Loading...
07-1085Council File # � � 108� GreenSheet# (nl'� 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented � BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the October 16, 2007, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters, Correction Notices and Letters of Deficiency for the following addresses: Properry Appealed 333 Grand Avenue Appellant Richard Black on behalf of Grand Hill LLC Decision: Appeal granted with the following conditions: "Only one vacuum cleaner, one container of Windex, and no more than one dozen light bulbs may be stored in the mechanical room." 1067 Van D�e Street Decision: Appeal denied 2379 Bourne Avenue Decision: Appeal denied 1519 Sherburne Avenue Larry Theivagt Norman Kagan Chris Kearney Decision: Appeal denied 1452 Ashland Avenue Eldon Johnson Decision: Appeal denied on the Correction Notice Adoption Certified by Council Secretary BY� �/ � l NI Approved a of� Date r� By: � Requested by Deparhnent of: � Form Approved by City Attorney B Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � Adopted by Council: Date ���/y���y � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � b�-/a�5 c o -��� ConWct Person & Phone: Marcia Mcertnond Must Be on Council Agenda t Doc.Type: RESOLUTION E-DOCUment Required: Y DocumentContact: vdci ConWd Phone: 06NOV-07 i Green Sheet NO: 3046076 � ueumunena aem�vrc�avu 0 omc31 i Assign 1 .Comcil i Deoarm�eutDirector � Namber � Z �yh. �erk � G5ty Clerk For Routing I 3 I Order � 4 � 5 i Topl # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Resolution approving the Ocrober 16, 2007 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters, Correcrion Notices, and Letters of Deficiency for proper[ies at 333 Grand Avenue, 1067 Van Dyke Street, 2379 Boume Avenue, 1519 Sherburne Avenue, and 1452 Ashland Avenue. Planning Commission CIB Committee Civil Service Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? Yes No 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/frm 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): AdvanWges If Approved: DisadvanWges If Approved: DisadvanWges If Not Approved: Transaction: Funding Source: Fi nancial Information: (EXplain) CosVRevenue Budgeted: Activity Number: y �rgMa 9 . �s,.A��ee"r,�l ��3�'c�'+' IV Q W 39 6 L�U� November 6, 2007 8:57 AM Page 1 D� MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES AND CORRECTTON ORDERS Tuesday, October 16, 2007 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 1:30 p.m. Staff Present: Phillip Owens, DSI- Fire; Mike Urmann, DSI-Fire; Matt Domfeld; DSI - Code Enforcement; Paula Seeley, DSI - Code Enforcement; Dennis Senty, DSI - Code Enforcement; Tom Riddering, DSI - Licensing; and Donna Sanders, Council Research. Appeal of Tom Blanck to a Conection Notice for property at 333 Maiden Lane. (Continued from May 15 and July 17) Ms. Seeley provided a brief staff report. A building permit for accessory stnxcture repair was pulled on October 1. She noted that Mr. Blanck has been in contact with Amy Spong. Mr. Blanck said that the permit was for mothballing the building. The Heritage Preservation Commission has approved it and a carpenter was hired to do the work. Mr. Blanck briefly reviewed the work that has been completed to date, saying he expects the work to be completed within approximately 3 weeks. Ms. Moermond laid this matter over far six weeks, to December 6 at 1:30 p.m., to allow for the work to be completed and the permit to be signed-off on. If she hears from Ms. Seeley that the work has been completed, the appeal will be withdrawn and no hearing will be necessary. 2. Appeal of Richard Black, on behalf of Grand Hili LLC, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 333 Grand Avenue. (Laid over from October 2) Mr. Owens provided a brief staff report. This that the appellant was is asking for some leeway with regard to a fire rating of an interior mechanical closet. He noted that this is a relatively new building where the mechanical system was placed in a closet located underneath a stairway which was not properly fire rated. Mr. Owens said that it would be neazly impossible to fire rate it at this time without taking all of the mechanical equipment out, fire rating it, and then putting it back. The building is built into a hill and they have two exits, not counting this interior stairway, both of which exit at grade. Fire had no objection of granting the appeal for the fire rating of that interior closet; however, he advised that it cannot continue to be used for combustible storage. It is a mechanical room and the only thing that can be in the room is the mechanical equipment. Mr. Black requested using the mechanical room for very limited storage such as a bottle of windex, light bulbs, and a vacuum cleaner. Mr. Owens said he would not allow any storage in the mechanical room. It is supposed to be a rated room and there shouldn't be storage allowed in a mechanical room if it is rated other than the equipment it takes to service the mechanical system. October 16, 2007 Property Code Minutes b��Id�t� Page 2 Mr. Black countered that it is a brand new building and that many inspectors were present during construction. He noted that he would have certainly complied with any requirements deemed necessary, but it was missed by the inspectors. Mr. Owens stated that the inspectors have indicated that they don't know how this oversight happened. He suggested that one option he could consider would be to install a domestic sprinkler head in the mechanical room which would then allow for it to be used for storage. Ms. Moermond stated that she would recommend a variance of the "no storage" requirement be �anted on the condition that only one vacuum cleaner, one container of windex and no more than one dozen light bulbs could be stored in the mechanical room. 3. Appeal of Larry Theivagt to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List far property at 1067 Van Dvke Street. Mr. Urmann provided a staff report. He noted that the appeal was not