Loading...
08-797Council File # �—'] q'1 Green Sheet# 3056445 Presented by RESOLUTION OF�SAINT�A � MINNESOTA a� 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 July 2, 2008 hereby memorializes its decision to 3 certify and approve the June 10, 2008 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for the following 4 address: 5 6 ADDRESS APELLANT 7 8 930 Desoto Street Ralph Killing 9 10 Decision: Appeal denied (conditions have been conected and condemnation has been lifted). Yeas Nays Absent Carter ,/ Bostrom ,i Harris �/ Helgen ✓ Lantry � Stazk ,/ Thune ,� � � Adopted by Council: Date 7/�'-�,✓j✓.f� Adoption Certified by Council Secretary By: I Appro ed or: Date � � � By: Requested by Department of. � Form Approved by City Attorney By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: � �� � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � � CO ���� Contact Person & Phone: Marcia Mcermond 6-5570 Must Be on Council Aaen Doc.Type: RESOLUTION E-Document Required: Y Document ConWCt: Mai Vang Contact Phpne: 6-8563 07-JUL-0B ■�► Assign Numbec For Routing Order Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Trensaction: Funding Source: Resolution memorializing City Council action talcen July 2, 2008 denying the appeal (conditions have been correc[ed and condemnation has heen lifted) for proper[y at 930 Desoto Sheet, per the recommendation of the LegisLative Hearing Officer. ioauons: v,pprove �vq or rce�ect (rq: rersonai serv�ce wncraccs musi nnswer me tawwmg vuesnons: Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skili not normally possessed by any current ciiy employee? Yes No F�cplain ali yes answers nn separate sheet a�d attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, lssues, Opportuniry (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approvetl: Disadvantage5lf Approved: Disativantages If Not Approved: Financial Information: (Explain) Green Sheet NO: 3056445 D 000N I anN De ar[me¢[D'uecWr 2 ' Clerk G� Clerk 3 4 5 Activity Number: July 7, 2008 11:41 AM CosVRevenue Budgeted: Page 1 �� t�� iG7 «_, o 46 tr O • A` ; �,,.��� �� �n � �o June 4, 2008 Raiph Killing 401 3 Street N. #650 Minneapolis, MN 55401 RE: 930 Desoto Dear Mr. Killing: CITY OF SAINT PAUL CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Your application for an appeal has been received and processed. Please attend the public hearing before ihe Legislative Hearing Officer on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 330 City Hali and Courthouse to consider your appeal concerning the above seferenced property. At that time the Legislative 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 Gity Clerk cc: Mike Urmann, DSI (Fire) Phii Owens, DSI (Fire) Leanna Shaff, DSI (Fire) Marcia Moermond, Legislative Heanng Off+cer Jerry Hendrickson, Deputy City Attorney 15 WEST KELLOGG SOULEVARD, SUITE 316 SAINT PAUC, MINNESOTA55102 Te1:651-2668688 Fax:651-266-8574 www.stpaul.gov AA-ADA-EEO Employer � �q� APPLICATION FOR APPEAL �� Saint Paul Ciry Clerk � ,�� i� W. Kellogg Blvd., 310 City Hall ��'� � Saint Paul, Minnesota 5� 102 �'s��.� Teiephone:(6�1) 266-8688 � � ` � 4. Name of Owner: � 5, Address: 7� I ���7 ��`�°� City: �� � � State: /1�/!'�' --Zip:��J / —1 Phone Numb s: Business Residence Cellulaz �2" F/��'C� Signatura: 5. Appellant / Applicant (if other than owner): Address: City: State: Zip: Phone Numbers: Business Residence Cellulaz Signature: 6 State spec�cally what is baing appealed and why (Use an attachment if necessary}; � �� ' .�"S �C a� �70 / s�S �c � l,f i' � Crav B`� . 2 r P1 � /�} � qS e. C �— P �e N F r J NOTE: A$25.00 filing fee made payable to the Ciry of Saint Paul must accompany this appiication as a necessary condition for filing. You must attacb a copy of the original orders and any other correspondence relative to this appeal. Any person unsatisfied by the final decision of the City Council may obtain judicial review by rimely filing of an acuon as provided by law in District Court. For O#�fice Use Only Date Received: Pee Received: Receipt Number: Date of Hearing: � �� ���� ' Revised4/25/2�07 ' �i� � cx�oF san�rrPAUr, CArir�npber$ Gn(emnq, Mayot Mazth 20, 2048 RAi-PTT T{TT.LING 4Q13RI? ST N SUT'TE 650 MIlVNEA�'OLIS MN 55401 930 DESOTO ST Ref. # 108992 Deaz' PmFerty Representative: Y'our building vvas inspected on N3arch 19, 2008. T'he building was found to be unsafe, unfit far human habitation, a public nuisance, a hazazd m the pu6gc welfare or othenvise dangerous to hnman life. A Condemnation Piacazd has been postsd on the building, The following de5ciency lisf must he compieted iussnediate3y or the buiiding vacated. _- --_ t1 reinspection witi be made on Apti121, 2fl(?8 at 9:30 A.M:. . _-� �.