The URL can be used to link to this page

07-978Council File #� —� 7 g Green Sheet # '�p��"i�13 RESOLUTION �� F,,SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented by 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul, based on a review of the legislative 2 hearing record and testimony heard at public hearing on October 3, 2007 hereby memorializes its decision 3 to certify and approve the September 27, 2007 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for the following 4 address: 6 ADDRESS 7 8 1834 Maryland Avenue East 9 10 11 Decision: Appeal denied APELLANT Robin Rohr Requested by DepartmenY oL Adoption Certified by Council Secretary BY� n �rlv o.� Approv d ay : Date �� Z�' U 7 B � Form Approved by City Attomey By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � Adopted by Council: Date f0�7��j�Dy � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � � 7�7� co ��il ConWct Person & Phone: Marcia Mcermond 6-8570 Must Be on Council Agenda by Doc.Type: RESOLUTION E-DOCUment Required: Y Document Contact: Mai Vang ContaM Phone: 6-8564 05-0CT-07 � Assign Number For Routing Order Tofal # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Green Sheet NO: 3044793 0 Council 1 omeil I Depar�entD'uector 2 i Clerk Ci Clerk 3 4 I 5 Resolution memorializing the decision of the City Council at the October 3, 2007 Ciry Council Public Hearing to deny the appeal for pcoperty at 1834 Maryland Avenue East per the cecommendafion of the Legislative Hearing Officer. Planning Commission 1. Has this persoNfirm everworked untler a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this persoNfirm 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 F�cplain all yes answers on separete sheet and aitach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): AtivantagesifApproved: Disadvantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Transaction: Funding Source: FinanCial InfortnaUon: (Explain) Activity Number: CosURevenue Budgeted: October 11, 2007 9;12 AM Page 1 F a IEIIillill 'J 0 il2! III n September 21, 2007 Robin ftohr 1834 Maryland Ave. E. St. Pauf, NfN 55119 CITY OF SAINT PAUL CITY CLERK'S OFFICE RE: appeaf for 1834 Maryland Ave. E. Dear Ms. Rohr: Your application for an appeal has been received and processed. b� Pfease attend the public hearing before the Legislative Hearing Officer on Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 2:0U p.m. in Room 330 City Hall and Courthouse to consider your appeai concerning the above referenced property. At that time the Legisiative Hearing Officer will hear all parties relative to this action. Failure to appear at the hearing may result in deniai of your appeal. Sincerely, ��d��/'�J / j��' �N I/ ✓� Shari Moore �� City Clerk cc. Craig Mashuga, DSI Code Enforcemenf Harold Robinson, DSi Supervisor Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer 15 WEST KELLOGG BOULEVARD, SUITS 310 SAINT PAU[, MINNESOTA55102 AA-ADA-EEO Employer Te1:651-266-8658 Fax:651-266-8574 wwiv.stpaul.gov 09(27/2007 11:27 FAX 612 348 2856 HENN CTY-HSPH� � 7�9'] � 1. Ad b�'3 4. Name of APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Saint Paul City Clerk �5'W. Kellogg Blvd., 3l0 City Ha12 ��/ Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Telephone; (65]) 266-8685 ✓ Ap e 2. '�lCC i � ooiiooz RECEIVED SEP 2 1 2007 CITY �R� �� g� 3. Date of I.etter �'/ 1� �0�1 � �' 1 Zip. '� Phone 5, Flppellant / (if ot�er than awner): �S �'7�'�.