Loading...
08-1068Green Sheet RESOLUTION Presented 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 September 10, 20Q8 hereby memorializes its 3 decision to certify and approve the August 19 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for the following 4 address: 5 6 ADDRESS APELLANT 7 8 1054 Arcade Street James Lentz 9 10 Decision: Appeal granted. Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attomey By: Adoption CertiBed by Coun '1 Secretary Form Approved by Mayoi for Submission to Council B y� —�_/�L(� lfGl�l/J By: Approved Jr��Iay� Date (6l ( �(1 � B Y� ��; � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green CO -COUncil CoMad Person & Phone: Marcia Moertnond 6-ss�o Must Be on Couadf Agenda by Doc.Type: RESOLUTION E-Dowment Required: Y Document Contact: Mai Vang Co'kaM Phone: E8563 12SEP-08 �/ assign Number FM Routing Order ToWI # of Signature Pages _(Ciip All Lowtions for Signature) Green Sheet NO: 3059412 0 o�cil I oancil De artment Director 2 ' Clerk Gti Clerk 3 4 i Resolution memorializing City Council action taken September 1Q 2008 granting the appeal for property at 1054 Arcade Street, per the recommendation of the Legisladve Hearing Officer. Planning Commission 1. Has ihis persoNFlrm ever worked untler a contrect for this depaRment? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a ciry empbyee? Yes No 3. Does this Derson/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any curtent 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): Advanfages If Approvetl: Disativantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Transadion: Funding Soume; FiwanciallnformMion: (Explain) Activity Num6er: September 12, 2�OS 4:21 PM CosURevenue Budgeted: Page 1 �����.ti D�' /o� � CITY o� August 15, 2008 James Lentz 1054 Arcade Street St. Paul, MN 55106 RE: 1654 Arcade Street. Dear Mr. Lentz: Your appfication for an appeal has been received and processed. Please attend the public hearing befiore the Legislative Hearing Officer on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 at 11:00 a.m. in Room 330 City Hall and Courthouse to consider your appeal concerning the above refierenced property. Atthattime the Legislative Hearing Officerwill hear aii parties relative to this action. Failure to appear at the hearing may result in denial of your appeal. Sincerefy, � �� Shari Moore City Clerk cc: Mike Urmann, DSI (Fire) Phif Owens, D51 (Fire) Leanna Shaff, DSI (Fire) Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer Jerry Hendrickson, Deputy City Attorney Cassandra Netzke, SMRLS Chadova Vue, property owner 15 4VEST KE'LLOGG BOULEVARD, SUITE 310 SAINT PAUI, MINNESOTASSY02 Te1:651-266-8688 Fa<:651-266-6574 wwwsipaul.�w AA-Al)A-FF(1 Fmnlnvx APPLI 15 W. Kellogg Blvd_, 290 Ciry Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 551Q2 Telephone:(651)266-8688 being Appealed: �� C 2. Number of Dwelling Units: 4. Name of Owner: 'Lhad0U11 �t,tp ��� �t �" � 3. Date of Letter Appealed: Address: 1�l�td PcrtaclG�" City: S�.Qcw,1 State: �1`� Zip?�3�t0(v Phone Numbers: Busines& Residence Cellular Appellant ! Applicant (if other than owner): ���ti�� �� C�-E +�-t I� Address: ��7s�' ?-�'`CC}at4�— . City: � f>'w` State: _��Zip:JJ�)13t� PhoneNumbers: Busines �" l���I;.esidence � Cellular��2 �I r��� 6 State specifically what is being appealed and why (Use an attachment if necessazy): � l�a5�sas,v�.vk t��,k� S�i'(�LS Ia�1- 22Z SSto3 NOTE: A$25.00 filing fee made payable to ffie City of Saint Paul must accompany this application as a necessary condition for frling. You must attach a copy of the original orders and any other conespondence relative to this appeal. Any person unsatisfied by the final decision of the City Counci] may obtain judicial review by timely fiIing of an action as provided by law in District Court. Date Received: Fee Received: � ��v� DEPA.RTMENT OF SAFE'I`l AND __ rom_.._.,�__._ Robert Kes_ ; pirector �1� �� Snirt Paul, MIJ55/0/ ALg11S? 4, ZOO8 CHADUUA VCJE YOL'A X VUE �n ��xz31 L�tt� �Liv1U Mtv �5042-8438 RE: NOTICE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCtiPANCY ,2EVOCATION VACANT BUILDING TQ54 ARCAUE �T Ref. # 102681 Aear Property Representative: TFIE VACATE DATE FOR THIS PRQPERTX IS AUGUST 11-08 10 :30 A.M. Your buildin$ was determined to be a registered vacant building on August 4, 2008. Since cemficates are for the occupancy of buildings, it has become necessary to revoke thc Cert�ficate of Occupancy. TH1S L£"t7Eic S`rR�'ES ,3S OFFIC:AL "dnT?rE OF RE��OCATION. Saint Paul Legislarive Code provldes that no buildmg shall be occupied without a Certificate of Occupancy. In order to re- occupy the building, the following deficiencies (if applicable) must be corrected and a complete Certificate ofOccupancy inspection may be required� DEFICIENCY LIST ? 1. House - MSFC 10Q3.3.1.8 - Remove unapproved locks from the umt doors. The door must be openable from the ms�de without the use of keys or special lrnowledge or effort.-Remove all slidmg bolt locks. 2 House - SPLC 62.101 - Use of th�s property does not conform to zoning ordinance. Discontinue unapproved use or call LIEP Zoning at (b51) 266-9090 to convert to legal use. Disconrinue: Use as a rooming house. 3. SPLC - ROOMIIVGHOUSE . Any residential structure or dwelling unit supervised or not which provides liviug and sleeping arrangements for more than four unrelated individuals for periods of one week or longer any residential structnre or dwe2Ii�� cnii which pruvi3cs s�„�ie room occupancy housing as deflned in the Federal Regulations CFR 882102 to more than 4 unrelated indi�iduais you must obtain a license.