filed within the first 10 days of the written orders. The 116 violations that still exist on the building were on the original orders and have not changed. The electrical permit was recently pulled and signed-off on; however, the inspector has not been called by the property owner or manager to inspect these units to ensure that they are completed. Once they have been called to inspect, the inspection will be done and signed off on and the property will be completed to allow for occupancy. Mr. Theivagt stated that after the August 16 inspection and letter of deficiencies, he didn't start leasing the building until about one week later. He is new to leasing units in St. Paul ,but has properties in Duluth. Mr. Theivagt said that contractors were working continuously and lrnocked off about 5 pages from the deficiency list, about 1/3 of the work was pretty well done. He said that taking care of the deficiencies has been at a tremendous cost and they would like to be able to rent the units. He said that he was suxprised to get the letter from the inspector that he needed to leave the units vacant even as work had been completed. Mr. Theivagt said that just last week he had an interested tenant who said that her water was being shut off at a foreclosed house that she was renting and that he put her in one of the units. He acknowledged this was a violation of the order but that all the coirections had been completed. He reiterated that he's asking that as the repairs are completed, that he be allowed to occupy the units. He challenged Mr. Urmann's comments regazding the elechical inspection. He said that Dan Moynahan was out and gaue him his business card but didn't give him any paperwork and said that everything looks good. He said that he asked Mr. Moynahan to call Barb Cuminings because she needed documentation because these units were condemned; however, he didn't say if he would call her. He had left a message on Ms. Cumxnings' voice-mail letting her know that Moynahan was out and he gave her his phone number if she wanted to verify the inspection. He also told her that the master electrician's write-up indicates that all of the electrical is good. He said he didn't lmow what else he needed to do and that he didn't understand why Ms. Cixmmings and Moynahan couldn't communicate and validate this information as the City of Saint Paul has been out and has approved the work. Mr. Urmann confirmed that an electrical permit was pulled on September 5 and si�ed-off on September 8th. He said that what is remaining is Fire has to get into the building to verify that their portion of the work is done. He explained that as soon as the building owner calls Fire to get in and they go out, that they should be done. October 16, 2007 Property Code Minutes b����p J Page 3 Mr. Theivagt asked whether the Moynahan inspection didn't take caze of it. Mr. Urmann stated that there were other issues besides the electrical in those units that needed to be inspected. In reference to occupying a unit that has not yet received its final inspection, this would cause them to issue a citation as it is in direct violation of the orders. Ms. Moermond asked whether Mr. LSrmann had been aware of that violation. Mr. Urmann said that the inspector had informed the building owner that if they wanted to reoccupy these units, unit-by-unit, once they were ready, to call Fire for an appointment for the inspection. Mr. Theivagt said he had not been awaze of that. Ms. Moermond stated that Mr. Theivagt was told that those units were condemned and he rented one of them without having the condemnation lifted. Mr. Theivagt said that one unit was condemned for the electrical work which had been inspected by the City and the other units were not condemned according to the letter. There is a statement that the unit is not to be occupied until another inspection. This was why he was appealing as work is being done and it costs quite a bit to wait a full month. He said he had no idea that he could call and ask far an interim inspection or he certainly would have done so. It was established that he purchased the property following the August 16 inspection; on August 20th, he was unaware of what the findings of the inspection were going to be because he received the letter after he had committed to lease the building. He is buying the property on a contract-for-deed, leasing it, and then sub-leasing the units to tenants. Ms. Moermond stated that he had indicated that this is the first property he has leased in St. Paul, and that he has previously just managed properties in Duluth and that he has never dealt with a condemnation before and has never been told that he could not put someone into a unit. Mr. Theivagt acknowledged that he was told, in writing, that he couldn't put anyone into a unit and the specific letters were discussed briefly. Ms. Moermond asked whether Mr. Theivagt has any concerns about allowing the inspector to enter these units to verify that the correcrions have been made. Mr. Theivagt responded that he welcomes the inspections. Mr. Urmann directed Mr. Theivagt to call Ms. Cuinmings immediately to set up the inspections. Mr. Theivagt requested clarification that Mr. Moynahan's electrical inspection has been signed-off on. Mr. Urmann responded that was correct. Ms. Moermond stated that Unit No. 301 is the unit that has been reoccupied prior to inspection and that it appears that there were a number of violations in addition to the electrical deficiencies in this unit. She reviewed that "Unit 301 vacant. Uncertifzed portions of the building must not be occupied until inspected and approved by this offce. Unit to remain vacant until all corrections have been made and has been re-inspected and approved by this o�ce. " Ms. Moermond noted that because the unit had been occupied priar to final inspection that Mr. Theivagt could receive a criminal citation. October 16, 2007 Properry Code Minutes �7—��8 � Page 4 Mr. Urmann stated that in the event that upon inspecting unit 301 that all of the violarions have not been corrected, the unit will be ordered to be vacated and a citation will be issued. It is important that the buiiding owner ensure that everything on the deficiency list is completed in a professional manner. Ms. Moermond said that she would go so far as to recommend to Fire that a referral be made to Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services on behalf of the tenant of unit 301 if all of the corrections have not been made. