Loading...
08-25Council File # U�'�_ Green Sheet# 3(`J-}�$"Z'� RESOLUTION SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 7 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the November 6, 2007 2 decision of the Legislarive Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters, Correcrion Norices and Correcrion Orders for the 3 following addresses: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Pro�ertv Appealed 955 Seminarv Avenue Decision: Appeal withdrawn; inspector and appellant came to an agreement 2104 Hi¢hwood Avenue Decision: Appeal withdrawn by the appellant 907 Mazearet Street Decision: Appeal withdrawn as the owner came into compliance 217 Winifred Street East Decision: Vacant Building file closed by Code Enforcement 47 Dou¢las Street Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension to January 4, 2008 1238 Sherburne Avenue Decision: Deny the appeal 1367 Stanford Avenue Decision: Appeal withdrawn by the appellant 758 Marvland Avenue East Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension to November 21, 2007 Appellant Harry Erkenbrack, Minnehaha Bowling Center Matthew Rindal Carlos Casci Ron Johnson and Diane Olson Don McGee Cindy Rogers, on behalf of Whitacker Buick Co. Stephen Malone and Mary Wiens Florence Oparaocha Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attomey By: Adoption Certified by Co cil Secretary BY� A .� � Approfv,c�,l�y` or: D Ye l Q .I��/ By� e � Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � D$ �2-� C� - Council ConWct Person & Phone: Marcia Moertnond 266-8570 Must Be on Council Aaen Doc. RESOLUTION E-Document Requ�red: Y Document Contact: Mai Vang Contact Phone: 266-8563 28-DEC-07 �► Assign Number For Routing Order Total # of Signature Pages ` (Clip All Locations for Signature) Green Sheet NO: 3047873 0 ouncil 1 ouncil De artmentDirector 2 'N Clerk C1 Cierk 3 4 5 Resolu[ion approving the November 6, 2007 decisions of the Legisla[ive Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters, Correction Notices, and Letters of Deficiency for properties at 955 Seminary Avenue, 2104 Highwood Avenue, 907 Margazet Street, 217 Winifred Street East, 47 Douglas Street, 1238 Sherbume Avenue, ]367 Stanford Avenue, and 758 Maryland Avenue East. iaanons: Hpprove �H� or ne�ea �rc�: rersonai service con[roc[s must wnswer tne rouowmg ciuesnons: Planning Commission 1, Has this persoNfirm ever worked under a contract for this depadment? CIB Commiitee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2, Has this person/firm 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 separate sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: DisadvantageslfApproved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Transadion: Funding Source: Financial lnformation: (Explain) ActiviTy Number: CosVRevenue Budgeted: December 28, 2007 10:07 AM Page 1 Od-� MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES CORRECTION ORDERS AND LETTERS Tuesday, November 6, 2007 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West Mazcia Moermond, Legislarive Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 1:30 p.m. Staff Present: Phil Owens, Department of Safety and Inspection (DS� - Fire Prevention; 7im Seeger, DSI-Licensing; and Leanna Shaff, DSI-Fire Prevention. Appeal of Aarry Erkenbrack, Minnehaha Bowling Center, to a Referral without Inspection Deficiency List for property at 955 Seminary Avenue. Ms. Moermond requested a staff report. Mr. Owens stated that the inspector issued written orders on October 8, 2007 to provide additional sprinkler coverage, based upon a fire inspection which indicated there was a gap in the coverage in the southwest area of the arcade portion of the property, that the fire sprinkler contractor brought this to the Fire DeparhnenYs attention. He added that this was probably okay at one time, but the wall has been removed or moved to another location in the past. Mr. Erkenbrack stated that he is the lessor of the property and operates the business. He stated that this move was made five (5) or six (6) years ago; a permit was applied for, and it was inspected and approved. He stated that the room in question is 240 feet and presently has four (4) heads in it. He added that the inspector was at the property today; he looked at that room and said everything was fine. Mr. Erkenbrack stated that he added a wall and lowered the ceiling. He questioned whether his alternative could be to remove the wall. Mr. Owens answered that a 240 foot room having four (4) sprinklers sounds pretty good. He stated that Fire will have one of their sprinkler specialists visit this property to analyze what is happening here, and bring this matter to closure. Ms. Moermond questioned whether there has been a change in the Fire Code in the last five (5) years. Mr. Owens answered that there has been a change, but no change that would affect this particular issue. Ms. Moermond stated that she will continue this for two (2) weeks, which will give the inspector a chance to look over the situation and give a definitive set of orders. She informed Mr. Owens that she will keep the appeal open unless he informs her otherwise. Mr. Owens contacted Ms. Moermond indicating that Fire Protection Engineer Angie Leitner met with the appellant regarding the required fire sprinkler coverage. Ms. Leitner's evaluation verified the improper fire sprinkler as outlined in the Deficiency List and told the appellant that the situarion could be corrected by removing the previously installed wa11 which blocked the fire sprinkler coverage. Mr. Erkenbrack agreed to this solution, and requested an extension of time to comply to January 15, 2008 to complete the removal of the wall. Fire Inspections had no objection to this extension and will adjust their scheduled re-inspecYion of the violation to reflect this time period. November 6, 2007 Property Code Minutes �' a"'.� Page 2 Ms. Moermond indicated that the appeal was withdrawn as an accommodation had been reached and the property will be coming into compliance by removing the wall. She requested Mr. Owens contact the appellant with this information. 2. Appeal of George Slade Schuster to a Certificate of Occupancy Registration for property at 1867 EnQlewood Avenue. Ms. Moermond requested a staff report. Mr. Owens stated that it is the appeilanYs contention that this is a homesteaded property. Mr. Schuster stated that he purchased the home in 1993 for his disabled son, who lives there alone. Upon first receiving the Certificate of Occupancy several months ago, he was told by DSI to ignore the chazge, as it did not apply to homes registered as Relative Homesteads. He submitted the forms without payment, indicating this status. On October 4, 2007, he received a second request to pay this fee. Mr. Schuster stated he was informed that Jay Benanav intended this ordinance for rental properties' students at St. Thomas. Ms. Moermond questioned Mr. Schuster about his disabled son, inquiring whether he was able to manage on his own. Mr. Schuster answered that he was. Mr. Owens explained Chapter 40 of the Legislative Code, which establishes the Fire Certificate of Occupancy and, in particular, provides for the issuance of a Fire Certificate of Occupancy to all non-owner occupied one and two-family residential dwellings. He stated it is the DepartmenYs position that in order to be exempt, the owner of record must be present in residence on the premises. He referred to a letter from Bob Kessler, dated October 4, 2007. Ms. Moermond stated that she will continue this matter for six (6) months to allow the City Council tame to decide policy-wise how they would like to handle this, to develop clarification and policy. She noted that there is presently a State law addressing Relative Homestead, and that if the City Council decides not to include properties of Mr. Schuster's type, he will receive a refund. This is dependent upon how the City Council defines the term. 3. Appeal of Matthew Rindal to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List far property at 2104 Highwood Avenue. (Rescheduled from October 16) Appeal was withdrawn by the property owner. 4. Appeal of Carlos Casci to Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 907 Margaret Street. (Laid over from October 16; if permits were not pulled by 10/19, the appeal is denied) Appeal withdrawn as owner came into compliance. November 6, 2007 Property Code Minutes �U' � Page 3 5. Appeal of Ron Johnson and Diane Olson to a Vacant Building Registration for property at 217 Wurifred Street East. (Cont. from 1Q/16 to provide proof of a paid utility bill, etc. to indicate the property is occupied) Ms. Moermond explained that Ron Johnson and Diane Olson were made aware at the previous hearing that a tas assessment was in place far cleanup. She stated that vacant building status was also appealed, and the last time they talked, documentation such as a utility bill was to be provided as proof that someone was living at the property. Ms Moermond stated that the Department of Safety and Inspections has withdrawn its action, and that she did not receive documentation that Ron Johnson and Diane Olson were living there. In conclusion, Ms. Moermond stated that the Department had withdrawn its order that this property be registered as a vacant building. 