-Counted 11 unrelareu �eople If you have any questions, call me at 6S 1-228-6233 Smcerely, James Thomas Fire Inspector Ref. # 1 D2681 cc: Force Minutes 4. Appeai of James D � / ��ge 10 James Lentz and Dianna Rucks, appellants, appeazed with A1 Harris, SMRLS. Chadova Vue, property owner, also appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that Inspector Thomas had scheduled an inspection for Februuy 28, 2008 in which the owner did not show up. He scheduled another inspecfion for March 20 in which the tenants let the inspector into the building. The owner failed to appear for follow up inspections on Apri121 and May 21. It appeared that Inspector Thomas was not able to do a complete inspection of the building until July 8 and found that there were 12 people in this five bedroom house. He noted that the owner had been in Court on July 7 and that the tenants were to leave by July 1 Z The owner called indicating that the judge ga�e the tenants imtil July 24 to pay the rent. He went to the building on July 30 and found the building to be vacant. He revoked the C of O and referred the matter to the Vacant Building Program. According to the inspector's notes, he indicated the following: "on one inspection, found 12 people to be present in the building; on another inspection, found 14 people in the building; asked the owner how many people were allowed to live in the building and the owner indicated that he rented to a mother and two kids; he then received a phone ca11 from a male who indicated that he was one of the tenants in the building and that he and his girlfriend lived there with another woman and her two kids; the owner called on August 15 at 3:45 p.m. indicating that the judge had given seven days for the tenants to vacate." Ms. Rucks stated that they had been in Court on August 15 and the judge indicated that he could not overturn the City's arder to vacate the building even if they paid the outstanding rent that was due. Ms. Moermond stated that accarding to the arders issued by the inspector, this was classified as a roominghouse due to the separate locks on the doors to each unit. Ms. Rucks responded that there had been deadbolts on the bedroom doors which had since been removed by Mr. Vue. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Shaff to explain the lock requirements on doors. Ms. Shaff responded that passage locks, such as on a bathroom door which could be locked from the inside, were permissible. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Vue who had been living at the property previousiy. Mr. Vue responded that he rented to Section 8 tenants who were a family with a mom, dad and kids. The current lease was for three adults and three of their children. The tenants had not paid their rent and he filed in court to have them evicted He did not believe, however, that this should be considered a vacant building. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Lenz why he had filed the appeal. Mr. Lenz responded that he had filed the appeal because Mr. Vue had not given him a copy of the City's letter dated August 4 that they were supposed to move out. Mr. Vue then filed an unlawful detainer and he wouid have paid the rent if he had not known about the City's order to move out. He was willing to pay the past rent and remain living in the house. Mr, Vue had taken them to court on the first unlawful detainer and he lost. Ever since, Mr. Vue had been attempting to get rid of them. Ms. Rucks stated that they had a year's lease which they signed in March and they wished to remain living at the praperty. Minutes Mr. Hazris stated that Page 11 that there were five bedrooms with six tenants residing at the property. Because of the relationship between the tenants, he believed they met the requirements to be allowed to live together and were a111isted under the lease. He was unsure as to what had occurred when the inspector was at the property and found 12 to 14 people there. Mr. Harris stated that he had rent receipts for July. Mr. Vue responded that he was now looking for the rent for August. Ms. Rucks responded that both times the inspector showed up at the property, they were celebrating family birthdays and had guests overnight. Ms. Moermond asked for a list of who lived at the house, the relationship to one another, and the ages of anyone 18 or under. Ms. Rucks presented a list of the people who lived at the building. �, Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Vue why he was not presenf for sevexal of the inspections. Mr. Vue responded that he had been out of town and his son was supposed to be present for the inspections but could not be there. He claimed that he had called the inspector and asked to reschedule the inspections. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Shaff whether there were any notations in the file. Ms. Shaff responded that there was not. Ms. Moermond stated that she didn't believe there was a violation on the number of people living at the property. She recommended granting the appeal and requested that the property be inspected on unannounced visits through the next six weeks to determine whether there were any violations on the number of people living at the property. Mr. Harris agreed to visit the property to verify the number of people living there.