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal. 4. Appeal of Matthew 12indal to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 2104 Hiu,hwood Avenue. (Laid over to Nov. 6) Appeal of Carios Casci to Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 907 Marsaret Street. Ms. Moermond stated that Mr. Casci requested a layover which she ganted to November 6 provided permits were pulled by end of business on October 19 to do the outstanding electrical work. If permits were not pulled by October 19 the appeal would be denied. Mr. Casci faxed a copy of the permit to the Legislative Hearing Officer on October 19. This matter is laid over to November 6. 6. Appeal of Ron Johnson and Diane Olson to a Vacant Building Registration for property at 217 Winifred Street East Mr. Senty provided a staff report. On August 6, 2007 a vacant building file was opened at this address as a Category 1 vacant building on a refenal from the Certificate of Occupancy program notifying them that their certificate status was revoked vacant. Vacant Buildings inspected the property and opened that file. Ms. Moermond clarified that the appeal was for the requirement that the building be registered vacant. 5he also reviewed that on October 2, 2007, the records show that there was a property clean-up hearing for this property on July 23. Diane Olson, property owner stated that she and Mr. Johnson were present on July 23 and that Ms. Moermond didn't have the file, the attended the public hearing, and that they didn't know what the outcome of that hearing was. She added that there are other issues as well. Ms. Moermond stated that Mr. Robinson orders were issued July 13, 2007 to remove garbage on the ground and to cut tall grass and weeds with a compliance date of July 19. The property was re- inspected on July 19. The work was not done. A wark order was issued and a crew went out on July 23, ten days between the original order and when a crew went out, with a total assessment of $358.00. The notification was mailed to Winker Companies on Beacon and to their Chanhassen address. Ms. Olson stated that because the notice wasn't mailed to the property address on Wini&ed, they were unaware of it until they received a call from Winker Companies, who they have a contract-for-deed with. Ms. 01son said attempts were made to call the inspector about this; however, they were always out in the field, never did connect, that she left several messages, and that no one has returned their phone calls. October 16, 2007 Property Code Minutes b� ���L� Page 5 Ms. Moermond advised them to call the inspectors before 9:00 am. and asked whether the purpose of their calls had been about the Regstered Vacant Building requirement or about the cleaning up of the yard. Ms. Olson responded that there were a number of issues. Relative to clean up of the yard, they were unaware of the bag of garbage, it was short notice and they were gone. She asked how they were supposed to clean up a bag of gazbage that somebody dumped or was left that they laiew nothing about. The City gave them 10 days, and they still had not retumed to town. They also questioned the assessment of $358.00 which they believed to be very excessive. Ms. Moermond asked whether someone was looking after their property while they were out-of-town. Ms. Olson replied no, that they have owned it for two years, and there haven't been any previous problems. She stated that this incident then lead to the City writing the tall gzass ordexs. She said that it rained that whole week and they didn't get a chance to mow the lawn because it was wet. She felt the City was unreasonable and that the total fees of approximately $1,000 were excessive. She said that they homesteaded the building on June 30 and that it is not a vacant building. She claimed that the City messed up, didn't get the papers recorded properly and did not send them to the property address but to the Chanhassen address in error. Ms. Olson presented docuxnents for Ms. Moermond's information indicating that the property was homesteaded on June 30. Ms. Moermond clarified that the document she was referencing were Ramsey County paperwork and pointed out that different offices are represented, including inspections and the City Council. Ms. Oison said that Mr. Johnson is living at 217 Winifred. She claimed that the City has damaged their windows by screwing them shut and that the windows had been open as they were painting the house and airing it out. She said that they are going to sue the City and will fill out an appeal. Ms. Moermond stated that the video showed a bag of trash, loose and scattered debris, clothing, and miscellaneous junk that was removed. She advised that they have the right to file a claim against the City if they so desire and may get the claim forms from the City Clerk's Office. In terms of their claim that the City is in the wrong, she doesn't lmow what originated the inspection, but could see how it happens when homeowners are out-of-town and matters are not getting taken care of. She asked the inspector what he saw that made him determine that this should be registered as a vacant building. Mr. Senty responded that an inspection was made in response to a referral from the Certificate of Occupancy program indicating that the certificate was revoked as the building was vacant. The house was open to trespass; a letter was issued to get the house secured and since it wasn't secured, the City had to secure it the building on two occasions. Ms. Moermond