6. Appeal of Laurie and Vincent Honnigford to a Certificate of Occupancy Registration for property at 746-748 Smith Avenue South. Ms. Moermond requested a staff report. Ms. Shaff stated that on October 2, 2007, Inspector Neis inspected the property and sent a letter to Vincent Honnigford regarding a Fire Certificate of Occupancy with deficiencies. An appeal was filed regarding an outside retaining wall, claiming that Laurie and Vincent Honnigford do not have the funds to fix this at this time. Ms. Shaff noted that the retaining wall is bowing out 25-30 degrees. Ms. Honnigford stated that an American Elm is pushing the retaining wall, which is a very old wall of solid concrete. She noted that this is an expense issue, that this particular item on the deficiency list is quite expensive. Ms. Shaff observed that there is much mass pushing out onto the sidewalk. She inquired as to whether Ms. Honnigford has received any estimates on what it would cost to get this done; Ms. Honnigford responded no. Ms. Moermond stated that this would be a` jumping off ' place. Ms. Shaff stated that the department will consider giving thirty (30) additional days and that, with some estimates, there would be a better idea of stability for that wall. Ms. Honnigford was asked whether she felt comfortable in obtaining two (2) estimates in the next thiriy (30) days; Ms. Honnigford stated that she did feel comfortable in doing so. Ms. Moermond suggested that Ms. Honnigford obtain the estimates, and shop around for any assistance available to her, such as NEDA or NHS. She concluded that this hearing will be continued to December 4, 2007, at 130 p.m. Appeal of Clear Dayland to a Certificate of Occupancy Registration for property at 924 Sherburne Avenue. Ms. Moermond requested a staff report from Ms. Shaff: Ms. Shaff stated that on October 5, 2007, Inspector Lisa Martin responded to a complaint and wrote orders accordingly. November 6, 2007 Property Code Minutes �d � a,yj Page 4 Mr. Dayland stated that he was uncertain as to what he was appealing, but stated that he was not informed of the inspection, and the renter was not the person allowing entry to the inspector. Ms. Shaff answered that it does not matter who allows entrance to the inspector. She observed that Ms. Martin found numerous deficiencies. Mr. Dayland stated that he purchased this house over a year ago. In September, his tenant informed him that she would not pay the October or November rent because of deficiencies; he decided at that time to do an Unlawful Detainer. He then had a hearing to evict the tenant from the property, as she was not paying rent. The tenant admitted in that hearing that there was drug use on the property. Mr. Dayland stated it is listed in the lease agreement that any illegal activity on the property is not allowed and is a cause for eviction. The case was heazd before Referee 7oanne Yanish; Referee Yanish ruled that because the property was not habitable due to deficiencies, she would give Mr. Dayland's tenant ninety (90) days to leaue the property. Mr. Dayland added that he may have had a case, had he brought a lawyer with him to the hearing. Mr. Dayland stated that he attempted to contact the tenant so he could correct the deficiencies. He was unable to do so. He then attempted to enter the property, but the tenant had the locks changed. He stated that he is three (3) months behind in the mortgage payments and the property will probably be foreclosed upon. In addition, his car has been rear-ended, and totaled. The caz was towed; thus, he did not presently even haue a copy of the deficiency list. (He was given a copy at this hearing.) Mr. Dayland reiterated that illegal use of the property was clearly prohibited in the lease, so why was the tenant permitted to stay there for ninety (90) days when she verbally admitted that she was growing pot on the property. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Dayland what the deadline was for court. He answered that he appeared in court on October 16, 2007, and he is to appear back in court on November 13, 2007 to see if the deficiencies have been corrected. He noted that at the court hearing, his tenant said she would be out of the property by October 24, 2007; he said she has not vacated the property as of this date. He noted that his lease with the tenant ended in October. When his tenant was in court, she asked Referee Yanish if she had to come back to court; Referee Yanish answered that it was not necessary for her to return to court. Ms. Moermond stated that Chapter 34 requires that the owner have access to his property. Ms. Moermond stated that she will communicate with Referee Yanish, and informed Mr. Dayland that he should write Referee Yanish a letter explaining the trouble he is having and the implications of the situation. She suggested that Mr. Dayland also contact his mortgage company and discuss the foreclosure issue with them. She noted that this structure will only continue to deteriorate, and suggested, additionally, that Mr. Dayland get written estimates on the fmancial impact of these repairs. 