Loading...
08-1158Council File # ���jjJ6 Green Sheet # 3060357 ESOLUTION N7 PAUL, MlNNESOTA Presented by � `I" 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 heazd at public hearing on October 1, 2008 hereby memorializes its decision 3 to certify and approve the September 16, 2008 decision of the Legislative Heazing Officer for the following 4 address: 5 b ADDRESS APELLANT 7 8 1 Q6 Dou�las Street (Lower Unitl Richard Coleman 9 10 Decision: Appeal denied. Requested by Department of: Adopted by Council: Date �d Adoption Certified by Cou il Secretary By: � Approved by a Date � � L'� � �Y� � � U WL�_.�'2A�"—�G� —�-�� C-3'J Form Approved by City Attorney By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: � � gI � � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet DepartmenU�ce/Council: Date initiated: co -�°°^��, o2-o�T-�8 Green Sheet NO: 3060357 ConWct Person & Phone: Deoartment Sent To Person InitiaUOate � Marcia Moertnond Q oancd �� 6-8$7� 1 ooncil De artmen[Director Assign Z ' Clerk (.5 Clerk Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 3 0 Routing 4 � Doc. Orcler 9 0 E-DOCUmentRequired: Y Document Contact: Mai Vang Contact Phone: 6-8563 Sotal # of Signature PageS _(Clip AIf Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Resoluhon memorializing City Council action taken October 1, 2008 denying the appeal for properiy at 106 Douglas Sheet, Lower Unit, per the recommendation of the Legislative Hearing Officer. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personaf Service Contrects Must Answer the Foliowing Questions: Pfanning Comm�ssion 1. Has this person/firm ever worketl under a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No CivilService Commission 2. Has ihis person(firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any wrrent City employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet. ' Initiati�g Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Wha, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Approved: DisadvanWges If Not Approved: Total Amount oF , Transaction: CosVRevertue Budgeted: Funding Source: Activity Number: Financiai Information: (F�cpiain) October 2, 2008 4:10 PM Page 1 ���. o �3—i�� w =� °;� A'� CITY OF SAINT PAUL r D p1111p11 e e 9 illl � CITY CLERK'S OFFICE September 10, 2008 Richard Coleman 106 Dougias Street Upper Unit Saint Paui, MN 55102 RE: 106 Douglas Street (Lower Unit) Dear Mr. Coleman: Your application for an apQeal has been received and processed. Please attend the public hearing before the Leg+slative Hearing Officer on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. in Room 330 City Hall and Courthouse to consider your appeal concerning the above referenced propetty. At that time the Legisfative Hearing OfFicer will hear all parties relative to this action. Failure to appear at the hearing may result in denial of your appeal. Sincerely, . � Shari Moore �' City Clerk cc: Phil Owens, DSI (Fire) Leanna Shaff, DSI (Fire) Marcia Moermond, Legisiative Hearing OfFicer Jerry Hendrickson, Deputy City Attorney Troy Briese, Owner 15 WEST KELLOGG BOULEVARD, SUITE 310 SAINT PAU[, MINNESOTA55102 Tel: 651-266-5688 Fax: 651-2668574 www.stpaul.gov AA-ADA-EEO Employer APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Saint Paul City Clerk 15 W. Kellogg Blvd., 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Telephone:(651) 266-8688 1. Address of Property being Appealed: 2. Number of Dwelling tinits: Ss�az � `8�; "�G'��u�: �r '�^ , 4. Nazne of Owner: 1 b a� �-� Address: ( � � ��`�l^-��� City: >f�c.�X State: �S(-23�-C�s�i Phone Residence S. Appellant / Applicant (if other than owner): f\< C 4 C� �Gs�^�-�^ Address: ���a ��'! �� City: S T Ptu�-C State: �__Zip: �� / L Phone Numbers: � specifically what Resideuce d�l(5'$ S �P o�iV ��T�, 8 3. Date of Letter c _�_o� w Cellular Cellular � S � �/� ��7 G appealed and why (Use an attachment if necessary): �� � NOTE: A$25.00 filing fee made payable to the City of Saint Paul must accompany this application as a necessary condition for filing. You must attach a copy of the original orders and any other correspondence relative to this appeal. Any person unsausfied by the final decision of the Ciry Council may obtain judicial review by timely filing of an acdon as provided by law in District Court. Date For Office Use Onl Fee Received: Receipt Number: Date of Hearing: �� / � / �' �� � �3-� �5�' � �YV f S �e L � � S " � � — C � F C-w�� � �-v � � � 't7�`�'/-t-� �! � C.� i 5 � r v�^'�-� �"�-- � �� W �v �� / � C� � ��� o�� � t-� ►S �2t!� � �(QC��� Gc""� C`' �" ��'� �t.c; C� . �� t�-�,m-�—� � �,(,3 i N�Ss G�� � • sf f ta� v�t � (� d-e- - �, v� �.� ,�. s��- 1�0 i�,� �� 6 C�� �' �� e s� ❑ � � � �; � � � ` . / : � �. i .� { ■ � �/ � � � � i � � � � '� •' � : � � r � � ■ _ � � ■ — � �, � ■� � � � E— . 1.. �. : �.. i' � � J 4 �, � � Li J � � � i • � t . � • • � � . . -' i i �,t. 1 v lJ � .t Vd � C� �� i�. = F-- � ¢ � � O � �� �, o � > o � s o � U 7 � O � U � m C Y .� i�+ {.