Loading...
09-1010Council File # 0 9— !4/d Green Sheet# 3079179 Presented by RESOLUTION OF SAI�T PAUL, MINNESOTA � . 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 heazd at public hearing on September 2, 2�09 hereby memorializes its 3 decision to certify and approve Yhe August 25, 2009 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for the 4 following address: 5 6 ADDRESS APELLANT � 8 1137-1139 Universitv Avenue West Alan Petersen, on behalf of Provest 9 10 Decision: Appeal denied. Carter Bostrom Harris Requested by Departrnent of. � Thune Adopted by Council: Date ✓ AdopYion Certified by Co il Secretary By: � j Approve by or� Date _� � !� By: Form Approved by City Attomey By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � hG-101 b DepartmenUOfficelCouncil: Date Initiated: � �o._������� - - - -�SEp�-- �reen-Shee�-N�: -39-79-179-- __ ___. Contact Person & Phone: DeParbnetH SentTo Person InitiaNDate Marcia Moermond y o 000a7 [� 6-8570 1 omcil De armieni Director �` �9 2 iN Clerk ' Clerk Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 3 � For 4 O Routing Doc.Type:RESOLU710N Order 5 � E-DOCUment Required: Y Document Contact: Mai Vang Contact Phone: 6-8563 Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Resolution memorializing Ciry Councii action taken September 2, 2009 denying the appeal for pcoperty at ll37-1139 Univeisity Avenue West. Recommendatlons: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Foilowing Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this personlfirm everworked under a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a ciiy 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 separete sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, IssueS, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: DisadvanWges If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Totaf Amount of CosURevenue Budgeted: Transaction: Funding Source: Activity Number: Financial Information: (Explain) September 8, 2009 3:11 PM Page 1 R P O B a� 0 � 11111; IIOI r August 12, 2009 Provest Alan Petersen 1951 University W #200 St. Paul, MN 55104 RE: 1137-1139 University W Dear Mr. Petersen: CITY OF SAINT PAUL CIT'Y CLERK'S OFFICE Your application for an appeal has been received and processed. Q� �Q� U Please attend the public hearing before the Legislative Hearing Officer on Tu�sday, August 25, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 330 City Hall and Courthouse to consider your appeal concerning the above referenced property. At that time the Legislative Hearing Officerwill hear all parties relative to this action. Failure to appear at the hearing may resuit in denial of your appeal. Sincerely, ����'`� ��� Shari Moore �� City Clerk cc: Leanna Shaff, DSI (Fire) Phil Owens, DSI (Fire) Marcia Moermond, Legis4ative Heanng OfFcer Jerry Hendrickson, Deputy City Attorney 15lNEST KELLOGG BOULEVARD, SUITE 310 SAINT PALII, MINNESOTA55�02 Tel: 651-2668688 Fax: 651-2668574 www.stpaul.gov M�rmative Action Equal OpportuniTy Employer APPLICATI�N FOR APPEAL Saint Paul City Clerk ��. �Q(� l5 RI. Kelloag Blvd.. 310 Ciry Aall Saint Paul, Min�esota 55103 Telephone:(651)266-8688 1. Address of Property being Appealed: ' I� —� t� i 1.�.�1 f v�l s e``7 l l 4. 1�"ame of Qwner: 2. Number of Dwellirg Units: � ��l+�e�* �' °1 AUG ! 1 'Lt�ti� CITY CLERK 3. Date of Letter Appealed: /,� `� ,r ��° d Address: �� �� !