05-644Council File # D5_ �`�
Green Sheet # 3U 3(od
CITY
Presented b�
Refesed To
RESOLUTION
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
��
Date
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the June 21, 2005, decisions of the
Legislarive Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters, Cosection Norices, and Correction Orders for the following addresses:
Propertv Appealed
604 Oakdale Avenue
(Withdrawn)
Apnellant
V. George O�'ord
669 Thomas Avenue Fred Roth, owner
Decision: Appeal denied on the Code Compliance ffispection Report dated 5-26-05. If requested, NHPI and LIEP will identify the
principal violations that need correcting priar to occupancy being allowed; however, occupancy prior to all secondary violations being
comected will be at the discrerion of NIIPI and LIEP.
1801 Ivan Wav John and Lyn Smasal, owners
Decision: Two foot vaziance granted in reaz yard only for fence lattice to be installed on top of existing six foot fence.
1434 Breda Avenue Lawrence K. Davies, owner
Decision: Eactension granted to bring the garage into compliance by 9-1-OS as stipulated on the Correction Notice dated 5-16-05.
499 Pavne Avenue Karen M. Palm, owner
Decision: Ea�tension granted to 9-30-06 to bring the parking lot into compliance. The owner will write a letter to the inspector by
8-22-OS to eacplain the situation and indicate when the pazldng lot will be resurfaced.
Yeas Nays Absent
Benanau �
Bostrom �
Harris �
Helgen �
Lantry �/
Montgomery ,�
Thune J
d d
Requested by Deparnnent oE
�
Forrn Approved by City Attorney
�
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
B
Adopted by Council: Date
:�.
:�.
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
t�c_t _cail
Departrnentlofficelcouncil: Date Initiated:
�o -���� ,2�,��-�5 Green Sheet NO: 3027360
Confact Person 8 Phone:
Deuarhnern Sem To Person lnitiallDate
Marcia Mcermond 0 uocil
Assign 1 uncil De artment Director
Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number Z ��
For
Routing 3
Order 4
5
Totai # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Lowtio�s for Signature)
Action Requested:
Approving the June 21, 2005, decisions of the I,egislative Hearing Officer on appeals of Letters, Correction Noflces, and Correcrion
Orders for the foliowing addresses: 604 Oakdale Avenue, 669 Thomas Avenue, 1801 Ivan Way, 1434 Breda Avenue, and 499 Payne
Avenue.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracis Must Answer the Following Questions:
Planning Commission 1. Has this personffirm ever worked under a contract for this department?
CIB Committee Yes No
Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this personffirm 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):
Advanfa'stes lf ApproveA:
Disadvantapes IfApproved: ���� �eSe�C'� (�8(�e(
JUL 12 2005 �
DisadvantaqeslfNotApproved:
a
Total Amount of CosURevenue Budgeted:
Transaction:
. Funding Source: ActiviN Number:
Fioancial Information:
(Ezplain)
� �M ��
c�s �,��
NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING
LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES, CORRECTION ORDERS
Tuesday, June 21, 2�05
Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Boulevard West
Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer
The hearing was called to order at 130 p.m.
STAFF REPORT: Thomas Riddering, License, Inspections, Environmental Protection (LIEP);
Ed Smith, Neighborhood Housing and Properry Improvement (NHPn; Michael Urmann,
Division of Fire Prevention
Appeal of Deficiency List at 604 Oakdale Avenue; appellant: V. George Oxford. (Division
of Fire Prevention)
(This matter has been resolved.)
Appeal of Code Compliance Inspection Report at 669 Thomas Avenue; owner: Fred Roth.
(LIEP)
Fred Roth, owner, appeared.
Mr. Roth stated he does not have the complete history. The house was fareclosed on. The
vacant housing people have been going there to clean the yard and cut the grass. There seems to
be an idea of it being a condemned building; however, there were no complaints about code
compliance inside the house, the properiy is not delinquent, and it has a decent appearance
inside. He and his wife brought the properiy 4-20-OS with intentions of doing major remodeling.
They cannot afford at this point to live in the house. One of the main requirements is that the
plumbing be done by a licensed plumber. They have two bids of $6,400 and $7,200. Also, he
has a question about the difference between Category I and Category II. He plans to put major
work in the property. The exterior of the properiy looks better than most houses in the
neighborhood. There is no garbage on tke property, and the lawn and hedge are trimmed. So faz,
he has gotten permits for the construction and the electrical. They brought this from the
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency first time home owner program; therefore, they have to
occupy it within 60 days.
Ms. Moermond stated the requirement that the plumbing is done by the licensed inspector is not
in the purview of the hearing process to deal with.
Jim Seeger reported it probably started as a Category I. There would have been letters issued to
the previous owner because there are some life safety issues in there. Mr. Seeger treated it as any
other Code Compliance Inspecfion.
Ms. Moermond asked is there anything unique about this building. Mr. Seeger responded there
are issues with handrails missing, windows broken, parts missing, lead paint issues, electrical
work, and the water meter was not properly bonded. Like any older home, it needs to be kept up.
