Loading...
07-158Council File # �� /S � Green Sheet #� (o�t 2� Presented OF�AINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �3 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the November 28, 2006 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters, Correction Notices and Correction Orders for the following address: � Property_Aoqealed AA�ppellant 6 7 1812 Portland Avenue Randolph Herman 8 Aecision: Deny the appeal on the variance request to install an approved handrail. 9 10 1980 Seventh Street West, #105 11 Decision: Deny the appeal. 12 Melvin Warner Requested by Department o£ � Form Approved by City Attomey Bv: Adoption Certified by Council Secretary B J' j � Approved Ma Date Z U By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: Adopted by Council: Date ���/�QJ �'"` � Green_SheetGreen Sheet Gceen Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � D��/s CO �ouncil Contact Person 8 Phone: Marcia Mcertnond 6-8570 Must Be an Council Aaen � Dce. Type: RESOLUTiON E-Document Required: Y Document Contact: Ycki Contact Phone: 6-856'I Total # of Signature Pages 03FE6-07 � Assign Number For Routing Order (Clip All Locations for Signature) Green Sheet NO: 3036923 0 ,Council i 1 ouncil Departmen[ Direc[or 2 Citv Clerk I C�N Clerk 3 4 � -� 5 i Resolution approving the decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters, Correction Notices and Conection Orders for property at 1812 Portland Avenue and 1980 Seventh Street West, #105. aat�ons: Hpprove �ra) or rceJecc �rc�: rersonai aerv�ce �omrac.-n mus�.a��we� we rvuvwniy �aucauwa. Planning Commission 1. Has this person/frm ever worked under a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes Na Civil Service Commission 2. Nas this personlfi(m ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on sepa2te sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: DisadvantageslfApproved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Transaction: Funding Source: Financiallnformation: (Explain) Activity Number: CosURevenue Budgeted: February 9, 2007 4:42 PM Page 1 � � �s� MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES AND CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, November 28, 2006 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West Marcia Moerxnond, Legislarive Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 1:35 p.m. Staff Present: Robert Rexeisen, Fire Prevention; Michael Urmann, Fire Prevention Appeal of Randolph Herman to a Certificate of Occupancy with Deficiencies for property at 1812 Portland Avenue. Mr. Urmann stated that under the Building Code, one grippable, handrail is required on exterior stairways with three or more risers and there was no variance ar exception allowed under the Code. He presented photographs of the stairway to the front entrance of the home that showed there was no handrail on either side of the stairway. Randolph Herman, property owner, stated he had owned the property since 1991 and the lack of handrails to the front entrance had never been an issue for him or his tenants. The building was a duplex with a small apartment unit in the basement and he lived in the upstairs unit. He and his tenants used the rear entrance to the properky so there was not an issue of safeCy. He did not believe installing a handrail would be practical and would not be in keeping the architectural character of the house or neighborhood. Ae also believed installing a handrail would be too costly. Mr. Urmann stated that there were aesthetically pleasing handrails that were not too costly to install. He again pointed out that this was a safety issue and a variance under the Code was not allowed. Ms. Moemiond stated that she could not grant a variance on installing a handrail to the stairway to the front entrance of home. She asked Mr. Hemzan when he believed he could possibly have the handrail installed Mr. Herman stated he believed he would need at least four weeks. Mr. i3rman stated he would work with the owner on a timeline to have the handrail installed. His main concern was with build up of ice on the steps. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal with a compliance date of February 1, 2007 to install the handrail conditioned on the steps being sanded or salted in the occurrence of any ice build up. 2. Appeal of Melvin Warren to a Certificate of Occupancy with Deficiencies far property at 1980 Seventh Street West, #105. Mr. Urxnann stated that one unit in the building, #105, was inspected based on a refenal. Orders were issued on October 19 to make repairs on three items with a complaance date of October 25. v7 �s� November 28, 2006 Property Code Hearing Minutes Page 2 The unit was re-inspected on October 25 and upon the instance of the complainant, there were five additional items that were ordered to be repaired with a compliance date of October 30. Upon re-inspecrion on October 30, the unit was found to be in compliance. The complainant did not believe the deficiencies had been brought into compliance and filed this appeal. Mr. Wanen stated that he had compiled a letter listing eight items in his unit which he believed needed to be repaired. He presented the letter to the Fire inspector, Mr. Rexeisen, and taped the conversation he had with him concerning his list of violations. He had asked Mr. Rexeisen to sign the letter and he refused to do so. Mr. Rexeisen wrote up a list of deficiencies that he believed needed to be repaired. It was his contention that none of the items listed on the deficiency list by Mr. Rexeisen had been fixed to his satisfaction. Mr. Warren presented a copy his letter of deficiencies, a transcription of his conversation with Mr. Rexeisen that he had transcribed by a professional court reporter, as well as approximately 3Q photographs that he had taken of what he perceived needed to be repaired in his unit. Mr. Warren went on to say that he had contacted the Fire Marshal and the Fire Marshal would not return his phone calls. He had requested a copy of the deficiency list that was given to the property manager and he was denied a copy of this list. He then obtained a copy of the deficiency list and contacted Mr. Urmann and asked him to come out to re-inspect his unit on the list of complaints he had. Mr. Unnanu told him that he did not have time to inspect everything on his list. He believed NIr. Urmann acted unprofessionally to his request and he had concerns over the work ethic in the Fire Marshal's office. Jamie Miller, property manager appeared with the maintenance person for the building, Craig Karasiewicz. Ms. Miller stated that she gave Mr. Karasiewicaz the list of deficiencies in this unit to make the repairs which he did do by the re-inspection date. Mr. Karasiewicz stated that he was instructed to make repairs wherever post-it notes had been plaeed. He stated that he repaired the cracks and chips and painted where necessary. He replaced a blind that was in disrepair and had fixed the holes in the kitchen floor with caulk. He admitted that the caulk wasn't the exact color of the kitchen floor but he believed it looked okay. Mr. Warren stated that he agreed that the blind had been replaced but the rest of the work that was done was not to his satisfaction and he did not believe the orders by Mr. Rexeisen should have been approved and the complaint closed. Ms. Moermond reviewed the pictures and stated that the Code required repairs be made in a workman-like fashion. According to the pictures of the ldtchen floor and the holes tbat were repaired, it may not have been the exact color as the rest of the floor, however, she believed it was in good condition. She could not find fault with any of the photos Mr. Wanen had presented. She asked Ms. Miller whether this unit had any maintenance issues prior to Mr. Warren moving into this unit. Ms. Miller stated that all repairs are done prior to a new tenant moving into a unit. This includes cleaning or replacing carpeting, painting the entire unit and fixing any other items that may need to be repaired. When Mr. Watren moved in, they went over the inspection sheet with him and at November 28, 2006 Property Code Hearing Minutes � �-� s� Page 3 that time, it was noted there were rivo holes in the kitchen floor and some staining. There had been no complaints by Mr. Warren over the past tcvo years until this time. Ms. Moermond recessed the meeting for five minutes to review the records. Ms. Miller then stated that that they had taken Mr. Wanen to Court on an eviction notice. The judge gave Mr. Warren until November 27, 2006 to move out and as of today's date, he had not moved out and was a holdover tenant. Mr. Warren disputed the fact that he had been evicted. Ms. Moermond stated she was denying the appeal as Mr. Warren no longer had standing as a tenant in the building since he had been evicted and should have moved out the previous day. The property manager complied with the orders to bring the unit into Code compliance based on sYandards which ware not considered ]ife/safety issues and were merely aesthetic in nature. The bearing adjourned at 2:10 p.m. Submitted by: Vicki Sheffer