Loading...
08-1190Council File # D8 - i /�/D Green Sheet# 3061316 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Presented by RESOLUTION OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA a� BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the October 7, 2008 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters of Deficiency and Correction Notice for the following addresses: Pronertv Appealed 640 Central Avenue West Decision: Deny the appeal. 2007 Portland Avenue Appellant(s) Luther Whitehead Daniel Fowlds Decision: Deny the appeal and grant a one-year extension to repair the bathroom tiles; an extension to November 7 to address the parking area, exposed wiring in the garage, and the foundation issues. 668 Jenks Avenue Gary Fuchs obo BFWR Building LLC Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension to November 4, 2008. Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney By: Adopted by Council: Date ���j/y��j)�/ Adoption Certified by Council Secretary BY � s� Approv � y� ay Da „ j( �y Ul� By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: Approved by the Office of Financial Services � � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � nfC,rrG�n - �� .� DepartrnentlOfFce/Council: Date Initiated: co- 2,-0�T-0B Green Sheet NO: 3061316 ContaM Person & Phone: DeDarhnent SeM To Person Initial/Date Marcia Moertnond o oanc� 0 6$57D 1 ompl De artmentDirector ��g 2 " Clerk CtitvClerk Must Be on Councii Agenda by (Date): Number 3 O For 4 0 Routing Doc. Type: RESOLUTION Order 5 0 E-DocumentRequired: Y Document Contact: Mai Vang Contact Phone: 6-8563 Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Resolu6on approving the October 7, 2008 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of I,etters of Deficiency and Correc[ion Notice for properties at 640 Central Avenue West, 2007 Portland Avenue, and 668 Jenks Avenue. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission i. Has this person/firtn ever worked under a contract for this depaAment? CIB Gommittee Yes No Civil Service Comm�ssion 2. Has this persnNfirm ever 6een a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skili not nortnally possessed by any � current ciry employee? Yes No F�cplain all yes answero on separate sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages It Approved: Disativantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of Trensaction: CosVRevenue Budgeted: Funding Source: Activity Number: Financial Information: (Fxplain) October 27, 2008 10:18 AM Page 1 b8-((�D MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING LETTBRS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES AND CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, October 7, 2008 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Boulevard West Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 135 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Leanna Shaff, Deparhnent of Safety and Inspection (DSI) — Fire; AJ Neis, DSI - Fire; Tom Riddering, DSI - Licensing; 7oe1 Essling, DSI — Code Enforcement; Steve Magner, DSI — Code Enforcement; and Mai Vang, City Council Offices Appeal of Luther Whitehead to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for properly at 640 Central Avenue West. Mr. Neis stated that he property was inspected on September 12, 2008 in response to a report of an illegal third unit in the basement, and orders were issued to convert the property back into to a duplex with a re-inspection date of September 19. The property was visited again on September 15 and access to the basement unit was gained. There was no kitchen facility in the unit, but there was proper egress and a battery was provided for the non-functioning smoke-detectar. The resident said that she was moving out on September 17. The property owner did not appear for the September 19 re-inspection, but access to the property was granted by the main floor resident. The entire property was found to be in disrepair and photographs were taken. The basement resident was given an extension until October 1 to move out, and orders were issued to the owner to provide access to the entire building. The property was inspected again on October 1 and the property owner did not appear. Access was granted by the main floor resident who said that no repairs or attempts at repairs had been made. An inspection of the exterior of the property found that no work had been completed. Ms. Moermond asked how it had been determined that the basement was an illegal third unit. Mr. Neis stated that the unit was set up as an apartment with a bedroom, refrigerator, bathroom and that the basement resident had told him that the property owner was allowing her to live there tempararily while another property was being renovated. Ms. Moermond stated that since the property owner had not appeared for the appeal and the fee for the appeal had not been paid, she recommended denying the appeal. October 7, 2008 Property Code Minutes b g� ��� O Page 4 4. Appeal of Daniel Fowlds to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 2007 Portland Avenue. Daniel Fowlds, appellant, appeared and submitted photographs and written material. Ms. Moermond requested a staff report. Ms. Shaff stated that a Certificate of Occupancy inspection had been conducted on September 19, 2008 and a list of deficiencies developed. She stated the Mr. Fowlds was appealing specific items on the list. Mr. Fowlds stated that he had repaired the bathroom wall and floar tiles to the best of his ability, but that they were old and channing and he did not want to replace them. He said that all of the tiles in the shower areas had been sealed or replaced. Ms. Shaff stated that the additional items being appealed were the parking area, the exposed wiring in the garage and the foundation. Mr. Fowlds asked for a clarification of those items. He said that an inspection in June that was a follow-up to his annual Certificate of Occupancy inspection which found no deficiencies, and that the September inspecrion had been in response to a neighbor's complaint about over-occupancy. He said that the property had never been over-occupied, and questioned the large deficiency list since there had been no deficiencies in June. Ms. Shaff clarified that what was required to be corrected were the deficiencies in the parking area, garage wiring and foundation. Ms. Moermond stated that she would recommend granting a one-year extension for repairs to the bathroom tiles, and an extension to November 7 to address the parking area, exposed wiring in the garage, and the foundation issues. October 7, 2008 Property Code Minutes �O'���D Page6 Appeal of Gary Fuchs ofb/o BFWR Building LLC to a Conection Notice for property at 668 Jenks Avenue. Gary Fuchs, appellant, appeazed. Ms. Moermond requested a staff report. Mr. Essling presented photographs and stated that the issue was erosion along a retaining wali and fence situated on the private side of a public sidewalk. He said that the property had been inspected in mid-June and that subsequent phone conversations with the property owner had failed to bring a resolufion. Orders were issued on August 25 with a compliance date of September 25. He said that prior to the inspection, the city had replaced sidewalks in the area and that Public Works felt that problems with the sidewalk adjacent to the property had been caused by the condition of the retaining wall and fence. He said that because the new sidewalk was one foot narrower than the original, a gap had been left on the private side of the sidewalk. He said that there was a thirty-foot drop from the sidewalk to the pazking lot which presented a hazazdous situation and that the city had installed a temporary fence. He said that a prospective buyer for the building had expressed concerns to the city about the erosion and the retaining wall before the sidewalk was replaced. Mr. Fuchs presented photographs. He said that equipment used to install the new sidewalks had caused the damage to the fence and that the city should have installed a new fence when the sidewalk was replaced He said that they had no record of the prospective buyer who had contacted the city about the erosion and the condition of the wall. Mr. Essling stated that they had tried to arrange having a fence put up under a summary abatement so that the costs could be spread out over time, but that a property easement would be required since the narrower sidewalk meant that the fence would be on city property. Ms. Moermond asked whether a claim had been filed against the city. Mr. Fuchs responded that he had not filed a claim but that he had been working with the assistant city attorney. Ms. Moermond said that she would recommend extending the deadline until November 4. She suggested that Mr. Fuchs begin the process of applying for an encroachment permit and that he contact the Wazd 6 City Council office.