Loading...
09-08Council File # d9'0 D Green Sheet# 3065404 Presented by RESOLUTION CITY QF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA l �- 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the 2 November 4, 2008 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters of Deficiency and 3 Certificate of Occupancy Inspection Fee Invoice for the following addresses: 4 5 Pronerty Appealed Appellant(s) 6 7 1010 Bandana Boulevard Steven Bauer, on behalf of 8 Hotel Capital Partners 9 Decision: Deny the appeal 10 11 2341 Hampden Avenue Jerry Jereczek, Midway Container 12 13 Decision: Deny the appeal 14 15 100 Geor�e Street East John Peltzer 16 17 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension to December 1 for all corrections 18 19 684 Western Avenue North Tom Gallagher 20 21 Decision: Deny the appeal 22 23 Bostrom Carter Harris Helgen Stark Thune Adopted by Council: Date Adoption Certified Co I Secretary By: �//�.�v/% ' s�.� Approved by ay l Date r/� � By: d�Z.,�� Requested by Deparhnent of: � Form Approved by City Attorney By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council sy: Approved by the Office of Financial Services � � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � n�i,nd DepartmentlOffice/Councii: Date Initiated: V V co-�°°^°�� 22 Green Sheet NO: 3065404 Conqct Person 8 Phone: Deoartroent Sent To Person InitiallDate Marcia Moertnond y o oon�a 0 6-8570 1 ouncl De artment Director A "' S19 � 2 i Clerk (.titv Clerk Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 3 0 For 4 O Routing Doc.Type:RESOLUTION Order 5 0 E-Dowment Required: Y DocumentConWCt: MaiVang Contact Phone: 6-8563 Total # of Signature Pages ` (Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Resolutio� approving the November 4, 2008 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters of Deficiency and Certificate of Occupancy Inspection Fee for properties a[ 1010 Bandana Blvd, 2341 Hampden Avenue, 100 George Street East, and 684 W estem Avenue Narth. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R). Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Foliowing questions: 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 skill not normally possessed by any curreni ciry employee? Yes No Erzplain ail yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of Trensaction: CosVRevenue Budgeted: Funding Source: Activity Number: Financial Information: (Explain) December 22. 2008 1030 AM Page 1 � �' /i MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES AND CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, November 4, 2008 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Boulevard West Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 130 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Leanna Shaff, Department of Safery and Inspection (DSI) — Fire; Katie LeToumeau-Bjorge, DSI — Fire; and Mai Vang, City Council Offices Appeal of Steven Bauer, on behalf of Hotel Capital Partners, on a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1010 Bandana Blvd. Appellant Steven Bauer (2127 E. Catamaran, Gilbert, AZ 85234) appeared. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She stated that the orders had been written in response to a report submitted by the contractor who had conducted the annual owner-iniYiated fire sprinkler inspection. She stated that Ms. LeTourneau-Bjorge had walked through the building with the owner on November 3 and had confirmed the deficiency list. She said that the building owner was appealing specific items on the list. Ms. LeTourneau-Bjorge reviewed the deficiency list. She stated that Item 1 should have been for removal of the fire pump timer, and that a correction letter had been sent. Mr. Bauer stated that Items 5 and 6 had been addressed. He stated that his major concern was that the building was built in 1985 and that the items in the deficiency list had appazently not been called out in previous inspections. He said that he had purchased the property in October 2007 and that the building had passed city inspections at that time and again in July of 2008. He asked why the items had not been cited in the past and whether there was a grandfather clause that might be used to address the deficiencies in his building. Ms. LeTourneau-Bjorge reviewed her procedure for reviewing sprinkler contractor inspection reports. She said that she made her own determinations as to which items were necessary. Ms. Moermond asked for clarification as to which types of code changes require building updates. Ms. LeToumeau-Bjorge stated that Item 3 dealing with sprinkler coverage had been a violation at the time the building was constructed but had just not been cited before. Ms. Moermond asked whether internal work processes for reviewing sprinkler reports had changed. Ms. Shaff stated that there had been no changes other than personnel changes. Ms. Moermond asked whether any corrections had been made yet. Mr. Bauer stated that they had not. Ms. Moermond stated that she would recommend denial of the appeal on Items 1 and 2, dealing with the fire pump timer, the pool area sprinkler heads and the lights obstructing sprinkler heads. November 4, 2008 Property Code Hearing Minutes U 9�� � Page 2 Mr. Bauer stated that if the inspector had noted the violations at the time he purchased the property he could have asked the previous owner to address them. Ms. Moermond asked how often building owners were required have sprinkler systems inspected. Ms. Shaff said that building owners were required to have annual maintenance checks. Ms. Moermond said that Mr. Bauer might have a claim against the previous owner but that was outside of what she was able to decide. Mr. Bauer stated that areas addressed in Item 3 as not receiving adequate sprinkler coverage were relatively small. Ms. Moermond stated that she was comfortable allowing time for Mr. Bauer to spread the expense out. Ms. Shaff asked whether the any of areas not receiving adequate coverage were just a small margin. Ms. LeTourneau-Bjorge said that they were not. Ms. Moermond asked for the sizes of the areas not covered by the sprinklers. Ms Letourneau stated that she had taken measurements far some of the areas but not all. Ms. Moermond asked for a report on the configuration of the stairwell. Ms. Shaff stated that the building owner should provide the report with the conect distances. Ms. Moermond said that she would recommend denying the appeals on Items 1, 2 and 4, and that she would revisit Item 3 in two weeks, with the diagrams and measurements to be provided by Mr. Bauer. She said that she would allow 60 days for the balance of corrections. The appellant did not appear on November 18. Ms. Moermond stated that she would recommend denying the appeal on Item 3. 