacant building before, it was code compliant, the City had to issue criminal summons to bring it into compliance. They did successfully litigate those in criminal court. Also, they have a history of this property and the adjoining property being problem properties. This was being monitored by NHPI. This dwelling was condemned following a Police Department FORCE Unit warrant. Ms. Moermond denied the appeal on the Vacant Building Registration Notice dated February 2, 2005. or_a�� LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2005 Page 5 Appeal of letter regarding fence at 412 Lexinaton Parkwav South; owners: Chris and Deb Thyen. (Office of LIEP) The following appeazed: Deb Thyen, owner; Arthut Thyen, father-in-law. David Kenyon reported that this is a fence issue. The fence was built without a pernut. Mr. Kenyon sent a letter requiruig a pernut, and the owner got one. Mr. Kenyon got a complaint from the neighbor that the fence was on the neighbor's properiy. Mr. Kenyon sent another letter that the fence needed to be on the fence builder's property, and Mr. Kenyon gave a longer period of time to remove the fence by May 15 because the ground is frozen. Also, the owner built a nice stone retaiuiug wall, less then four feet, which does not require a building permit. They installed a drainage system that daylights at the sidewalk. If it drains water, it will drain onto the sidewalk and create a hazard. The neighbors supplied him with a survey. 7oe Erhlich (LIEP) said the neighbor paid far it and is the owner of the survey. Mr. Kenyon contacted the neighbor to ask if the neighbor could have it. The neighbor said that the survey cost $900, and they can buy the survey from her. Ms. Thyen stated there was an old fence there. They did not know they had to get a fence permit to replace it. They started this fence four years ago, and spent ever7 suminer weekend doang the fence and then two years on the retaining wall. They spoke to the neighbor frequently. They seemed okay. There were positive reactions. Ms. Moermond asked did they have to access the neighbor's property to wark on this project. Ms. Thyen responded yes. Ms. Thyen found their property line with the metai post and measured from there. They felt they were well into their own property. She tried to talk to the neighbors. It was mainly the wife that was upset. The neighbors then decided not to talk to the Thyens. Instead, the neighbors went to a mediator, cancelled the mediatar, and then reopened it. Then, the Thyens spoke to an attorney who said the survey sent to the City is public knowledge. Ms. Thyen briefly looked at the survey, and it looks like the neighbors were on the Thyens' property in the back and the Thyens were over on their property in the front. She is not even sure if the fence part is on the neighbor's properry. She does not know why the neighbors said nothing during the four siumners it was being built. (Ms. Thyen submitted photographs and explained them.) (Mr. Kenyon showed a plan.) Ms. Moermond asked how many inches they aze talking about. Mr. Kenyon responded it is not a cleaz survey, but it may be 1 to 2 inches. LIEP's job is to respond to complaints. Arthur Thyen stated that he worked with his son on building this fence. They put it in the same spot as the old fence. The neighbors in the faz back of the property haue a chain link fence. He pulled a line with his son to make sure it was straight. They were going on what they believed to be the actual properiy line. There was no intent to go on the neighbor's properiy. They thought the oY LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2005 Page 6 property line was straight, but, according to the survey, it appeazs the properiy line goes at a small angle, which means the back of the properiy has a few inches that belongs to his son. There was nc intent to build on the neighbor's properry. Mt. Thyen spent a lot of time with his son on this fence, and they would not have done a11 that work while doing sometluug iliegal. Ms. Moermond asked if the old fence ran the same continuous line from back to front as the new fence. Mr. Thyen responded it did. Ms. Thyen stated they measured to their property line. They Irnew the neighbors were on the Thyens properiy in the back, but the Thyens didn't say anytkring and didn't care. The Thyens just wanted to make sure tttey (Thyens) were on their property. The Thyens tried to speak to the neighbors without getting anyone involved. The neighbors never approached them. There was no sign of anger in the last four yeazs. The Thyens went to the neighbors house for a graduation. Ms. Moermond stated they do not have a receipt because they did this themselves, but she wonders how many work hows and amount of supplies. Ms. Thyen responded it is a very well built fence. Mr. Thyen responded that he put hundreds of hours into this pro}ect and thousands of dollars. Treated lumber was used and the posts are dug three feet deep with concrete. Ms. Thyen stated an inch or a inch and a half will not change the view of it. Mr. Thyen stated he would say $5,000 for the fence. There is not a nail in it; it is a11 screwed. Ms. Thyen added that they put a retaining wall on the bottom of the fence and they latched that to the house. They even picked it out to match the neighbor's house, so it would look visually attracfive to the neighbors. The Thyens went out of their way. Ms. Moermond stated the drainage on the sidewalk has to be gone by May 15, 2005. She will consult with the city attorneys, and give the Thyens an answer in two weeks. (Ms. Moermond, Mr. Kenyon, and Tom Riddering discussed fence issues and what can be appealed.) (Note: Ms. Moermond denied the appeal on the Office of LIEP letter dated January 20, 2005.) Appeal of Correction Notice at 157 Front Avenue; owner: Austin Fang. (NHPI) Austin Fang appeazed. Ms. Moermond that the owner was here a few weeks ago appealing a Revocation of a Rental Revocation Certificate. LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2005 Page 7 Paula Seeley reported that she did an inspection. She talked to the owner on a couple of occasions. Apparently, he is out of town a lot. She has orders on both units. The first four items on the Conection Notice are life safety issues that should be addressed before he goes out of town. The compliance date is Febxuary 14. The owner has two space heaters with vent piping that are too close to the combustibles. He also has two wa11 fumaces that need to be serviced, cleaned, or moved. Ms. Seeley talked to his contractor this morning to explain what needed to be done. Mr. Fang stated he is new here to Saint Paul. Everytluug is clean and in good shape. Now, people moved in on January 1 an the first floor. People will move into the second floor on March 1. He will not azgue every single thing that Ms. Seeley wants him to fix. He goes on vacation on Mazch 2 to 19 to southeast Asia. He knows a heater guy and electrical guy that can do these things. Ms. Moermond asked aze the first four items done. Mr. Fang responded no, but they will be done by tomorrow. Ms. Seeley stated there is a revised Correcfion Notice that Mr. Fang was sent. (Copies were made of the Revised Correction Notice.) In answer to several questions, Mr. Fang responded that he owns about seven properties in Saint Paul. He owns a gas station in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, and he travels back and forth. Also, he is a manager for his properiy and he flies to California for translation for Immigration Court. He is so busy, he has little ume. His wife does daycaze and is also busy. He has problem tenants. Ms. Moermond stated that the Saint Paul Police FORCE Unit can help owners with tenant problems. He should also talk to SPARL, Saint Paul Association of Responsible Landiords. She is glad to hear that Issues 1 to 4 will be done by tomorrow. She asked what kind of extension he is looking for. Mr. Fang responded an extension on scraping the wall (Item 19) and the roof because of the weather (Item 20). Ms. Seeley responded that he has un61 June on that item. Mr. Fang responded that is plenty of rime. Ms. Moermond asked will everything else in the house be taken care of by tomorrow (February 23) Mr. Fang responded he does not think so. Friday, he is going out of town. Ms. Moermond granted an extension to April l, 2005 to bring the property into compliance as stipulated on the Conection Notice dated January 31, 2005. The hearing was adjourned at 3:05 p.m. r.�ri