05-6801 Council File # �S'
2 s � q
3 Green Sheet #,��� 3� i
4
5 RESOLUTION S
6 CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
7 � 8 Presented by � �
9
10 Referred To Committee Date
��_
13
14
15
16 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the June 28,
17 2005, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on an appeal of the following addresses:
18 "
19 Property Appealed Anpellant
20
21 80 Stevens Street East Phyllis Raddatz
22 Decision: Extension of time granted to August 12, 2005 to complete the repairs.
23
24 1795 Blair Avenue Dan Shelton
25 Decision: Appeal granted to the Correction Notice dated June 8, 2005.
Benanav
� Thune
Adopted by Council:
Adoption Ce fi d by
By:
Approv d a .
B �.G
� l�1
�-�
�0�
���
���
�0�
�0�
���
� . - /�
, .�
� l
�
Requested by Depamnent oE
�
Form Approved by City Attorney
By:
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
� ��� �
Green Sheet Green $heet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet
co -�o�
CoMact Person & Phone:
Marcia Mcermond
Must Be on Council Ageni
ContractType:
RE-F2ESOLUTI�N
,a.n,�-0s
0 �ComN I '
1 omN IDen rtme tD' ec[o �
2 'NClerk '
3
4
5
� -'
(Date): I Number
For
� Routing
Order
Green Sheet NO: 3027389
DepartmeM
Tofal # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature)
Action Requested:
Resolution approving the June 28, 2005 decisions of the I.egslative Hearing Officer on appeals of Letters, Cocrecrion Notices and
Coaection Orders for 80 Stevens Street East and 1795 Blair Avenue.
Wations: Appro�e (A) or R
Plannifg Commission
CIB Committee
G�nl Service Commission
1. Has this persoNfirtn e�er vrorked under a contract for this department7
Yes No
2. Has this persoNfirtn e�er been a city employee�
Yes No
3. Dces this persoNfirtn possess a skill not nottnally possessed by any
cur2nt city employee?
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on sepamte sheet and attach to green sheet
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportuniry (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
Advantages lfApproVed:
DiSadVantageS MApProVed:
DisadvanWges If NotApProved:
fotat Amount of
Trensaction:
Fundinq Source:
Financial Infolmation:
(Explain)
CostlRevenue Budgeted:
Activity Number.
July 14, 2D05 6:16 PM Page 1
os- 6 80
MINLJTES OF "I'I� LEGISLA"I"IVE HEARING
LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES, AND CORRECTION ORDERS
Tuesday _June 28, 2005
Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Boulevazd West
Mazcia Moermond, I,egislative Hearing Officer
The hearing was called to order at 135 p.m.
STAFF PRESENT: Pat Fish, Division of Fire Prevenfion
Appeal of DeFciency List at 80 Stevens Street East; appellant: Phyllis Raddatz (Division of
Fire Prevenfion)
Pat Fish appeared on behalf of the inspector, James Thomas. She stated she had talked to Ms.
Raddatz prior to the hearing and had worked out most of the issues. She had agreed to install a
battery-operated smoke detector in front of the one bedroom unit and had removed the extension
cords. Concerning the issue with the floor, this was a hazdwood floor which had been painted
over. Her 34 year old son lived in this unit which they considered to be owner-occupied when a
family member lives in a unit, therefore, this order was not applicable and the floor would only
need to be repaired if a non-family member occupies the unit. The only remaining issue was the
separation of unit issue.
Ms. Raddatz stated she needed additional time to repair the ceiling and the wallpaper which had
been damaged by water leakage from a window that had been left open when it rained. It was her
intention to scrape the wallpaper off and paint the walls and ceiling.
Ms. Moerxnond granted an extension to August 12, 2005 to complete the wark on the ceiling and
wallpaper. Ms. Fish stated she would inform the inspector of the re-inspection date.
Appeal of Correcfion Notice at 1795 Blair Avenue; owner: Dan Shelton (NHPI)
Staff from NHPI was not in attendance for this hearing.
Mr. Shelton, property owner, stated the only issue he was appealing was the order to re-roof the
house. Everything else on the correction notice had either been done or was in the process of
being done. He did not agree that the roof was deteriorated, defective or in a state of disrepair.
The roof was not leaking and was and was secure.
Ms. Moermond stated she would grant the appeal based on this information and if the inspector
wanted to re-issue orders to repair the roof, he could do so at a future point in time. If the
inspector does issue an order to repair the roof again and the owner wished to appeal the order,
she would waive the filing fee.
The hearing was adjourned at 1:50 p.m.
v�ti�xy