��ellular Address: City: State: Zip: Phona Numbers: Business T2esidence Signature: Cellular 6 State specifically what is being appealed and why (Use an attachment if necessary): �---- NOTS: A$25.00 Filing fee made payable to the City of Saint Paul must accompany this application as a necessary condi[ion for filing. You must aetaeh a copy of the original orders and any othet correspondence relative to tlris appeal, p.ny person unsaasfied by the final decision of the City Couneil may o6tain judicisl review by timaly filing of an action as pro�idad by law in District Court. �_ _ For ��ce C1se Onlv � 09/21l2007 11:27 FAX 612 348 2856 HENN CTY-HSPH� C1TY OF SAINT PACJL NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSiNG & PROPERTY EMPR�VEMENT 1600 White Bear Avenue � Saint Paul, MN 55106 ��"� 7d SUMMARY ASATEMENT ORD�R � oo2ioo2 I'og hais tias koj hais lus Fimoob thiab koj tsis to taub tsab nrawv no, hu rau ms tc6ais lus nrawm (651) 266-791 B. ISws yog pab dawb zwb. Si usted habla el Espano) y no entiende esha nora, llama (65 t)26(r6008 para un traducror. No cosW. � S �►1• . 's 4 � . � L � i ._ � — pi,8 awner or person(s) responsible for: /� _hereby ordered tu eliminate all nuisadce coqditlona in v_iolation of Chapter_45 of Saint Paul Y.,egislative Coda_ are ❑ Remove improperly stored or accumulated refuse including: garbage, rubbish, dfscarded furniture, appliances, velucle psrts, scrap wood and metal, recycling materisls, houaehold iteros, butlding materials or rubble, dres, brush, etc., from yard areas. ❑ ❑ ❑ � Cut and remove tall grass, weeds and rank plant growth- Remove and properly dispose of ali aninda] feces fKUm yard ilY�lVxEpIATELY secare all buftdings which are open to nnauthorized entry, induding: Other: /S If you do not correct tha nuisanee or file an appeai beforo_ ineluding bparding costs, against the properly as a speciai fhe City witl correc[ [he ouisance and charge all costs, same way as property mxes. Char¢es• If che Ciry coerecfs [he nuisance, the charges wifl include tkae cost of correction, inspecdon, [ravel cime, equipmenc, eec. The ra[e wi11 be approximattty $260_00 per hour plus expenses for ahatement You must maintain the premises �n a Clean Condition and provede proper and �dequate refuse stor$ge at all timea FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY RESULT TN A CRIMINAL CTTATION Issued by: ��(f� /-� Sadge Number_ 3 3 5 Phone Number (651)��, ��Q � If you have sny questions about this order, the requiremenCs or t6e deadtine, you sfiould contact the Inspector listed above, Moaday t�xrough Friday �g}$:You mqy nDp�ai 11tis o[3er andobinin ¢hrntn�gbeCmelYte Ci� Co�rrcil by completingan appsl applicauon wi�h O�c City Clerk beforc {heuppeu) dendlit�e notcd ubave oracvcn (7y daysaRerflxdatemailed,whithe��comesfirst Noawcal� bet'1cdeRertfis�da�e. Y ma oh�a' sng,�mtarnr�" t nFmmlheC'tvClerk'sOtltce.Rm 290 C'tvH II SLp i MN 5� IQ2 The trJavho rmmbcr's (65 � 1266-8fi88 Vou mus� hmit a com of th" Order �h vour aereal a I' i on, +WARrvING Codc inspec[ion and enEOrcement [n7az cos[ �hetupayers money. 1FtNe vielatiom are mi m..ec�ed wi�l,in ihc iimeperiod requirod in this ratice, �Ire city's coscs in conduetinga mi+�pee�onaflSrljipduedqbfa�wmplianawillYcC011oetalFmmthcvWncrrnkhasfmnbeingpuid6yLLieiuepuy�7xuftlieciry, ICu�liti�ul�cwviolGlicros'ufcdiSCO�crodwilhintFwncxl fotlowing l2 monthg, theciry's�as�s in conduaingaddiumml i`up2clirno m thia a�mc laulion wiJtin such 12 manFhs will bccolirxied Crpm ihe owner ratherUran being padbytl�iaxpuyasof �heeity. Any sueh yturc em�b, will be coll�ckd by v�ameni nguiml themal propmiyend are in addie�m v�sny nther fine¢ nryqs�,ya,m�n{r which muY � Ie�i� ogei�ui yroumdyowpopary' 5ro6 ��}, � �� = F �: . �#� , , w � i "- � ` ,� ,�,�� : „�,. ,.;.s�:�� ,,,��` z��`r,.,�1s , t; .�: '� ` `�``'� t � �` l �y�'' _ � j r.� � i . a� i , .� ' � j � �� I '� ` .�� j; t _�� . ` ��, ... %� ` � ��. �� . �.� �F �� _ � � I � ` l , � �� if. � � � � �� { � , � t � l k\ r . I � } �� ' i � . � • ( � F' � �' r' »' , � i t `� � R�s�� `` � I .. � . . .. �� '1 y4.:..