stated that when no one is living in a house and the windows aze open, you have a building that is open. This opens the house up to homeless people and young people having parties, starting fires, stealing copper pipes, etc. She directed Ms. Olson to the formal definition, which is on- line in the Legislative Code, Chapter 43. Vacant Buildings, 43.02.07 which states "Vacant building is a building or a portion of a building which is a) unoccupied and unsecured,• b) unoccupied and secured by other than normal means; c) unoccupied and a dangerous structure; d) unoccupied and condemned; e) unoccupied and has multiple housing or building code violations (which is pertinent in this case) and� condemned and illegally occupied; g) unoccupied for a period of time over 365 days and during which time the enforcement off cer has issued an order to correct nuisance conditions. October 16, 2007 Property Code Minutes 6 � �� Page 6 Ms. Moermond stated that inspectors had found that the building wasn't occupied and it had multiple code violations. Ms. Olson countered saying that it is occupied; there aze no code violations; it is homesteaded and they had the window open while they were painting. Ms. Moermond asked for clarification as to how it did not meet this definition, questioning that she's saying that iYs occupied and the inspector stating that it's unoccupied. She noted the discrepancy of recards showing that both Diane Olson and Ron Johnson live in Chanhassen and that Ms. Olson is claiming that they are living on Winifred. Ms. Olson responded that Mr. Johnson is living at the Winifred property and filed homestead on 7une 3Q and it has occupied it consistently since June 30. Mr. Johnson stated that he is living at 217 Winifred. Ms. Moermond asked if his driver's license lists this as his address, or whether he had any utility bills that show this as his address, or whether he had a voter registration. Ms. Olson said that they have a utility bill for this address and Mr. Johnson said that there is mail being delivered there. Mr. Johnson said that there were a nuxnber of weeks where he was up north working on his daughter's cabin. He added that the windows were left open during this time because they were painting and were airing it out as the previous tenants had dogs and ruined the carpet. He said that in the two years that they have owned the property, they have not experienced any problems with break- ins at this location. Ms. Moermond stated that that tax assessment for the lawn mowing has already been before the City Council and is not the matter under consideration at this hearing. The matter was the requirement that they have this building registered as a vacant building. She stated that she is hearing from City staff that they found this building to be empty when the windows were discovered to be open and they were up north. She noted that Ms. Olson is arguing that flie City has no right; however, she pointed out that the conditions that were existing constitute a nuisance. She requested she is also looking to hear what the City staff are looking for in terms of getting this building into the shape that it needs to be in. Mr. Senty said that as far as the vacant building status goes, all he needed is proof of Mr. Johnson's occupancy, such as a utility bill. Ms. Olson said that they could provide such documentation. Ms. Moermond stated that if Mr. Senty goes out and makes a determination that it is a vacant building, then she will ask to see them again in three weeks to arrive at a decision. If it's good, the whole matter will be closed and the fee will be deleted. Ms. Olson said that they will appeal that. Ms. Moermond said that they can go to district court with that. She instructed her to look at the back of the letter that she received that describes the process for appealing an assessment because they only have a certain number of days to submit that. This matter was continued to November 6. Appeal of Norman Kagan to an Appeal of a Fence Variance for property at 2379 Bourne Avenue. Mr. Riddering stated that the owner at 2379 Bourne Avenue has a building permit to build a retaining wall and that they wish to build a fence on top of that retaining wall. The property owner has October 16, 2007 Property Code Minutes 6 � �� Page 7 requested a variance for the fence, although it is not necessary. It was his opinion that the property owner is entitled by right to have up to a six and one-half foot fence along the back property line. However, Mr. Peterson has paid money for the variance and wanted documentation that he could in fact build the fence. Mr. Riddering said that he didn't believe there was much to appeal on the variance. Norman Kagan, the appellant, said that his reason for requesting the hearing is that it is the first opporhxnity to speak with anyone other than his neighbor, about the growing situation and concems that he has. He reviewed that his neighbor is building a six and one-half foot high retaining wall which he has a permit for and of which he has no objections to the wall. He said that on the very top of that wall that Mr. Peterson has piaced some eight inch cylinders that he understands are foundation cylinders that are usually used for a very large heavy object, and that Mr. Peterson has told him that he intends to place a six and one-half foot solid fence on top of that. The top of that solid fence would be from the original grade where he began his retaining wall, 13 feet above the original grade where he began his retaining wall. He noted that his property slopes down from Mr. Peterson's property and his home is 10 feet below the original grade so that puts the top of the wall at 23 feet above the level of his first floor. Mr. Peterson's property is directly south of his house, and Mr. Kagan does quite a bit of gardening. He said that it has altered the appearance and the backyard prospects of serenity and other factors. In prepaning the land for this retaining wall, Mr. Peterson cut several