8. Appeal of Dennis Workman to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 949 Burr Street. Ms. Shaff noted an e-mail Inspector Pat Fish had sent to Ms. Moermond regarding this property on October 23, 2007, as Ms. Fish is on vacation this hearing date. Ms. Fish stated that the items are not November 6, 200'7 Property Code Minutes v d � Page 5 O' expensive, unreasonable issues, but just a matter of general maintenance. She noted that the process started in April, with a police incident in one of the units, which got vacated. Ms. Fish issued correction orders after inspecting on three (3) separate occasions, then transferred the violations to a Certificate of Occupancy process, which was due. Ms. Fish sent the first C of O inspection appoinhnent letter on July 25, 2007, had a"no enh}�' on August 22, 2007, and another "no entr�' on September 17, 2007. She finally conducted the inspection on October 9, 2007, sent orders on October 10, 2007, and scheduled a reinspection on November 20, 2007. She concluded by stating that it is her belief that the required corrections are not extensive. Ms. Moermond questioned Mr. Workman as to his assessment of the repairs. He answered that he is looking at early next snuuner to complete the repairs. Ms. Moermond suggested something a bit more realistic. Mr. Workman noted that some of the work includes painting the trim, which would have to happen next spring. Ms. Moermond questioned Mr. Worlmian as to what kind of time is being looked at aside from the him. Mr. Worlm�an suggested January 1, 2008, adding that his business is at stake here. Ms. Moermond stated that she is seeing some things that she would like to see done sooner rather than later. She stated that she will work with Ms. Shaff on this; they will work something out regarding dates for completion of work. She stated that when the list compilation has been completed, Ms. Shaff will contact Mr. Workman. 9. Appeal of Don McGee to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 47 Douelas Street. Ms. Moermond requested a staff report. Ms. Shaff stated the she and Don McGee had an opportunity to speak together today, and he has complied with all of the orders, except the one which he is appealing, "Provide a bathroom floor impervious to water." Ms. Shaff stated that he needs more time, sixty (60) days, and Fire is fine with that. Mr. McGee stated that he agrees with sixty (60) days, but does not agree that the floor is bad, that he feels there is nothing wrong with the floor. Ms. Shaff stated that she will agree to inspect this with Mr. McGee or his spouse, if they would agree to meet with her. She added that she has to follow the Code's guidelines. Ms. Moermond stated that Mr. McGee will be given sixty (60) days to complete the work. The work should be completed no later than January 4, 2008. She stated, additionally, that there will be no further hearing. 10. Appeal of Cindy Rogers, on behalf of Whitacker Buick Co., to a Code Compliance Inspection Report for property at 1238 Sherburne Avenue. Ms. Moermond requested an update from Cindy Rogers, a representative of Whitaker Buick Co., on ttus appeal. Ms. Rogers stated the issue is that the house was just recently vacated and Whitacker Buick was not aware of this. She stated that the inspector is looking for them to spend from $30-50,000.00 for a house for which they may be lucky to get $100,000. It is their feeling the house is in livable condition and that most of the items on the deficiency list would apply only to a new addition. November 6, 2007 Property Code Minutes v� �� Page 6 Ms. Rogers stated that Whitacker had eight (8) rental properties and has sold five (5) of the eight (8). She stated that she has never run into anything like this, and she has been with the company for thirty (30) years; she said that they are embarrassed that this house has been condemned. Mr. Seeger refened to Item 17, on the Electrical portion of the deficiency list, "Install new 100 Amp service without door meter." He explained there was a typo eaor in the sentence, which should read, "Install new 100 Amp service with outdoor meter." Ms. Moermond observed that Buick had a bad tenant situation; Ms. Rogers answered that Buick had given the tenant a sixty (60) day notice to move. Water and electrical shutoffs were discussed. Ms. Moermond stated that when either (or both) of these happens, one must go through Code compliance and bring the property up to minimwm safety standards in order for the building to be reoccupied. Mr. Seeger stated that most of the old homes in the city would never meet the Code, especially stairways, windows and doors. He added that they are not requesting that this be brought up to new Code. Ms. Rogers stated this action makes Whitacker out to be a slum landlord, and they are not. She continued that whenever someone moves out, they repaint and re-carpet. She stated they were unaware that the utilities had been shut off, nor did they know a condemnation was in place. She was informed that the C of O inspection was cheaper than the Truth in Housing, which they will have to do when they sell the house. She stated that Whitacker has people interested in buying property "as is." Ms. Moermond explained that when a vacant property is found, it is placed in a Vacant Building Progam. Condemnation occurs when conditions are unsafe. She noted that when the property is purchased, people will not