�� ��� � �� 4,(f �� �� ^r, CONDEMNATTON Of THE BU3LDIIJG 1tEYpKES TIiE FIR� �g�TCATE OF OCC[7pANCy. �si}ure to complete rhe corc�rions may resuit in a criminal citation. The Saint Paul T,egislative Code requires thai no bnifding be occupied �arithout a Pire CertiFicate of Oceupancy. DEFIC�ICY LTST 1. 930 Desflto - SPLC 34.I0 {6), 34.33 (5) - Exiemunate and contmi insects, rodenGs or ofher pests. Pmvtide documentation of extemunation.-There aie roaehes and arhat appears to be tleas on the eouch in tbe ]iving atea and in the kitchen. 2. BASEMEAiT - NFPA -58 3.2.2.2.3.2.2. i- Locatians of comainers. GAS containers sluall be located outside of building. Remove the 4 L.P,GAS cantainers fram basecu�nt, 3. BAS�MENfi . MSFC 315.2.5 - blreled eyuipmnst, inciuding bui not limited to motorcycies, mapeds, lawn-care equipment and gortable wriking equ'rpment, shall not be stoied, opezator or repaired ryitLin a buiiding: THERE IS 4 FOUR GAS Op�RATED EQUIPMENT TN gAgEMENT. _ R�MOVE 4. BASBMENT - MN Stai 299F.18 - Tmmediately remove and discontinue excessive accumuiation of combustibia materiais. Tfieze aze 31 csns of irigh ignifion cans of ftaznmahie cans in hasement Remave. 5. BASEMBNT - SPLC 3d_1Q (3) 34.33(2) - Provide an approved guardrail. Intezmedgate ballusaade must not be more than 4 inches apart. Intem�ediate rails must be provided if the height of the plaYfoxm is more than 30 inches. DEPAR?h76T77' OF SaFE?Y ANb INSP£CiIONS Fire Inspecuon Diaisioa Robelt Kerrler, birscror lW Enn tt" srreu rNq,Mk: 6st.za8-6230 .S�%n+sbur. MNSS�ai ip �nH� .,......._._... _.._ QS= r�# 6. BASEMENT - SPLC 34.10 {3?, 34.33(2) - Provide an approved handrail• T'he top af the handrail must he benveen 34 and 38 inches above ihe treads and run the cntire Iengih of the stair. 7, Basement - MSfiC 6U5.1 - Rtplact illegal elec�ical light fixtures in basemexrt. 'I'h�s v✓or3c maY re4wte a peraiit(s). Call LtEP at (651) 266-9U4u- 8. Basement - UMC 1346.703 - Pronide 30 inches cleu'ance azound all mechanicat equipment. 9. Frant steps - SPLC 34.09 (2} 34.32 (2} - Provide an apgrove3 handraii. The mp of the handrail must be between 34 and 3R inches above ffie mads asid iun the ena� tength of the stair. 10. T�TOUS� - MSFC 605.6 - Provide ei�u'ical cover plaus to all oudqs, switehes and jtmetioa baxes where znissing. 11. 'ETO'[3S� - MSPC 6Q5.5 - Discontinue use of extension coids uscd in lieu ofpermanent �v;ring: Various locations 12. HQUSE - MSFC 605.1- AlI light 5xtures shall be maintai�'ed'"'ithiprotecpve giobes if originally eyuipped. 13. HOUSE - 3PLC 34_IO {3), 34.33(2) - Regair or replace the damaged handrail in an aPPro�'� ��er. 14. House - SPLC 34.1Q (7), 3433 (b} - Repair and msintain the `a'$lls �n an aPpr°°� ��''�air or replace the damaged or deteriorated wali coverings. Paint the wall. Patch tha holes and/or cracks in the walls. 15. UPSTAIRS - SPLC 34.10 (4), 34.33 {3) - Provide a bafluoom floor impervions to v.'azsr• I6. Y7PSTATRS - SPI.� 34.11, SBC 29Q2_i, SPLC 34.17, MPC 4715.0200.0 - Pmvide an appmved aumber and type of pUunbing fixtures: Provide and maintain an aPPTO�ed P��e tub or shower. This work may require apem'rit(s}. Call LIEP at (fi51} 266-909Q. TE3S FAt3CET 17. SPLC 34.02(c) - Complete and sign the providod smoke detecior af5davit and zerorn ic m this offiae. 18. SPLC 34A9 (1) a� 34:32 (i) a- Provide and maintain foundation elements to adequately supPort this buii,ding at all points, 19. SPLC 34.09 (3}, 34.32 (3) - Repair and maintain ttse window locks. 20. SPLC 34.1 t{6}, 34.3d (3) - Provide service of heating facility hY a����§� ��t°r wiueh must incinde a cazbon mono�cide test. Submit a completed copY of the 5az�t P� Fire Mazshal's ExistittS Fl�ei g�uning Equipment Safeiy Test Report to tiris of5ce. 21. 