trees and quite a lot of brush which previously provided a light green screen between their huo properties. Ms. Moermond established from Mr. Kagan that the trees and brush that were cleared, except for a dozen bushes that were about 18 inches to two ft. over the property line, six of them were Mr. Kagan's, and six of them were his neighbor's to the side, and that they should not have been cut to the ground, that he would haue wanted them to remain for their greenery. Mr. Kagan noted that his neighborhood has had difficulty with retaining walls in the neighborhood. The ground is loose sand. A neighbor had a 3 foot wall crumble because of the movement of soil from heauy rains. They also occasionally get powerful winds and had a cyclonic wind on August 11 which blew Mr. Peterrson's trampoline against the side of his house, and fortunately was averted from resulting in an enormous mess of potential broken windows as well as repairs. He was concemed that such a large wall built above a large retaining wall will catch the wind and potentially be another object of projectile if the wall is not well-built and as-is does seem to retain water. He described a storm in late September which took a large amount of rainwater rushing down from above and washed out the side of Mr. Peterson's wall; however he has repaired it since which demonstrated that water collects behind the wall and there is also a hole developing beneath the wall in the center which he provided photos. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Riddering if one of the things that they can take into account is changes in grade when issuing fence permits and she asked whether they also consider drainage issues in this process. Mr. Riddering responded that the landscaping and drainage code are separate issues. For a fence variance, they take into consideration the site or terrain conditions. He agreed with Ms. Moemond that in this case, a variance was not required so there was no reason to take into account the changes in grade as there was no variance requirement. Drew Peterson, 2379 Boume Avene, submitted some drawings for review. He explained that the whole purpose for doing this project was that they have a very hilly backyard with no flat space at ail October 16, 2007 Property Code Minutes Q� `���� Page 8 and can't even set up a picnic table. The purpose was to grade the yazd so that they have a flat surface and in doing that he is building this wall on their property. He did remove a number of trees and brush and described it as much of it consisting of unwanted buckthorn. It was an unmanageable space back there and every year required them to hall away additional vegetation that kept growing up in theu yard. He said that when he is done with the project, there wi11 be no slope towards his backyard neighbors. It will be a level backyard and that should reduce the drainage problems greatly. He said that he has permits for everythiiig, is following all of the codes and regulations, has had his work inspected and no problems have been found with it. With regards to the issue with the part of the wall that was washed away, (he referenced Mr. Kagan's photograph depicting that as well as the photo with the back hoe) that there had been a heavy rain before he had a chance to backfill that area and it was washed out. He provided an updated photo of the area where it has been repaired. Mr. Peterson referenced a number of documents he had showing how walls are built. Since he's made the repairs there have been three major rains and there has been no damage or washout. He contrasted the rivo photographs indicating the significant difference in how the grade is set. Ms. Moermond asked how Licensing would review the retaining wall and whether they would require that perniits be pulled. Mr. Riddering said that a retaining wall of that size would require a permit and he has a permit. They would be looking at the foundation to inake sure it was being built appropriately. Ms. Moermond questioned whether the drainage far the property would be reviewed. Mr. Riddering responded that the drainage on a property is rather vague. If he's grading at this level, he is going to have much less runoff on Mr. Kagen's property and retaining wa11s like this are designed to leak. They are not supposed to hold back hydraulic pressure. The permit for the work has not yet received final approval. Mr. Riddering pointed out that the inspector who started with the project has just retired so there will be a new inspector looking at it. Mr. Peterson noted that this is an engineered wall. Any wall under four feet does not need a permit, at its tallest point this wall is six feet. He did not have written documentation on how the wall is being built. He's taken classes and has researched the building of this reta3ning wall and is doing everything that is specified by the manufacturer. Mr. Peterson noted that these walls can be built much tailer than six feet. Mr. Kagen submitted a diagram showing the profile of his home to help clarify the lay of the land and its appearance. He also submitted two photographs showing an opening that has appeared in the center of the wall which first appeazed in the washout on September 20. The opening had grown with the additional rain and to him it was an indication of water seeping under the wall, which he feared could possibly cause a wash out of the dike. Mr. Peterson asked whether this hearing was an appeal of tl�e fence variance and what would happen if his application were withdrawn. Ms. Moermond said that what she is looking at is a Chapter 18 appeal which means that someone, in this case Mr. Kagen, is appealing a decision or determination of enforcement staff with respect to the Legislative Code. Staff made a decision ar a determination that Mr. Kagen is appealing and it was her reading of the appeal either the issuance of the fence permit and all of the relative matters and(ar the issuance of the variance itself. Ms. Moermond said that it is her