Loading...
08-941Council File # � 7� Green Sheet # 3057733 RESOLUTION � � Presented by 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the July l, 2008 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters, Conection Notices and Correction Orders for the following addresses: Propertv Appealed 100 Winifred Street West Decision: Grant the appeal. 1844 Bush Avenue Decision: Deny the appeal. Appell3nt(s) Sharon Bruestle May Kue Vang & Dang Xiong Bostrom Carter Harris Yeas � Nays � Absent �I Re uested b De arhnent of: T�—� 9 Y P � Form Approved by City Attorney By: Adopted by Council: Date �j� ��j�,� —� , Adoption Certified by Counci] Secretary BY� /f /%il/� r� �L� t Approve y ay�r Dat 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 � �p co��a Contact Person ffi Phone: Marcia Mcermond Doc. Type: RESOLIf�ION E•Document Required: Y Document Contact: Confact Phone: o,_A��B I Green Sheet NO: 3057733 � ueparunen� xni�orerson i 0 iCouncil ASSign � 1 ooncii I Departinent D'uector i Number p ' Clerk C5 Clerk For Routing 3 � ( Order 4 5 ToWI # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) ,� Resolurion approving the decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Letters of Deficiency for properties at 100 Winifred Street West, and 1544 Bush Avenue. Planning Commission CIB Committee Civil Service Commission 1. Has this persoNfirm ever worked under a contract for this depaRment7 Yes No 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this persoNfirm possess a skill not normally possessetl by any current city employee? Yes No Expiain ali yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): AdvanWges If Approved: Disadvantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approvetl: Transadion: Funding Source: Financial Information: (E�cplain) CosURevenue Budgeted: Activity Number: August 7, 2008 10:48 AM Page 1 7uly 1, 2008 Property Code Hearing Minutes 2. Appeal of Pat Vocovich to a Pat Vocovich, appellant, appeared. Page 4 Ms Moermond requested a staff report. Mr. Owens stated that there are no restroom facilities in the buiiding and some of the tenants crafted their own, which basically consisted of a pipe through the wali in which they were relieving themselves to the out of doors. He said that the appellant had tried to see what it would take to put in a restroom and found out that it would be very expensive. Ms. Moermond asked for the toilet requirement for this type of building. Mr. Owens stated that they would have to have a toliet connected to the sewer and it would have to flush. It would also need a sink with hot and cold ruiuiing water for washing hands. The building had neither a toilet nor a hand sink. Mr. Vocovich stated that he separated the building and added a duplex. He also did a lot split. His father also owned the building across the street and they had done a lot of improvements in the area. The pipe that was mentioned was actualiy there when he purchased the building. He had a fire inspector inspected it 8-10 yeazs ago and she noticed it but at the time, it was not working. The woodworking guy sub-leases to other people and he poured cement to cover the toilet azea. He planned to take it out in the fixture but never got to it. He wrapped up the pipe in all kinds of electrical stuff and thought that it was a way to urinate outside through the hole, but they were actually going into a bucket and dumping it into a bag. There was a bathroom in the duplex and he would always use that. Ms. Moermond asked what the building is being used for. Mr. Vocovich responded that it was a woodworking garage. He rented it to a"Tom" and he fixed old windows and doors. He took care of the problem by digging up the hole and the pipe barely went in four inches under the dirt which was ail clogged up with dirt. Mr. Seeger stated that when it was all one property, they used the working restroom. Once the lot was split, a new restroom should have been put in; however, it was never done. Mr. Vocovich stated that the issue was never brought up that he needed to put in a restroom when the lot was split. Ms. Moermond asked if the appellant owned both properties. Mr. Vocovich responded that he did not and when the lot was split, he kept the garage and got rid of the duplex. If the pipes were in the front of the street, he probably could get it done for $15,000; however, because he had to go through another property, the other owner probably would not allow it. Mr. Owens asked if there was riuming water in the building. Mr. Vocovich responded that there is a pipe that was put in many years ago by the previous owner. Mr. Owens asked if there was water to the buiiding. Mr. Vocovich responded that there was; however, he did not have the money to fix it. Ms. Moermond stated that she would give him six months to explore an electric toilet vs. renting a portable toilet. The portabie toilet would have to come with a hand sink but if he decided to go with an electric toilet, he would have to come up with a solution for a hand sink. This matter was laid over to the August 19 hearing. July i, 2008 Property Code Hearing Minutes 3. Appeal of Sharon Bruestle to a V Sharon Bruestle, appellant, appeared. Page 5 Ms. Moermond requested a staff report. Mr. Senty stated that on or about June 4, 2008, the Vacant Building Program received notice from the Certificate of Occupancy Program that the C of O for this property had been revoked. Fire requested the Vacant Building Program open a Category II vacant building file. Ms. Moermond asked how it came to the staff's finding that it would be a Category II. Mr. Senty responded that it was a recommendation of the Fire inspector. Ms. Bruestle stated that the building was not really vacant. The tenant who was living there was a Section 8 tenant and felt her life was threatened so she left and went to Women of Nations for protection. Section 8 had been