O5-�yy
NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF J[JNE 21, 2005 Page 2
Ms. Moermond asked about the framing members. Mr. Seeger responded there aze wa11s and
ceilings that need to get torn out, and then there are situarions exposed with members. Those
items should be corrected. There aze a lot of older homes that are not vented properiy. The
plumbing in the basement is wrong under the floor, which is why they call for covers on drains
and traps; however, the heating system is in good shape.
Ms. Moermond stated a water shutoff led to the condemnation. Mr. Roth responded it was
repossessed and had the water shutoff to keep the pipes from freezing.
Ms. Moermond stated it shows that the owner had some relationship with the properiy back in
2003, yet Mr. Roth said he just purcl�ased it. Mr. Roth responded he has no idea what that is
about, as he didn't own it then.
Ms. Moermond asked was the Code Compliance Inspection used as a substitute for the huth-in-
sale of housing. Mr. Roth responded he had the truth-in-sale housing done, and there were only a
couple of hazardous items. One was the clearance to the chixnney and gas venting to the water
heater. He asked the real estate agent if the hazardous items on the list needed to be fixed before
occupancy. Nothing was found during the appraisal. He knows that ultimately he has the
responsibility for not being informed o£fhe law.
Ms. Moermond asked what made him think it could have been a Category I. Mr. Roth responded
he knew it was a vacant building, but it does not mean he has to do all of these things. It could
be a vacant building and be a Category I.
When something is condemned, said Ms. Moermond, there is more scrutiny than if it is in
transition between owners. If it just needs to be unlocked and occupied, that is a Category I. The
next one is where there aze significant things that need to be fixed.
Mr. Roth stated the reason it was condemned was because the water was shut off. It was a
responsible act of the owner of the property. There is a difference between having windows
broken out and the inspectors finding the floor boazds have fallen through versus having the
owner shutting the watez off and then having it become condemned.
Mr. Seeger stated this is not a Category III; it is a Category IL It does not require a bond to work
on this building. Ms. Moermond added that he can pull permits on this today.
Mr. Riddering stated he cannot pu11 a homeowner's permit. He can pull any permit he wants as
long as the work is being done by a licensed contractor, which Mr. Riddering suspects he would
like to do to satisfy the Code Compliance Inspection in order to move in.
Ms. Moermond stated it would be useful at this point to idenrify the principal violations of the
code and then the second list be corrected in the first year of occupancy. She asked is that
acceptable. Mr. Seeger responded he will work with Mr. Roth on it. Also, if he is going to
o5-�Yy
NOT'ES OF THE LEGISLATTVE HEARING OF JiJNE 21, 2005 Page 3
occupy the home, he can pull his own electrical, heating, and building, but not his own plumbing
pernut.
Ms. Moermond stated the owner could sit down with Mr. Seeger and dissect what needs to be
done before the owner moved in. Only the plumbing things that are principal violations need to
be fixed by a licensed contractor. Mr. Roth responded he has the pernuts for the electrical and
structural work already, and he has talked to Mr. Seeger about things that aze structural, so that is
clear. He does not know about things like the condition of the garage. He does not have a
problem with the elechical.
(Mr. Seeger and Mr. Roth met in a conference room and later returned.)
Mr. Seeger stated they will disconnect the plumbing and the laundry tub.
Ms. Moermond recommends denying the appeal on the Code Compliance Inspection Report
dated 5-26-05. If requested, NHPI and LIEP will identify the principal violations that need
corrections prior to occupancy being allowed; however, occupancy prior to all secondary
violations being corrected with be at the discretion of NIIPI and LIEP.
Appeal of fence variance denial at 1801 Ivan Wav; owner: John and Lyn Smasal. (LIEP)
Lyn Smasal, owner, appeazed.
Thomas Riddering reported the request for a variance to add a couple of feet to the height of the
fence was denied because the code requires that site, terrain, or nuisance animal conditions
warrant a waiver of the height restriction. The owners specification for the variance was privacy
reasons.
Marcia Moermond stated the garage on the next property is invasive.
(Ms. Smysal showed photographs.)
Ms. Smysal stated the fence was built on a hill. The gazage next door is being used as a hang out
for pinball machine, foosball, and ping pong. Sometimes people have slept in there. By the way
the garage opens, it is invasive. She has a petirion from the neighbors that live next door. She is
the only one affected by the addition of this garage. She would like two feet of lattice across her
fence; it will look nice and neat.
Ms. Moermond asked the difference in grade. Ms. Smysal responded two to three feet. The
lattice would be cedar, so it would blend. It would be mostly that side of the property and some
sections would be behind the garage.
Ms. Moermond stated it seems okay. It is not her call, though. She needs to recommend to
Councilmember Pat Harris that they approve a variance from the code for this situation. If Mr.
o5-�y y
NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF JiTNE 21, 2005 Page 4
Harris is willing to sponsor that, the owner will get the variance for that section and for a lattice.
It will not obstruct the view of motorists, which is a primary concern.
Ms. Moerxnond's decision is as follows: two foot variance granted in rear yard only far fence
lattice to be installed on top of e�sting si�c foot fence.