determination in reviewing this that they made the correct decision in issuing the building permit for the fence and the variance that was October 16, 2007 Property Code Minutes 6�'� Page 9 applied for. That doesn't mean that Mr. Kagen doesn't have a concern, but she is just saying that in looldng at this Legislative Code and what staff actions were that their actions were appropriate. She advised that if Mr. Kagen wishes to pursue something separately and privately with his neighbor, he could do so. With respect to the City action and what the enfarcement officer did, it was appropriate for the permit to be issued and that will be her recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Moermond denied the appeal and said that if Mr. Kagen and/or Mr. Peterson wished to consider fur[her action, they should seek counsel about what those options are. Appeal of Chris Kearney to an Appeal of a Code Compliance Inspection Report for property at 1519 Sherburne Avenue. Mr. Dornfeld stated that he was at the hearing on behalf of Inspector Joe Yanerelli. James Seeger provided a brief staff report reviewing the list of corrections. Mr. Dornfeld said that the house was condemned by Inspector Booker for water shut-off on approximately July 31, 2007. Due to the condemnation, it was transferred to the vacant building program as a condemned building that cannot be occupied and it was assumed vacant. Ms. Moermond asked whether it was an occupied building with the condemnation and the water shut- off and ordered vacated or whether it was already empty. Chris Kearney, the appellant, responded that it was already empty as he had formerly rented to six college students and they had moved out about one month priar. Ms. Moermond asked whether inspectors had noted any additional code violations. Mr. Dornfeld said that it was condemned for lack o£ water, poor screens, paint trim, crumbling concrete steps, no hand- rails, and had multiple code violarions. Ms. Moermond questioned wheUier this appeal was more a financial problem than anything else. Mr. Kearney said that if the house had never been categorized as a vacant property he would not be at this hearing. He said he had been in the process of trying to find new renters and there were a couple of months that went by where he couldn't find any renters. He said that he currently lives in Columbia Heights and had lived at 1519 Sherburne until he rented out the property. Before the renters moved out, they were very good about giving him his mail; however, he never got the water bill. After the tenants moved out, he was there cleaning the house approximately two to three weeks later, he found the final notice on the front porch notifying him that the water had been shut-off a couple of days previously. He wasn't aware that hauing his water shut off was going to lead to this many problems. As soon as he received the final notice, he called the Water Depamnent and paid his bill. He then called for an inspection to haue tbe water turned back on which was two to three days after he paid the bill. Ms. Moermond questioned whether this property would be required to have at least a provisional Certificate of Occupancy in order to be occupied. She assumed that things would be up to code because it is a rental property. Mr. Dornfeld responded that there was no current C of O. Ms. Moermond asked if there was a C of O last year when the units were occupied by students. She stated that there was code compliance inspection report and even if you didn't haue that, be would still October 16, 2007 Property Code Minutes d7����� Page 10 be required to have a Certificate of Occupancy if it's going to be used as rental property. She asked if the codes that Vacant Buildings use in this process are the same as the codes that the Fire Inspectors would apply when they do an inspection under the C of O program. Mr. Seeger said that the codes are a little bit different as an inspection that results in a pernut being pulled may reqire things like smoke detectars in every bedroom which only need to be battery operated. Fire Inspectors read in their code that there has to be one hard-wired smoke detector outside the bedroom area. Ms. Moermond said that such an example wouldn't make much of a difference cost-wise for someone approaching a project like this. Mr. Seeger said the conections required are based on maintenance code 34 and 45. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Kearney who his lender was. Mr. Kearney responded that it is Indi Mac Bank. Ms. Moermond asked whether he's called them about this situation and whether he has been making his payments. Mr. Kearney said that he has not contacted his bank about these issues and that he has made all of his payments to this date. This was really putting hnn into financial debt and he has reached the point where he cannot affard to do it anymore. He said that he would be more than willing to bring the house up to Section 8 code as he has a family that would be interested in renting the unit. Ms. Moermond told Mr. Kearney that the Code Compliance Report represents much more than his simply missing the water bill payment and the inspector who inspected the property saw a lot more wrong with the property than just the water being turned off. Mr. Kearney said if he had been aware that there would have been so many problems with the City of Saint Paul he wouldn't have purchased the home two years ago. Mr. Dornfeld stated that the Water Department does provide a 7-10 day prior notice that shut-off will be occurring and it does not immediately go to condemnation. He asked if Mr. Kearney called Inspector Booker. Mr. Kearney said that he did, however by the time that he called her, she was no longer there. It was probably about three weeks before he saw the notice which he accepted the blame. He said he can't disagree with a lot of the deficiencies on the list because it is an old house and he assumes that a lot of it is not up to code. Mr. Kearney said that he would like