11NfC 544.6 - Pm'vide> repa�T oi replace the dryer exhaust duct. Extsausc ducts for domestic clothes ��y,e� �hell be �pnsuucied of inetal and shall have a smooth interioT finish. The exhaust duct shall be a minimum nominal siie of faur inchas {102 m;n) in diam DST ai (6 5) 2b6-9090S�em shalf be supported and secured in plaee. This wark may require a pemai ()• You have the xight w appeat these ozdets 310, (651�-1266-86$8), and must be fi ed within iQ d�pof the date of obtained at the City Cierks Office> Ro°'n ffie originat orders. Z0 39tld Nt]I1N3�3�td �I� tqZggZ�i59 £V�LO 800L/LZ/56 � ��� June 10, 2008 Legislative Hearing Minutes 2. Appeal of Ralph Killing to a Certificate of Occupancy Revocation, which inciudes Condemnarion, for properiy at 930 Desoto Street. Ralph Killing, properry owner, appeared with his tenant, Catherine Rodgers. Page 16 Mr. Thomas stated that he initially inspected the properiy on Mazch 19, 2008 on a C of O inspecrion. At that time, the owner was not present; however, the tenants let him in and he issued orders on 21 items that needed to come into compliance and the C of O was revoked and the property was condemned. He issued a re-inspection for May 8, and was unable to gain entry to the property as the owner did not show up for the re-inspection. He issued orders on May 9 indicating that the C of O had been revoked and that the property would be re-inspected on May 27. If the work was not done, the property would be condemned and would need to be vacated on that day. He inspected the property on May 27 and again, was unable to gain entry to the property as the owner did not show up for the re-inspection. He then refened the property to the Vacant Building Program as a Category II vacant building. He received a call from Inspectar Yannarelly who indicated to him that the property was occupied. Ms. Moermond stated that in reviewing the letters concerning the revocation of the C of O, it d'ad not indicate a vacate date which she believed lead to the belief that the orders were not valid per the Legislative Code. She quoted that under Legislative Code Chapter 34.23, (5) "Sei-vice of notice. The enforcement officer shall serve a written notice upon the owner of the premises informing the owner of the requirement to vacate the dwelling unit, stnxcture or portion thereof within twenty-four (24) hours of posting the placard. Service of the notice shall be by delivery to the owner personally or by leaving the notice at the owner's usual place of abode or with a person of suitable age and discretion or by depositing in the United States Post Office the notice, addressed to the owner at the last lrnown address with postage prepaid. Provided, however, that in the case of rental housing, notice shall be sent by United StaYes Mail to the address listed on the document required under Chapter 35 of this Code." The revocation letter clearly did not indicate a vacate date as required under the Code. She asked Mr. Killing why he was appealing the orders. Mr. Kiiling stated that he did not understand what the letter meant concerning the revocation. He had never had any communication with Mr. Thomas until this past yeaz concerning the property and every time he talked to Mr. Thomas, Mr. Thomas gave him grief. He had notified the tenants of the inspection dates and gave them permission to allow Mr. Thomas access to inspect the property. On the two re-inspections, Mr. Thomas refused to enter the building because he, as the owner, was not there. Mr. Thomas responded that when he inspected the property on Apri121, the tenants indicated that they were not aware that he was coming to inspect the property. He refused to intrude on tenants and inspect the property unless the owner gives them 24 advance notice of the inspection. On May 9, the maintenance person hired by Mr. Killing took 10 minutes to come to the door and indicated that he was not aware of the inspecrion and that not ali of the work was done. On May 27, he went to the property with Inspector Yannarelly and Officer Dean Koehnen to order the building condemned and to vacate the building. Mr. Killing responded that the tenants were aware of all of the inspections and Mr. Thomas refused to inspect the property. Mr. Thomas was never denied entrance to the properiy. The property was June 1 Q 200$ Legislative Hearing Minutes �=791 Page 17 now in compliance and needed to be re-inspected. He also stated that orders were being mailed to a different mailing address then the address he was using now. He did not understand why this was not communicated to Mr. Thomas since other Fire inspectors that were assigned to other properties he owned did have his conect address. 