Loading...
08-832Council File # ag � g'�j � " Green Sheet # 3057370 Presented RESOLUTION SAIAI� RA1��MNVN�S9�/�- - - _ -� �--- - 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the June 3, 2 2008 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters, Conection Notices and Correction 3 Orders for the following addresses: 4 5 Prouertv Annealed Appeilant(sl 6 7 966 Mississippi River Blvd Paul Kremer o/b/o Ford Motor Co. 8 9 Decision: Grant the appeal on all three items. 10 11 188 Mounds Blvd Phyllis Ashton 12 13 Decision: Grant the appeal. 14 15 601 Rice Street Dzu Doan 16 17 Decision: Appeal was resoived as the owner was now in compliance. 18 19 559 McKnight Road South Leonard Anderson 20 21 Decision: Deny the appeal. 22 23 585 Annanolis Street East Patrick Strasser 24 25 Decision: Deny the appeal. Requested by Department of: By: Form Approved by City Attorney By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Conncil By: Approved by the Office of Financial Services � Adoption Certified by Co cil Secretary g � � .� Approve� r: Date �$ g (� � By: � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � nR SX�� — ��� Contact Persoa 8 Phone: Marcia Mcermond 6-8570 ■�/ Assign Num6er For Routing Order 0 ouncil 1 onncii De artment DireMOr 2 i Clerk Cti C7erk 3 4 � Doc. Type; RESOLUTION E-Document Required: Y Document Contact: Mai Vang CoMact Phone: 6-8563 I I ToWI # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Resolution approvsng the June 3, 2008 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters, Conection Notices and Correction Orders for properties at 966 Mississippi River Blvd, 188 Mounds Blvd, 601 Rice Street, 559 McKnight Road South, and 585 Annapolis Street East. idauons: v.pprove �H� or rce�ea �rc�: rersonai sernce contraccs mus� �vnswer me raiowmg euesnons: Planning Gommission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this depaAment? 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 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, lssues, Opportunity (Who, Wha; When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: Disadvantage5lf Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approvetl: Transaction: Funding Source: FinanGial Information: (Explain) Activity Number: CosVRevenue Budgeted: Jufy 25, 2008 10:14 AM Page 1 � D8��3a MINUTES_ OF THE-LECzIS�,A"£NE �3EA�2ING — - QN LE'TTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES -- _ __ — - „�.....,.,�.��, .,�.�,�.,u n.,.� ��..L�. — - Tuesday, June 3, 2008 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Keliogg B1vd. West Mazcia Moermond, L,egislative Hearing Officer The hearing was cailed to order at 1:30 p.m. Staff Present Jim Seeger, Department of Safety and Inspection (DSI) - Licensing; Mike Urmann, DSI - Fire; and Mai Vang, City Council Office 1. Appeal of Paul Kremer, on behalf of Ford Motor Company, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 966 Mississippi River Blvd. Steven Kanet, Regional Safety Manager for Ford Motor Company, and Paul Kremer, Safety Engineer for Ford Motor Company, appeared. Mr. Urmann stated that he had not been in the building and only had information from the inspector. Item #1 that they were appealing was "no combustibie materials stored in the building." The City was requesting that they extend the dry-pipe sprinkler system. The field inspector indicated that there were vehicles in the area as well as combustible starage so he would need more information on what was actually being used. Item #2 —"provide sprinkler covers under a duct." He explained that they had a four-foot span of duct. Under the Sprinkler Code and Fire Code, the four-foot span was an obstruction to the sprinkler system operating conectly. The Sprinkler Code required that they would need to sprinkle under the duct because of the four-foot span. Anything over four feet would not provide sprinkler coverage. Item #3, "add one sprinkler in metals room." If the area had no combustibles stored and was a high-pressure water wash area, the only requirement was that the entire building had to be sprinklered. Mr. Kremer stated that Item #3 was a high density sprinkler area. He said that the piping issue on Item #2 was the piping samples that they had were sprinklered underneath and it was greater than four feet. The areas that they identified that may not have the sprinklers were well into the ground and there were combustible materiais stored underneath. He provided photos and explained that the duct wark was over four feet, was right off ground level, and there was sprinkler system underneath. Mr. Urmann stated that he needed information about the system. The Fire Code and the Sprinkler Code states that any