to avoid fareclosure. Ms. Moermond recommended that Mr. Kearney call his bank right away to let them know what is going on, that this is a vacant building, there are repairs that need to be done, and that he needs to refinance. She said that the bank needs to help him. She directed him to speak with Robin Asfeld andlor Michelle Vojacek, PED, both of whom work a lot with banks and understand the foreclosare process. Ms. Moermond suggested that these repairs seem to be doable perhaps in the range of $20,000-$40,000. Mr. Kearney said that he has already met with a builder who said it would likely be approximately $40,000 to $50,000, ifnot more expensive, because ofplumbing, heating, and framing, which he believed would require ripping apart walls. October 16, 2007 Property Code Minutes D ��/��� Page 11 Ms. Moermond also advised that Mr. Keamey schedule an appointment with Inspector Seeger for advice about meeting the code in the most cost-effective means, that is, just to bring into code compliance where a contractor may advise more expensive repairs. Mr. Seeger advised that in the case where orders state rebuilding a front retauung wall that rebuilding front steps doesn't necessarily mean replacing them. Mr. Kearney said he has looked into refinancing options but since he works at a bar, as well as having his real estate license, and with the mortgage crisis going, he didn't believe he could qualify to refinance. Ms. Moermond stated that the bank will not want him to go into foreclosure and that they too will lose money and that he needs to make those contacts. Mr. Dornfeld advised that he needs to get the repairs done and must get a C of O before he could rent out the property or he will be renting illegally. If something went wrong, he would be liable which would really become a financiai hardship. Ms. Moermond denied the appeal. 9. Appeal of Eldon Johnson to a Correcrion Notice and Vehicle Abatement Order for property at 1452 Ashland Avenue. Ms. Seeley stated that she received a referral from the Fire Deparhnent on September 18 and she went out to the property on September 26 and found an illegal bedroom in the basement with two beds, some illegal plumbing in the basement, and a couple other minor things, including an RV with expired tabs. Ms. Seeley said that she'd spoken with Mr. Johnson and understood he was going to take care of these items. Ms. Moermond addressed the issue of the illegal bedroom in the basement which was previously heard at a Legislative Hearing two years ago. Mr. Johnson responded that at that time he started sleeping upstairs; however he left the beds and bedding downstairs. Ms. Moermond asked if he is running a rooming house downstairs. Mr. Johnson replied that he was not. He stated that when he returned from Texas he learned that a property on Winslow had problems. He tried to straighten that out but in the end he got over $2,000-$3,000 of fines. He said that the same thing is happening at 1452 Ashland Avenue which is his home address. Ms. Moermond advised that the discussion at this meeting would be limited to the Ashland property. She reviewed various items from the correction notice: 1) remove the padlock from the second floor bedroom and install a new door as the door is deteriorated; 2) the basement sink is missing a proper trap and waste pipe; 3) the basement shower is lacking a proper trap and waste line and that needs to be repaired. 4) there is an illegal bedroom in the basement and both beds need to removed; 5) obtain a permit to install an egress window; and 6) the small door next to the downstairs shower is deteriorated and full of mold which needs to be removed and repaired. Ms. Moermond addressed the illegal bedroom in the basemenY and said that this was discussed before and if he is going to have a sleeping room in the basement he's got to have a window that someone can October 16, 2007 Property Code Minutes 07 '�Q�Lj� Page 12 get out of. She noted that he had previously stated that he had been sleeping down there and this is a concem because his mobility is an issue. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. 7ohnson to review why he is appealing and what he is looking for at this hearing. Mr. Johnson said that he removed the padlock from the second floor bedroom and the tenant had been removed. He said that he had purchased a metal piece to go over the door and will be putting in a doorknob. He said that he just found a carpenter at 1433 Ashland and had made arrangements for him to come over on October 18 to replace the door by the deadline of October 19. Ms. Moermond asked when Mr. Johnson would be taking caze of the basement sink and shower. Mr. Johnson questioned the reason for having a trap on the sink. Ms. Moermond responded that it is required in the plumbing code. He challenged this. Ms. Seeley explained that he had a small sink in the basement and what he's got is like an S trap and a long pipe that drains right into the shower. When she inspected the shower, she found that it doesn't have a cover and there is just a piece of pvc pipe and he put a coffee can in there. Currently, the sink is not properly trapped and the concern is sewer gases coming in. She said that he is going to need to hire a plumber as she can't see what's behind the walls to determine whether it is vented. She said that Mr. Johnson left her a message saying it would cost $3,000 to have the required work done and that he is not going to do it. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Seeley whether the same concerns exist for both the shower and far the sink with respect to the potential for sewer gases backing up. Ms. Seeley stated that was cored. She stated that she doesn't know if it is tied in properly to the waste on the shower because it is such a makeshift deal. Right next to it, the doar is all moldy and there's no ventilation in the bathroom. Mr. Johnson said that wiil be taken care and the mold has already been removed, it has been painted, and on October 18 when his carpenter comes, he will do what he says needs to be done. He stated that he will not make the October 19 deadline for the other repairs. If Ms. Moermond wants him to, he said he will cancel his insurance and burn the house down, and that he is getting sick and tired of these deficiency lists. He said he just learned from the IRS that he has paid $26,000 in real estate taxes and 70% of that is to pay for public safety and the legislative hearing officer's wages yet he can't have a decent suminer because of the repeated inspections. He said that they have been using the existing shower for 30 years and they believe that there is no such thing as gas coming up through that pipe. He said he would rather die from carbon monoxide gas than from what he has to look forward to now. And the same thing with the sleeping room. He said that he has found that he has to sleep upstairs due to his shortness of breath and there is no way that he can sleep downstairs. He stated he has submitted his application to get into a home at Fairview and University and may get in this coming spring. He stated that he has a$1,000 air mattress downstairs and if he does move, then he will take everything from the basement with him. With respect to the sewer pipe, he doesn't lrnow what he's going to do. Concerning the RV, he admitted that he'd £orgotten to take care of the license and he told Ms. Moermond to do whatever she wished with his case because he does not intend to ruin his whole Texas vacation. Ms. Moermond stated that two years ago, she heard his case and he was sleeping in the basement at that rime. He had indicated that he didn't want to put in a proper window to get him out of the basement because it was going to be too expensive. Currently, he still has a bedroom in the basement October 16, 2007 Property Code Minutes b 7—��8 9 Page 13 and has stated that he sleeps downstairs every once in awhile. Ms. Moermond stated that it is not okay as it doesn t meet the Fire Code. Mr. Johnson said that he'd rather die in the downstairs bedroom than go through what he has to look forwazd to with emphysema. Ms. Moermond said that she will not be a party to that as it is against the City Code. Since in the past he has used this room for his own sleeping and it doesn't have a window that he can get out of. He also is not physically able to get around and manage a smaller window so she was supporting the enforcement officer on those orders. Mr. Johnson cannot have the bedroom furniture in that room and the inspector can proceed with issuing him a criminal citation if she goes back and finds the furniture there. With respect to the second flooz bedroom needing to have the padlock removed as well as replacing the door, also needed to be done. It appeared that Mr. Johnson will meet that deadline which is no longer an appeal. In terms of the door being full of mold downstairs, there appears to be agreement that this work will be done and Mr. Johnson said he would take the door off and leave it open, if that meets Ms. Seeley's requirements. Ms. Seeley said iYs not clear what the wall is right next to the shower. Mr. Johnson responded that it is a storeroom. She agreed to the door being removed just as long as there is not mold remaining all over the walls. Ms. Moermond said that what remains is the need far a plumber to come in and deal with the waste piping. She stated that Mr. Johnson is saying that there isn't a problem; however the inspector is finding that it looks thrown together and is not convinced that there isn't a problem and she wants this to be examined. One alternative is to have a plumbing inspector come look at the situation and do an assessment. Mr. Johnson said that he is not going to fix it regardless, and he said that the City can go ahead and condemn the house or whatever but he's not going to fix it. He spoke of other circumstances where inspectors had made requirements and the required work was later unfounded. Ms. Moermond reviewed the vehicle abatement order, white RV, license C1201 and asked for an update on this. Mr. Johnson said he had had an offer on the vehicle and was going to sell it and let the new owner put the tabs on it. The sale fell through and he admitted that he forgot about it. He said he will be getting the tabs for the vehicle and he would most likely take caze of it on October 17. Ms. Moermond said that the vehicle abatement order will go before the City Council Public Hearing on Wednesday, November 7 at 5:30 p.m. If he doesn't agree with the findings at this hearing, he may wish to attend. Mr. Johnson said that he will be in Texas on November 7. Ms. Moermond said that the remainder of the items from the Correction Notice will go before the City Council on a resolution that will not be a public hearing item. Ms. Moermond denied his appeal and gave Mr. Johnson a new deadline of November 7 to get the plumbing items completed. Ms. Seeley explained that if a criminal citation is issued then he would be required to go to Housing Court before a judge. Mr. Johnson asked when. October 16, 2007 Properry Code Minutes Q7�1�Cg'J� Page 14 Ms. Moermond said that Ms. Seeley still has a number of options in how she chooses to proceed in this matter and that a decision will not be made at this hearing. Mr. Johnson asked Ms. Seeley if she had has spoken with YaYa. Ms. Seeley said that she has spoken with him and that he did not find overcrowding at this address. She indicated to Mr. Johnson that all he needs to do is fix the plumbing, get rid o£ the two beds in the basement, and take care of the tabs and he will be set. She told him to take the air out of the maitress and put it in the corner and to remove the twin bed from that room Ms. Seeley said that she is not going to allow the existing shower to be used by all of his tenants. Mr. Johnson said that he's beginning to make arrangements with a plumber who will run a new pipe up to the first floor bathroom and they will add a shower upstairs. The hearing adjourned at 3:45 p.m.