�i � w`. 1 i t Y � _ . . �� = � . .� . } i � 1� I r � � t _ r � � . � 4 _ (A � � � �� k°: r } { �'` . . � � ' � �.� i . � r'; .� Ct. . ' � ��'`�� •.�,/��.;�r� , � � �, a: w` ., � , v' f �,�_/ (� �� . �� t . � : I .. . � :i O � ;_ � � _ l' � S l y' \ ''C' t : �' . . �r,: - � K ` r � � ` � NIX �` .... �� 3 1 f �� @ � \\1 � � t � _ ..1 . � ° Y`. O � � � � . �c�'�. � . ��,�= �°�~ � . w.- . . �, e� � � �F_ �.�i � �, � t . ♦,`�. . 'd � � . . - 'n .. . . ( b .�� • �' ' • � 1 �im� �. � 3 � � �� m > � � J � ^ tt �.F . ., . , �. ,.�_ �: . x �� . . . . { F vc� i � N ' ' . �.rt� !. � % �� \ ��M1' S '` \ �,' C �� . ' .� s �r �..� �-� � , - .'+. _ : �? � , - ��,y,. f ,� , . . � . F �� • � �3r�9� � ,�.z . ` }��` i' � � ? ` r � - ' ��,... / . .., .., � ;r� �� ' � �� \`�,'''i � zs " ; \ .o��r � �.\ /J � . '''� " Y � �� ' � ! � 1 r- / � s � _.:�+, ''b..� � ` s I � � . - - P � `� .. m�� A.�f � � �. ! ��F R � SS'^` . � �a. . , , e� Zi , . ��,ti :^'` � �'[ �,K � �t � R ., � � � b .� " � s ' 1 ��,� h �+_ ' . g �, � _ 'a �. .�� k �� R�r.. . '„_ �H' ::.:. , . � � �� _z . � .. {� � + i � � a.. 7 , t1 � E � �€ � 4 e: > �� . Tf ' � � r ___. ., sc; :F �[�Nw�� a�. - _ , ..= ;� s = ,� . �: ,� f f �. �v� �� R • � Gi � r� � �r� �;'` � %'� � _ . �i tY M ��` .� .. � �� ' ��:� _ _� . C V� � � � . � ; ' I EC-e "��1 � � �.� ��J� e `. '� ' � � y . *;m t� � ( y f \ _ Y 1'� 1 z -• . � � p ` .. � : � � �. r �° - � ,�� . . f J �� k, � \ �� r �.� F . � � 1 ��; .. . -� � ,, r� ,� - a . $ a. 9 :`` (�, ' �< ' 3-�. �' :';,^�,�;�—�' "�� _ i y T i" � � �. � � _� . � � r Y- s 1- . . \ :�� . --e s-: . `v' _ >-. :: � � ti��.�� r. .� ..._ .�� ..-�., �.: � {i iD ' y: �� it J : G:.': :� .�`�,' ` �.t . .. � ��.:�.. �:,�:_^. , ��-\ij. i�)-'`��'?'.�. :. ' �-,,_: a ' y' �' ' " r. ",.�"'.'` .: J� Y... � .1>.»��y �:'`� y� - -A ti.at' :"i,��%� • v'A�1' z��.:. i 1. `.;i_'.Yt. .,.�' �` :',"YT��`� � -.q.�.: ;`�� .t:¢4.'.4 'V _ ,,,}'�' c � _ ,, s- :`:y` ,'`'„ ys � .�"z' ,�.k µ` , ;;_�, :, e`° `` •a.. - % �j i ��`; -. ii. �Y'� � +::�� ' 'C4�. ry��a. �„ � � �'� �, Xe==�. . `- ', , - �;� `, e , - :,, ��y" � ,` 4 �Y. C�` � , " E, °�'�� ' � " „< � � �� q . � ` ��t�\ .� ` � .A �, F � �. �4 'Cv+$-S ��Y. `.. � 3 . �yhF� �1''��',t : p,g :1 ` F y . .`a. - t . v 1�.4'f �5�'y2 1.1 . < . $S �� L � : 1 ;,,?i � . � r�n . N �� ? x ap � , `` , ,y�t: `x?z�. �� `." {.�, }:' � �. . � � ��- - v . '- - M� '� �_... � ��,, rre�`��, s#� �', _ �:.. y..�� ..:4" c � `�e=1."�� 4� l ��r _ i.�� A� ` � ` °�`" t x�t r -,�.� , � 7 MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING ORDERS TO REMOVE/REPAIIt, CONDEMNATIONS, ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS AND ABATEMENT ORDERS Thursday, September 27, 2007 Room 330 City Hall, 15 KelIogg Blvd. West Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 2:00 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Craig Mashuga, Deparhnent of Safety and Inspection (DSn - Code Enforcement Appeal of Robin Rohr to a Summary Abatement Order far property at 1834 Maryland Avenue East. Robin Rohr, property owner, appeared. Ms. Moermond requested a staff report from Mr. Mashuga. Mr. Mashuga stated that a report was received from the Fire Department on September 17, 2007 on an arson fire to the garage at the property which he inspected on September 18 to review the site. He determined that it was a hazardous site which usually falls under the criteria to abate or raze the building within 72 hours. He reviewed the report he received from the Fire Department to confirm that the site had been released which it had been. He then issued a Suminary Abatement Order to remove or raze the debris of the garage. The orders were mailed on September 19 with a compliance date of September 24. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Rohr why she was appealing the order. Ms. Rohr stated that she appealed the order as she believed the timeline that she was given was not reasonable considering she did not receive the order until September 20 which gave her only one business day to comply by September 24. She claimed that a person couldn't have a contractor come to yow property to look at your building, give an estimate of the cost and have it down within one day. Ms. Moermond stated that it was now September 27. She asked Ms. Rohr if she had talked to a contractar. Ms. Rolu� responded that she had contacted a contractor and already had everything in place. She was angry that she received a notice on September 20 indicating that it had be down or appealed before September 24 which gave her only one business day to deal with everything. She claimed that she already had "stufF' in place. She had called her insurance agent and he inspected the damage on September 17 and gave her an esrimate. She had called four different contractors to go to the property to get an estnnate of the cost. She had met with two contractars on September 19 and two on September 20; she met one on Friday morning. It was her intent to make a decision on who she would contract to take down the garage by Friday as one of her criteria was that the garage needed to be removed ASAP. She explained to the contractors that she lived behind a school and had "lots and lots" of problems with the school kids. She stated that she didn't need "a nice, little September 27, 2007 Legislative Hearing Minutes �'"1.,(�� Page 2 nasty" letter from the City of Saint PauI that said "on or before the 24th you better take this down or we're going to come and do it at a cost of $260 plus an hour." It was unreasonable. It was her opinion that what they could have done was le$ her a note on the 18th when the inspecTor was out there that said "hey, give me a call; we need to know when you're going to be getting this down." Or they could have even written in the order that "we need to get ttus down as soon as possible; please give me a call to let me lrnow what your plans are." She was basically told "do it and do it now or we're going to come out and take caze of it for you." One business day was unreasonable to expect for this to kappen. Ms. Moermond asked if the structure had now been taken down. Ms. Rohr said "nope." They had already called in the permits and had staked out where the boundary lines were for demolition and to rebuild. Ms. Moermond said that they hadn't taken down the building yet and yet it was a priority to remove the building? Ms. Rohr stated that she toTd the contractor fhey didn't need to take if down until after she had the appeal hearing. Ms. Moermond stated that she thought she had heard that her say that this was a priority for her. Ms. Rohr responded that it is or it was. Not now. Ms. Moermond asked why not now. Ms. Rohr said that because she had an unreasonable request from the City of Saint Paul that would not even deal with her on a one-to-one basis. The contractors knew that she needed the garage down as soon as possible and when she had to deal with getting an appeal hearing and that the hearing was on the 26th. She told the contractor they didn't have to do anything until after the appeal hearing. Then she received a letter "from you guys" on the 22nd that said "nope, you're not coming on the 26th, you're coming on the 27th." Ms. Moermond asked what she meant by "you guys." Ms. Rohr said that it was whoever schedules. Ms. Moermond asked for clarification. Ms. Sheffer stated that Ms. Rohr claimed that she could not attend a hearing on