area that could have a fire be fully covered with a sprinkler system. The potential may be low because there was no combustible storage; however, if thare were a fire in that area, it could overwhelm the sprinkler system. In the azeas that were shown in the photos, he agreed that there was no combustible storage; however, there was still enough obstruction and under the Code, it stated that any obsiruction had to be sprinkled. Mr. Kanet stated that they were protected in that the building had extra-high hazard protecfion. The spray booth and paint ldtchen were definitely an extra-ordinary hazard according to MFPA; however, the azeas for duct work over the ovens and appliances would be a low hazard. Their engineering reviews had assured that .6 over 3,000 in a low-hazard area was effective with some objections. June 3, 2008 Property Code Minutes �,g�� Page2 Mr. Urmann stated that the Fire Code indicates thatany law-spacewasa potentiaY fora�e to ---- ---- - - - occur_ Tfiey were looking at it from a risk-assessment standpoint and w hat the Code is lookin� --- --- � from whether it does_have�tE-}�Oteiu�a�taebshTZC�tire spn�� Mr. Kremer responded that the building had been in operation since 1984 without protection under the duct work as shown in the photo. There had been no changes or modifications made to it. On Item #1, the dry strip was a tester area after the vehicle was completely built to be driven outside. There were three large overhead doors and where it turned, there were specific quality standards that the vehicle has to go through on road tests at certain speeds to make sure that there were not any problems before it goes to the customer. Ms. Moermond recommended granting the appeal on all three items. 2. Appeal of Phyllis Ashton for Registration into the Certificate of Occupancy Program for property at 188 Mounds Blvd. Phyllis Ashton and Gurtis Anderson, property owners, appeared. Mr. Urmann stated that Chapter 40 required that property be owner-occupied or certified with a Fire Certificate of Occupancy. The owners, in this case, reside outside of the City. The property was occupied by their daughter and her child; therefore, it does not meet the owner-occupied status. Ms. Moermond asked the owners what they were looking for in this appeal. Ms. Ashton stated that they do spend five to ten days out of the month at the property to help their daughter because she is a single-parent and her grandson goes to school. She said that they did not believe the law should apply to them because many people leaue the state for six months of the year with no consequence. She said they had always wanted to live near a lake; however, they believe they may have to move back to the city. The house was left to them by her mother. Ms. Moermond asked whether they sleep there when they spend five to ten days out of the month at the property. Mr. Anderson and Ms. Ashton responded that they did. Ms. Moermond asked whether they received mail at the property. Mr. Anderson responded they did not. Ms. Ashton responded only by mistake. Ms. Mozrmond asked whether they planned to transfer this property to their daughter. Mr. Anderson responded they did not because their daughter is a single mother. She did not have a fuil-time job and they were trying to keep her off welfare. She paid what she could and sometimes it was not enough to pay taaces and insurance. He said that they wanted to keep the house so they can go back and live there in the near future. Ms. Ashton said that the house had been in the family since 1942. Ms. Moermond asked whether they pay for the utilities. Mr. Anderson said that their daughter paid for the utllities when she had the money; otherwise, they covered the expenses. He also said that the house was a burden, but they wanted to keep it far their daughter to live in. Ms. Moermond asked what shape the property was in. Mr. Anderson responded that the property was in good shape. Ms. Ashton said that the kitchen had been remodeled and lead piping had been removed from the basement. June 3, 2008 Properiy Code Minutes D$, g� �.. Page 3 Ms. Moermond withheld her recommendatio _n unYi1 afterShe hearing-and reeo}�u��eaded granlingtke -- - = - - aPPeai- . _. - - --------- - -- - ---- — 3. Appeal of Dzu Doan to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 601 Rice Street. Dzu Doan, property owner, appeazed. Mr. Urmann stated that from looking at the appeal, the appellant was appealing the use of an extension cord. The Electrical Code does not allow extension cord use to be a permanent or fixed manner and may only be used for temporary purposes. The appliance either needed to be removed or have permanent wiring put in place. