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Decision: Appeal withdrawn; inspector and appellant came to an agreement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Decision: Appeal withdrawn by the appellant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Decision: Appeal withdrawn as the owner came into compliance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Decision: Appeal withdrawn by the appellant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.