be able to be placed in the house until it meets minimum standards. She added that in this city, once a property is vacant and condemned, it is uninhabitabie until it meets the minimum qualifications of the Code. Ms. Moermond concluded the hearing by stating that she is denying the appeal, and added that this property does need to be brought into compliance with the Code. 11. Appeal of Stephen Malone and Mary Wiens to a Correction Notice for property at 1367 Stanford Avenue. (Withdrawn) 12. Appeal of Fiorence Oparaocha to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 758 Marvland Avenue East. Ms. Moermond requested a staff report. Ms. Shaff reported that Inspector James Thomas was sent out to the property on October 24, 2007 on a referral. Ms. Opazaocha stated that she has someone else doing the work for her. She stated that she does not understand what she is expected to do, and she needs mare time. Ms. Shaff answered that Ms. Oparaocha owns other properties, has had many inspectors at these properties, has attended November 6, 2007 Property Code Minutes `'� ,� r Page 7 !/ ' �'J previous Legislative Hearings, and has previously had many of these things explained to her. Ms. Shaff added that she and Ms. Oparaocha have spoken many times on the telephone. Ms. Oparaocha addressed Item #8 on the deficiency list in a letter dated October 24, 2007, "Unit 1— SPLC 3410 (7), 3433 (6) — Repair and maintain the floor in an approved manner. Repair or replace the floor tile. Kitchen." She stated that she had tile on the floor, and her tenant put cheap tiles on the flooz, and the floor has been destroyed, and she doesn't know why she is expected to fix something that someone else has ruined. Ms Moermond observed that the process of rippingup the tile could have ruined the floor. Ms. Oparaocher stated that she has issues with the stove repair or replace, that the stove is not that old. She stated that the tenant used a lrnife to scrape off the stove's finish, that nothing is wrong with the stove. Ms. Oparaocher questioned Item #5 on the deficiency list, "House — SPLC 34.09 (1), b, c, 34.32 (1), b, c— Provide and maintain all exterior walls free from holes and deterioration. All wood exterior unprotected surfaces must be painted or protected from the elements and maintained in a professional manner free from chipped or peeling paint." She stated there are no holes in the walls. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Oparaocher if she has taken the list of deficiency items and gone to the property to look for these problems. Ms. Opazaocher answered in the affirmative, that she did this the weekend that she received the letter. Ms. Moermond inquired as to whether the tenant allowed her to enter the unit, whether she saw the scratches that she is aware that the stove was not working. Ms. Oparaocher answered that the tenant wanted a new stove. Ms. Moermond questioned whether she looked at the floor. Ms. Oparaocher answered that the floor is okay, that she did not use enough tiles for the floor, that there is an open space. Ms. Moermond questioned Mr. Oparaocher as to what kind of extension she would like. Ms. Oparaocher answered that she would like the time extended until first week in December. Ms. Moermond noted that the Department was out there on October 24, 2007, and sent out a letter at that time, the deadline being November 9, 2007; she added that, by her calculations, that is 2-1/2 weeks. Ms. Oparaocher answered that her maintenance man does not wark on weekends. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Oparaocher if she has done work on any of the items on the list. Ms. Oparaocher answered that she has cleaned up some things. Ms. Moermond inquired about Item 11, "SPLC 34.08 (1), 34.31 (1) — All exterior property areas shall be maintained free from any accumulation of refuse, garbage or feces." Ms. Oparaocher answered that she did what she could on that item. Ms. Oparaocher stated that the property is on the market and that the upstairs is ready. She added that the tenant removed the back stairs' hand rails. A gentleman with Ms. Oparaocher, Dederich Sims (spelling?), questioned Item 12 on the deficiency list, "SPLC 417.07 — Provide and maintain an average lighting of 5-foot candles throughout the parking structure. The pedestrian and drive areas must have a minimum lighting of 1.5-foot candles." Average light candles discussion ensued; Ms. Moermond defined the foot candle issue. November 6, 2007 Property Code Minutes o ��� 5 Page $ Ms. Moermond stated that she is changing Ms. Oparaocher's deadline to November 21, 2007, at which time Ms. Opazaocher is to have all of the items completed. Ms. Shaff stated that an inspector has volunteered to go out to the property on Friday, November 9, 2007, and will walk through these problems with Ms. Opazaocher. Discussion ensued. Ms. Shaff concluded by saying that she will be at the property at 930 a.m. on Friday, November 9, 2007.