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Doan if he was appealing the order relating to the extension cord situation. Mr. Doan responded that from the letter under #2 Front Office - MSFC 605.5 - "discontinue use of extension cords used in lieu of permanent wiring." He stated that he didn't understand what that meant. Ms. Moermond asked if he understood what an extension cord was. Mr. Doan responded he did not. Ms. Moermond explained that an extension cord connects an appliance to an outlet when the distance was further than the cord that cames with the appliance. She gaue an example of an extension cord indicating that the one in the hearing room had a power strip which was okay to use; however, the extension cord was not okay. He would need to get a power strip if he plaxined to connect the appliance. Mr. Doan stated that he understood and was no longer using the extension cord. Ms. Moermond stated that since this was the case, the appeal was moot. 4. Appeal of Leonard Anderson to a Correction Notice for property at 559 McKni t Road South, Ms. Moermond stated the appeal was originally filed on May 12, a correction notice of the same date. The hearing was scheduled for May 27, although, we normally would have scheduled this on May 19 but upon request of the appellant, this was scheduled later. The appellant requested a May 27 hearing date and June 3. He met the three requested hearings with no shows. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal. 5. Appeal of Patrick Strasser to a Code Compliance Inspection Report for property at 585 Annapolis Street East. Patrick Strasser, property owner, appeared. Mr. Seeger stated that he inspected the property before May 23, 2008 and did a code compliance inspection. Ae aiso had electrical, plumbing, and mechanical inspectors go through the building to inspect for any code violations under Chapter 34 of the Legislarive Code as well as under the Building Code for life/safety issues. He stated that the property owner was appealing because he indicated that house has been like tlais for years and there were items that should not be on the list. 7une 3, 2008 Property Code Minutes Page 4 �$ ''�?i7 �' s. Moermon asked Mr. Strasser w_y e wasap}�ealing__ -- -- -- - - `= ---- _ _ Mr. Strasser explaine�i +har h H�� setne-bad reiitersancl grovi�ed ptio os ot ff e at�done to the property. He gave the tenants notice to move out and they would not leave so he filed an unlawful detainer. He tried to evict the tenants three times and went to court three tunes because the judge felt sorry for the tenants who had a 14 year old child. The tenants had been paying him "part-time" rent since the first of the year and he had been trying to help them out. He indicated that his lease stated that they pay $650.00 per month but they were not able to pay that so he reduced the rent to $600. He indicated that the tenants had indicated to him that they were going to get some kind of assistance; however, they did not so they were unable to pay him. The lease also stated that no pets were allowed; however, they moved in with two dogs and a cat. The house was destroyed and he had to replace the catpet and linoleum. He painted everything and fixed a lot of the things that were damaged. He then received a call at his home from the Fire Marshal who was at the property saying that no one could live at the property until it was repaired. He had the electricity and water on while fixing the house and believed that was all he needed. Months later, he called and had the gas turned on; however, he believed Xcel contacted the City that the gas had been turned off. He was then contacted by Inspector Neis who indicated that he would need to have the gas tumed on. He stated that the inspector should not have been at the house and considered him trespassing. Ms. Moermond asked if there were any items on the code compliance list that he didn't believe were necessary. Mr. Strasser stated that he believed many of the items in the code compliance were grandfathered in and that he could not change many of the plumbing items. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Seeger if there were any items on the Code Compliance that were not required and whether Mr. Strasser would be able to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Fire Prevention staff or if the items be covered by both departments. She asked what in the code compliance report would be different than what the Fire C of O inspectar would tell him. Mr. Seeger responded that it would be different because the Fire inspector may not be looking for venting for plumbing. Mr. Urmann responded that they do not always find the same items that would be found under a code compliance inspection. The Fire inspector would also not inspect the property without an approved code compliance certificate from Mr. Seeger. What Fire staff is looking at is an existing building which does have different standards than the new codes. There were some items that Fire would consider grandfathering-in; however, when a building becomes vacant, it is required by ordinance to come to the current code standards before the building can be re-occupied. Ms. Moermond stated that she was looking for which items could possibly be grandfathered-in that would be different in Fire's assessment. Mr. Seeger said that the plumbing wouid be an issue because the exteriar faucet does not have a vacuum breaker on it. He said that it would be a IifeJsafety issue. There was also an issue with one of the valves on one of the showers. Mr. Strasser asked if he could eliminate one of the showers. Mr. Seeger responded that the basement shower did not meet the miirimum standard of 24 inches wide. Mr. Strasser responded that the shower had been there originally. Mr. Seeger responded that the shower in the basement would need to be disconnected to resolve the problem. He also said that there were problems with sewer gas in the building because there were many things that were not vented properly. June 3, 2008 Property Code Minutes (f� �g?��., Page 5 Mr. Strasser stated that they never had any problems with sewer_ gaa_ liaask��� Seeger-�€ i��ad -- always been fhat way. Mr. Seeger responded that it had and that if there was enougti venrilation in the house. thev wouldn't notice the_�as� T�lau�✓ tui�-evas��emect�orrecttv ancr� a s� — required a vacuum breaker. Mr. Strasser asked that since the since this was vented that way, why should he have to conect it. Mr. Seeger responded that the building lost its C of O. Mr. Strasser asked what that meant. Mr. Urmann responded that Fire staff got a referral from Xcel indicating that the basic facilities of gas and water had been shut off. When the complaint is received, the Provisional C of O is revoked because of the vacant building status. Since the building also had multiple code violations, the C of O is revoked and is transferred to the Vacant Building Program. Ms. Moermond asked how long the building had been vacant. Mr. Strasser stated that June 1 s ` was when they had the court date and it took three weeks in court. Ms. Moermond asked when the nofification was received. Mr. Urmann responded that it was in September. Mr. Strasser stated that he had water and electricity; however, he did not have gas. Had he known this was going to be an issue, he would have made sure the gas was on. He also did not believe there were many things wrong with the house. Ms. Moermond stated that in this case, it was his opinion differing from the inspection report because the venting items mentioned in the report were of importance. Mr. Strasser stated that it would be too expensive to have all of the plumbing work re-done. He wanted to get renters who would want to buy the property. Mr. Urmann stated that if there is a venting problem as indicated by Mr. Seeger and if there is sewer gas in the property, sewer gas is as explosive as natural gas. If Fire staff had found this issue, they would have taken measures to vacate the property for lifeisafety reasons. Ms. Moermond stated that Mr. Strasser had bad renters, utilities got shut off, and the issue came to the City's attention. The City then sent out an inspector who found the property vacant with someone working on the building at the time. No one was living there and the property owner was required to get a sign off that the property was code compliant before it could be re-occupied. It was the City's policy for vacant properties with muitiple housing code violations to meet all the minimum safety standards, including the venting and back flow issues, electrical issues, and building code issues. She asked approximately how much it would cost to bring everything into compliance. Mr. Seeger responded that there was not a lot on the building list and most of the items were plumbing issues. Aiso, there wexe only a few items listed under heating and electrical. He estimated that it would probably be beriveen $6,000 to $11,Q�0 to make all of the necessary repairs. Ms. Moermond stated that he would need to decide whether this property was a good investment property. She said that if he would like to sell the property, he could use the code compliance inspection report to replace the Truth-in-Sale Housing Inspection. If he wanted to rent the properiy, then he must meet all of the codes in the Code Compliance Report. She recommended denying the appeal.