paying the rent since April and she was unable to find another tenant since Section 8 had been paying the rent. She called the Fire inspectar and informed him of what was going on and he said that he would remove her property from his list which he did not do. The only item that was not done was the test on the furnace because she didn't know if someone was actually going to inspect it. The tenanYs stuff was srill there and it had been moved to the garage because she had not found another place to 1ive. The house was empty and ready to be re-occupied. Mr. Senty stated that he assumed the inspector went to the property for a scheduled inspection which the owner would have received a letter notifying her of the inspection date and time. The fact that the inspector revoked the C of O was that it was being illegally occupied which was aiso the definition of a vacant building. Ms. Moermond asked why the C of O was revoked. Mr. Senty responded that he did not have that information. Ms. Bruestle said that the inspectar told her the C of O was revoked because the electricity had been shut off; however, this was not the case. She called Xcel and had the bill put in her name. Mr. Senty said that at the time of the inspection, it was not noted that any utilities had been shut off or locked. Ms. Moermond recommended granting the appeal. She said she would check with Fire to make sure there were no other violations. 4. Appeal of May Kue Vang and Dang Xiong on denial of a request to remove a tree on the public-right-of-way far property at 1844 Bush Avenue. May Kue Vang and Dang Xiong, appellants, appeared. Mr. Xiong presented photographs. Ms. Moermond requested a staff report. Mr. Reese stated that on April 17, their office received a request that a property owner wanted to remove a tree which was on the boulevard close to the alley so that they could put up a fence. He was asked to go out and review the request. He found there was a 35 inch green ash tree on the east lawn of Van Dyke which was adjacent to the property. The tree on the boulevard restricted the vehicle traffic into the garage. July 1, 2008 Property Code Hearing Minutes Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Reese to look at Page 6 evaluation from the field was based on existing City policy on the removal of a tree. The tree was an asset to the City and the City's policy was that "trees are removed from the public right-of way if they aze diseased, if they aze dangerous, or if the City is doing some form of construction within the public right-of-way that would cause the removal." When he evaluated the tree, he found that this tree did not meet the criteria for removal based on its condition. The tree is large, mature, healthy, and shows no evidence of disease and did not qualify for removal and he informed the property owner that the City would not remove the tree. The property owner indicated that there was a problem with other people using the alley, how snow was plowed, and how debris was directed onto his property. He wanted to put a fence along the south property line that would encroach into the public right-of-way to protect his property. There was an encroachment permit process that could be reviewed by Farestry to see if the City would grant an encroachment permit. In this case, he believed the owner had reasonable access to his gazage. Mr. Xiong stazed that the fence goes from the front of the house to the side of the house and they stopped the fence near the tree. The variance was eight feet but it was put on hold because it would need to be inspected and approved. He called the inspector a week later and was told that the fence was denied and he went to re-apply for the permit on April 19 without requesting any variances. On May 19, 2008 he spoke with City staff and was informed that the matter was being refened to Farestry and they would get back to him. On May 31, he was told by Mr. Reese that the variance was denied. He believed people were not using the alley as they should and on many occasions, drivers would come close to hitting their cars. He felt that the tree should be removed and offered to replace it if the City removed the tree. Ms. Vang asked if there would be an issue if they replaced the tree. Mr. Reese responded that the City plants a two and one-half inch burlaped tree at the cost of $350.00. The existing tree is a 35 inch tree that will take 50 years to get to that size_ He didn't think that replacing the tree would solve the issue. Ms. Moermond stated that the problems Mr. Xiong pointed out were problems of safety and potential damage because of the relationship of the driveway to the alley. These concerns are directly and easily addressed by the installation of the fence between the property and the alley. She did not believe how removing the tree wouid enhance the safety. The one issue not resolved was the increase of access to parking on has property. Mr. Reese stated that he was not awaze of any City ordinances that would preclude changing the location of the driveway. He measured it, and the width of the boulevard or tree and lawn space was nine and one-hal£ feet with another five feet to the property line. Mr. Xiong asked how far he could actually put the fence from the tree. Mr. Reese responded that they usually need to have five feet of a clearance zone between the face of the tree and the edge of the concrete. This was to protect the tree and site line from a safety standpoint so when that when coming out of the driveway, they would be able to see traffic north and south bound on Van Dyke. He believed Forestry would consider a two foot variance of the normal five foot clearance zone. July 1, 2008 Property Code Hearing Minutes Ms. Moermond recommended denying the Page 7 ��sz���z _- ��s�ks=��ete�nehow=fo a� ion�for his pazking and sure that it can be done as close to the alley as possible.