� � �-+ Q � n � � r � � � � L � � r � 4Lj N � O C.7 _ � � � c U 4 •� a a� � a �, � c > o � � � U � m � � r *� iy. o �.� �. �, � � V � � �a mF,y �, m � � a�� � Q ��. � C �^ �o�i c m ' w��v m O � � � v '� � � �� � 1 V o � � ' � c� y L �� � � � � N � n N � tA � -° o � `� o �, ; y m C � a 'l� 0 `� �� m � c � .� E -�' � � �, v � c � � o -� �� � � a y � � G �- �. m � �_ �� Y �' � �. � og /j�' �� �: �, ��' � � �`"`^�.. � _�� _ � �v::� r "" .,� - _ � '. � ,_. � � �� � , � �, .. .._� ,,�.-; u,� , � z , fi �%, � c �' . ° ayp f L �j F 'i :�K '�t 'F � y er `� k.0 k . � �e .,� �'e-'Y'S�:�€4:.�art "i�ek?�n . a. ,.. �. , - _�` � . � �� � ± fm"m�. .,x-� . ' . . �.: �� �b1:%Y!..� i' 3 � 4 t�.���t � �� >;- �„�� �,. .,� � � �� i. . —: -�m. s � � O O N \ � Q � Q ��: �, r,` �w.�' �.. + b � \ �2. 3i � � `sx'-�e:.: - ; � ,� � ,-. �,� � �., � � ��� � '� , September 16, 2008 Legislative Hearing Minutes o��lt� Page 10 4. Appeal of Richard Coleman to a Certificate of Occupancy Revocation, which includes Condemnation, for property at 106 Douglas Street. I,ower Unit. Richard Coleman, appeilant, appeared with Troy Buege, property owner. Mr. Coleman stated that he was an attorney representing himself and Mr. Buege. Mr. Neis stated that he was notified by Xcel at the end of June that the power had been shut of£ At the time, the unit was unoccupied. He had attempted to call Mr. Buege; however, the number was disconnected and he did not have his new contact information to discuss the situation with the property. He went to the property and met with Mr. Coleman in July and Mr. Coleman indicated that he wanted to make the lower unit into a home occupation, converting it into his business. At the time of the inspection, there was no power to the unit. Mr. Coleman then asked him to leave which he did. He said that the lower unit could not be occupied for living or home occupation since the power had not been restored. He also noted that a business could not be operated out of the property without zoning approval. He said that he finally connected with Mr. Buege who indicated to him that he had forgotten that the space could not be occupied. He then ardered the lower unit condemned with a vacate date of September 9. He presented pictures of the interior of the lower unit. Mr. Coleman presented copies of the following: the placard that was on the building; an oprion to purchase the property on aontract fot deed with Mr. Buege; State Fire Marshal Fire Code; the section on Home Occuparions; and a Certificate of Survey of the property. He said that he moved into the upstairs unit on June 10 and was laving in that unit. He wanted to use the downstairs as a home occupation which he believed was allowed by the code. He said he was using OSHA approved extension cards from the basement to power the lights, microwave, and the refrigerator. He did not believe the condemnation was warranted and did not believe the placard cited the correct code violation as he could not find it when he attempted to reseazch the specific code. Mr. Buege said that he was attempting to sell the property; however, had not received any offers other than from Mr. Coleman on the optlon to purchase. He explained that he had problem tenants who had not been paying their rent and failed to pay their Xcel bill which was in there name. He attempted to negotiate with Xcel to get the power turned back on; however, they were requesting he pay $2,500 as a portion of the bill in order to turn the power back on. He said he did not have the money to pay the bill. He also said that he didn't believe the building should be in the C of O program. Ms. Moermond recessed the meeting to review the documents and make a determination on the appeal. Ms. Moermond stated that under 34.23 (7) (e) of the Legislative Code, the condemnation was valid since the unit lacked the basic facility of electricity. This meant that no one could inhabit the unit and could only be there from 8 am. to 8 p.m. to make repairs. The refrigerator and the microwave could not be operated with extension cords. The only lighting that was allowed would be a utility light in order to do repair work. She explained that extension cords could only be used tempararily and could not be used as permanent wiring. She also said that legal notification had been served on Mr. Buege since Mr. Coleman did not have a registered contract for deed to the property. Since the property was 2oned R3, a change in zoning would need to occur in order for the lower unit to be used as a home occuparion if the building were to remain as a duplex. The other option would be to de-convert the property to a single-family home which would only require a home-occupation permit if Mr. Coleman intended to live in the upstairs of the house and conduct his business in the lower unit. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal on the condemnation and said that until the electricity was turned back on, the first floor could not be occupied.