2. Appeal of Jerry Jereczek, Midway Container, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 2341 Hampden Avenue. Appellant Jerry Jereczek (2341 Hampden Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55114) and company president Gene Fredrickson appeared. MS. Shaff gave a staff report. She said a report made by the contractor providing a sprinkler inspection had noted that two closets in the building did not have sprinklers. Ms. Moermond asked what type of building it was. Mr. Jereczek said that it was an office building with an attached warehouse. Ms. Moermond asked what was in the closets. Mr. Fredrickson stated that one was a coat closet and the other was a utility closet containing a water heater. Ms. LeTourneau-Bjorge stated that a sprinkler was required in the utility closet and that to the best of her knowledge, sprinklers had always been required in coat closets as well. November 4, 2008 Property Code Hearing Minutes pGf i l� g Page 3 Ms. Moermond stated that she would recommend denial of the appeal for the utility closet but that she wanted to review the code regarding the coat closet before making her decision on that. She set a deadline of 60 days for the conection in the utility closet. Ms. Moermond reviewed the code and issued her decision regazding the coat closet on November 18. She stated that she would recommend denying the appeal. November 4, 2008 Property Code Hearing Minutes ���� �j Page 5 4. Appeal of John Peltzer to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 100 George Street East. Appellant John Peltzer (28203 Johnson, Chisago City) appeazed. Ms. ShafF gave a staff report. She said that the property had been inspected on September 10 in response to a referral regazding taped pipes and a deteriorating ceiling. A list of violations had been developed and orders issued with a re-inspection date of October 15. Ms. Moermond asked whether Mr. Peltzer owned and lived at the property. Mr. Peltzer stated that he owned the property and had lived there until recently, and that renters currently occupied both units. Ms. Moermond stated that the written comments submitted by Mr. Peltzer in response to the list of violations were hard to respond to. Mr. Peltzer stated that he'd owned the property for over thirty years and the smxcture was sound and solid, but that he'd recently been having problems with the renters. He said that he'd had another recent inspection by A. J. Neis involving items being stored in the basement and had written to DSI Director Bob Kessler and that Mr. Kessler had removed some items from the violations list and extended the deadline and that he'd since injured his back. He said that he'd received the certificate of occupancy (C of O) on Mazch 5, 2008 with the understanding that he'd work on exterior repairs. He said that he'd hired a contractor for the exterior work but was having trouble getting he contractor to complete the work. He said that A. J. Neis had made personal threats against him for contacting Mr. Kessler. Ms. Moermond asked whether he'd reported the personal threats to anyone. Mr. Peltzer said that he had not. Mr. Peltzer stated that he'd been staying with his daughter while receiving trearinent for a back injury and had not received the letter regarding the most recent inspection until a couple of days before the re-inspection date. He acknowledged that there was still exterior work to be completed but that everything else had been approved in the C of O on March 5 and any additional problems were minor. He said that he was having trouble getting around because of his back injury and that he didn't have a lot of money. Ms. Moermond asked whether the inspector had been inside the house. Ms. Shaff said that the inspector had been inside, and she submitted photographs. Ms Moermond said that she was surprised that the building had not been condemned given the nature of the violations and the history. She said that her recommendation was for a deadline of December 1 for all corrections. 5. Appeal of Tom Gallagher to a Certificate of Occupancy Inspection Fee Invoice for property at 684 W estern Avenue North. Property manager Joe Collins (461 W. Maryland Avenue) appeared in behalf of the appellant. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She stated that there were inspector notes for each inspection date being appealed. November 4, 2008 Property Code Hearing Minutes p�'� b Page 6 Mr. Collins stated that a wall had collapsed at the property and the repairs had been extensive and had taken a long time. He said that he had requested extensions and cancelled appointments on a number of occasions and that the inspector had come to the property anyway, and that the inspector made numerous visits to the property to monitor the progress. He stated that the bill for the inspections had not come until a yeaz after they had occurred. He stated that normally when a permit is pulled, more time is allowed for the completion of the work. Ms. Moermond asked what permits had been pulled. Mr. Collins stated that demo, structural, siding and all required permits had been pulled. Ms. Moermond asked what the normal department practice was for in a property with so many processes taking place. Ms. Shaff stated that the procedure included an initial inspection and one re-inspection and that there would be a charge for everything else. She said that compliance was expected within 90 days but that reasonable allowances would be made for extenuating circumstances such as the weather. She stated that there were an excessive number of inspections at the property. Ms. Moermond asked what result would have been if the inspector had not extended the deadline. Ms. Shaff stated that there could have been enforcement action. Ms. Moermond stated that the records indicated that the final building permit was pulled after the last inspection had taken place and that the permit had not been signed off on but had expired. Mr. Collins stated that all work had been completed and signed off on. Ms. Moermond asked whether the certificate of occupancy had been issued. Ms. Shaff stated that it had. Ms. Moermond stated that she would issue her decision after reviewing the history for inspection appointment letters and the status of permits. Ms. Moermond reviewed the inspection appointment documentation and issued her decision on November 18. She stated that she would recommend denying the appeal.