Loading...
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of Letters, Cosection Norices, and Correction Orders for the following addresses: Propertv Appealed 604 Oakdale Avenue (Withdrawn) Apnellant V. George O�'ord 669 Thomas Avenue Fred Roth, owner Decision: Appeal denied on the Code Compliance ffispection Report dated 5-26-05.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