Appeal of Correction Notice at 1434 Breda Avenue; owner: Lawrence K. Davies. (NHPn
Lawrence Davies, owner, appeared and stated he would like to have more time. His plan is to
tear the garage down and build a new one towazds the end of August or the beginning of
September. NHPI gave him until June 30.
Mazcia Moermond asked what is going on with the west end of the garage. Ed Smith responded
someone ran into it and it has significant damage. Mr. Davies added the people that lived in the
house next door slatmned into the front of his garage. Subsequent to the last dismissal (a
previous Legislative Hearing action), he got this in the mail the next day saying he had until June
30.
Mr. Smith said that the housing department did a sweep of that area 5-13-04. Orders at that time
were issued by Inspector Joel Essling (NHPn to repair defective wall on the west side of the
gazage and the scrape and paint the garage.
Ms. Moermond stated she is seeing a Correction Order and not a Summary Abatement Order.
Mr. Smith responded that he issued a Correction Order to give the owner a chance to make the
repairs. ff the repairs are not done, then a Sununary Abatement Order will be issued to demolish
the gazage.
Because this is on a Suminary Abatement Order, said Ms. Moermond, she is assuming that this is
not in eminent danger of falling down. No, responded Mr. Smith, but the cost of the repairs may
make it mare beneficial to teaz it down and build a new one.
Ms. Moermond asked does he have a contractor and when will the work be done. Mr. Davies
responded that his contractor is not free until the middle of August. It could run into September
until it gets done.
Ms. Moermond stated she would like to see the building stabilized before it gets knocked down.
Mr. Smith can make the determination of whether the building is stabilized, if there needs to be
supports, boazding, eta Mr. Smith responded he does not think that will be necessary. He does
not haue a problem with granting an extension.
Ms. Moermond recommends granting the owner until September 1, 2005, as stipulated on the
Correcfion Notice dated May 16, 2005.
05-�y�
NOT`ES OF THE LEGISLATTVE HEARING OF JLTNE 21, 2005 Page 5
Appeal of Deficiency List at 499 Pavne Avenue; owner: Karen M. Palm. (Division of Fire
Prevention)
The following appeared: Karen Palm, owner, Bill Lazson, business owner.
Michael Urmann reported the structure of the pazking surface is no longer maintained in a
structural level. The photographs were talcen less than an hour ago. There aze spots where water
has accumulated and gravei has washed away. There are other spots where there is pavement
around the drainage area and materials aze not being maintained. He would like to see an
approved surface maintained, level, and in good condition
Mr. Lazson stated there is a pazcel property adjacent from theirs. Ms. Palm added that the
original complaint came from there. There is a pile of dirt blowing everywhere. Mr. Urmann
responded the issue is not the pile of dirt, but the maintenance of the parking lot.
Ms. Moermond stated interior stuff is noted as well. Ms. Palm responded the fire extinguishers
were up to date and are always tagged. They expire July 1.
Ms. Moermond asked the last time there was parking lot improvement. Mr. Larson responded
they are looking to upgrade, and Ms. Palm responded they did a regrind. The company that did it
has since gone out of business. It did not last the way other parking lots haue lasted. They have
filled in some of the holes with asphalt two years ago, and it is worn out again.
Ms. Moermond stated filling those holes would be sufficient to address the City's concerns.
Concrete or pauement is not something that will last forever. She asked how long the Fire
Department looks for tlus kind of repair. Mr. Urmann responded he would like to see some plan
for rehabilitating the overall grade, condition, and maintenance of the parking lot. There are
spots where water has accumulated and washout has occurred. Mr. Larson responded that he
does not think the whole parking lot needs to be redone. He can do some basic repairs. The
drain works fine upon inspection, and they just had it cleaned out last year for $2,800.
Ms. Moermond stated it seems that some basic repairs can be done to prevent fiu2her damage.
They should do the basic maintenance right away on the parking lot, and they need to have a
plan. Capital investments need to be made from time to time. Ms. Palm responded she hired a
company, paid $5,000 down, and never saw them again. The police investigated. She has since
tried to fix the pazking lot. She had a street sweeper clean it for $500, and she can have someone
fill in some potholes. As far as redoing the whole thing, she has already talked to ESNDC about
it. Mr. Larson stated they are talking about closing the street down. They have talked to them
briefly about it. That way, they can tie something into it.
Ms. Moerxnond stated she would like them to put together a plan and write a letter to the Fire
Department. The owner should give them some kind of assurance and time line. They need to
get specifics together to show Fire that she does intend to deal with this.
05-���t
NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF Ji.TNE 21, 2005 Page 6
Mr. Urmann stated they aze looking for a maintained surface meaning level, no ruts.
(Mr. Urmann showed and explained his photographs.) Someone could fall in a hole, said Mr.
Urmann. There is a whole azea retaining water. The field inspector can walk them through these
problems.
Ms. Moermond granted an extension to September 20, 2006, to bring the pazking lot into
compliance. The owner will write a letter to the inspector by August 22, 2005, to explain the
situation and indicate when the pazking lot will be resurfaced. The pazking lot should be
maintained in the interim. This is a basic insurance thing, as she is the owner and does not want
people tripping in the lot.
The hearing was adjourned at approximately 230.
rrn