Tuesday, September 25 so she called her and offered her Wednesday, the 26th instead. There was a scheduling conflict as the hearing room was being used and Ms. Moerxnond was not at work that day. The City Clerk then sent out the letter with the date of this hearing. Ms. Moermond stated that she could see Ms. Rohr was very frusirated. Ms. Rohr said that she was extremely fiustrated. It wasn't that she was oblivious to the fact that it was a safety issue. She had lived in the house for 10 to 12 years and had on-going problems with people trespassing on her property. It really ticked her off when she was told to "take it down; you have one business deal to deal with it." She believed it would have been much more thoughtful to send the Ietter earlier or leave it on her door or in the norice say "can you call me; can we talk about it; do you have plans; who your contractor is; is there things that we can help you with." Nothing like that and she didn't believe it was unreasonable to help somebody along who was the victim of September 27, 2007 Legislative Hearing Minutes U ��-� 3 arson. In considering that about eight years ago, her house was blown up, she didn't have this problem with the City of Saint Paul. They were very kind and thoughtful and help to her. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Mashuga what Code EnforcemenYs standazd operating procedure in a case such as this. Mr. Mashuga stated that if it were a hazardous structure, such as this, it was standard procedure to give 72 hours to remove. He stated that on the notice it states that "if you have any questions about these orders and requirements of the deadIine, you shouId contact the inspector listed below." He stated that Ms. Rohr did contact him and she refused to deal with him. He then referred her to his supervisor, Mr. Lippert, and that was where the issue ended. If she had told him that she had a contractor, he would have been willing to work with her on it. He had taken pictures of the structure when he inspected it. The gazage was next to a school playground and it was a dangerous structure and he needed to have it reacted upon as soon as possible. Ms. Moermond stated that what she heard from Ms. Rohr was that she was really frustrated and angry that she had received a letter and that she wanted help that wasn't available from an enforcement agent. In looking at the pictures, she could see the charred remains of a building which children did have access to that area. What she heard was out of anger, she had not removed the building in a timely fashion in order to make a point to the City of Saint Paul for a letter that was sent that she didn't believe was sufficiently considerate of her situation; being a victim of crime. At the same time, she had allowed a hazazdous condition to continue to make her point. Ms. Rohr said that since she had filed the appeal, it was her understanding that she didn't have to do anything until the appeal hearing was done. Ms. Moermond stated that was correct; however, this was an emergency situation with a dangerous structure. Ms. Moermond stated she was denying tYte appeal. Ms. Rohr asked why she was denying the appeal. Ms. Moermond responded it was because this was hazardous and the 72 hours was a reasonable timeframe and the City should go in and remove it within fhat rimefrasne. She foId Ms. Rohr thaf her option was to go to the City Council Public Hearing on Wednesday, October 3 at 530 p.m. to discuss the matter with them. If they dispose of this appeal as she recommends and order the structure demolished, she will recommend that the effective date of that order be Thursday, October 4, 2007. The hearing adjoumed at 2:15 p.m. Submitted by: Vicld Sheffer