'I`he property was currently occupied. Ms. Moermond stated that under the Code, the City was only required to mail orders to the address that is listed with the Ramsey County tax records. She suggested that if Mr. Killing had a different address where he wished to receive mail, he needed to write a letter to Mr. Thomas indicating that mailing address. Ms. Rogers stated that Mr. Killing did inform her of the inspection dates and that they should let the inspector in to inspect the property. On the first inspection, her husband let Mr. Thomas in to inspect the property. On the other two inspections, Mr. Thomas indicated that the landlord needed to be present for the inspecrion which she indicated that she was not aware that the landlord needed to be presented. She never denied him entrance to the building and invited him to inspect the property which he refused to do. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Thomas why he responded to Ms. Rogers in this manner. Mr. Thomas sYated that it depended upon the situation. If the tenants are not aware of the inspection, he will not inspect the property. A1so, the landlord was sent paperwork that needed to be filled out and given to him at the time of the re-inspection which was why the landlord needed to be present for the re- inspection. Ms. Moermond asked whether this was a standard condition for re-inspections. Ms. Shaff responded that an inspector would inspect the property without the paperwork being given to them. Ms. Moermond questioned the fees that were being imposed. Ms. Shaff responded that the initial fee far the C of O was $128. Since the C of O had been revoked, the fee doubled to $256. The re- inspection fee was half the amount of the C of O fee so that amount was $64. Since there had been three failed re-inspections, the charge was $202. Mr. Killing responded that he shouldn't have to pay the re-inspection fees since Mr. Thomas refused to inspect the property. Ms. Moermond stated that according to the orders dated May 9, Mr. Kiliing needed to provide the smoke detector affidavit and the Fuel Burning Equipment Safety Test Report that was required to be fiiled out by a licensed contractor. She asked if he had done this yet. Mr. Killing stated that both of those items were completed and he had the Test Report which he presented. Ms. Shaff reviewed the Test Report and responded that it was not accurately filled out and she rehuned it to Mr. Killing. She told him that he needed to have the licensed contractor complete the form in its entirety. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Thomas when he was available to re-inspect the property. Mr. Thomas gave three dates and times that he was available. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Kiliing which of those dates and times would work for him. Mr. Killang responded that he was going to be out of town the last week of June so the best date would be June 13 at noon. Mr. Moermond indicated to Mr. Killing that he needed to be present for the inspection. June 10, 2008 Legislative Hearing Minutes �g=��t� Page 18 Ms. Moermond asked Mr. `I`homas about his communication with the City Clerk's OfPice. Mr. Thomas stated that he had received a message from someone in the Clerk's Office inquiring about the property; however, they 1eft the incorrect phone number. This person called him back as she had a question conceming the appeal on the orders as it was not filed within the 10 days on the orders that were issued on May 9. Ms. Moermond stated that her recommendation was that the property be re-inspected on June 13 at noon. If everything was in compiiance, she would recommend chazging the inirial C of O fee ($128) and one re-inspection fee ($64). If the repairs are not completed by 7une 13, she will recommend Mr. Killing pay for two C of O fees ($256) and the three re-inspection fees ($202) for a total of $458. The building must then be vacated by July 4.