��✓�J�—�r ri��` City: ��� State: �/`� Zip: �'� I �f PhoneNumbers: Business 157�`l��"�1�5 Residence 5. Appeliant / Applicant (if other than owner): Address: City: Phone Numbers: Business Residence Cellular 6 State specifically what is being appealed and why (Use an attachment if necessary): �= /'�g�tr.rzs �i NOTE: A$25.00 filine fee made payable to the City of Saint Paul must accompany this application as a necessary condition for filin�. You must atYach a copy of the original orders and any other correspondence relative to this appeal. Any person unsatisfied by the �nal decision of the City Council may obtain judicia] review by time]y filing of an aetion as provided by law in District Court. Date Received: 81�r��� For Office Use Only Fee Received: Receipt Number: �5�d ` Cellular �� tate: Date of Hearing: W ��� �j ': other than those / I of a current title 3 0 _ �r,t of the ior� = 210.11 (City of -�- . , ��� , ., 1 41578 � :R) u (� 3 Z� � m O w � (�, m �`O h YF Z tl� J3 e z -H IN O UO o 3 1 " o �-- f� i i� i� i i 1 h< I 1 I I K � L J L _ \ / \ / � _ \ W �� Z �IO � UI 3 � � Z o ' :, g gi ! 1 p�; �/'� V � � U Z � J � m � Z N X W (/1141 FAC£ OP BLDG. ON LINE --- RETAINING WALL---� "' 0 � 206.18 2ob 1b �� O1 � SiAiR-T $iAIR-i - 206 41 `�' -- WOOD 207 REnvALL-T °� StEPS. rv � � zoe.as zoe.aa �' � � STNR-i SiNIR-i T p< � x 2 �8 p 3 3 0 20829 208.}t 20B 32 208 33 �O z �p 8 . 38 CONCREiE SIDEWALK •zoe�2 a ° o 208.32 208-36x a c a a2082) 209.30 ''o r' 0 n�i �� ry N O V ? O 20836 - Ra� � 12.1 � a a � Q � n o? m a ^` � / N � � OO o _ C ry '� o / 208 32 208.l2 ^ 5.7 /� ^ / / o 21 � -�- .� � / I EXISTING BUILDING TOP OF BLOCK = 210.2 F F.E. = 210.4 i� w; Z� /(1137 0 � h O � 9 � z A U � �, � q'S x o P Y - 11.0 � °� / � j U w Z 2.6 c�j � z e // o 0 _ O a. 3 ° 3.2 . i � �3.1 'ry � I � �—DECK ABOVE PORCH---------- — rn � r L_____ _______'__' � ____—____ COVERED 8.5 _� m � m PORCH � 12.4 12.2 � w 20) 61 a � r 2 e 20] 64 ° � O ° I xa U W 2ot.za 2at aa zazsa � o � � CEO/R6 a q p� 6 3 20Z]t Q a I ,P � w Z ; " 20]b2 2a) x ° � O - w / � � a Q W i '( 0 ^ 6 z '- `O �x x — zm.at � ° N x 20J 62 z� a � 20).at 2m3� ° zm.at I 207 I � ° � 206 I................ • ..................................................... ......................A........205 ................... ............... 204 1/2" IP RLS ,¢17529 � 2a32f ° 20b.o 203.aa � , S88°38'2>d'E° < e , 3.9.96 a < a a °CONCRETE SID6WALK e ��`P�� a a a a 203.56 203.t4 a 202.92 � 2aa.n 203 MAPLEIB 203 t] ........ CIfiY OF S_A��' PAUL Cknstanlier B. Colemnn. tifncor Julv 6, 2009 THE MANAGEMENT M9TRIX 1451 UNIVERSITY AVE W ST PAUL NP_V 55104 DEP.4RTME`!T OF SAFETY A\D INSPECTIONS Fire Inspectiov Drv�sion Roben Kessler, Director D�-101 b 3i.i Jackso�� Street, Suite ?20 Samt P¢u(, MN55I01-1806 Telepnone�65/-?66-8989 Fax- 651-266-89�1 RESCHEDULED 1139 UNNERSITY AVE W Ref. # 10675 Dear Property Representative: TffiS LETTEIZ SERVES AS OFFICIAL NOTICE OF REVOCATION. Saint PauJ Legislative Code provides that no building shall be occupied without a Certificate of Occupancy. In order to re-occupy the building, the following deficiencies (if applicable) must be corrected and a complete Certificate of Occupancy inspection inay be required. A re-inspection will be made on August 14, 2009 at 2:OOpm. DEFICIENCY LIST i. 5- Bedroom - SPLC 34.13 (4) - Provide and maintain an approved escape window from each sleepin� room. The minimum size must be 5.7 square feet of glazed area with a minimum of 24 inches of openabie height and 20 inches of openable width. Refer to provide handout EW-i for more information.-Bedroom window has an openable area of 18 inches high by 22 inches wide and a glazed area of 44 inches high by 22 inches wide. Each room used for sleeping purposes must have at least one approved e�ess window. All egress window replacement must be done under permit. Cali DSI at (651)26b-9090. 2. 6- Bedroom - SPLC 34.13 (4) - Pro�•ide and maintain an approved escape window from each sleeping room. The minimum size must be 5.7 square feet of glazed area with a minimum of 24 inches of openable height and 20 inches of openable width. Refer to provide handout EW-1 for more information.-Bedroom window has an openable area of 18 inches hi�h by 22 inches wide and a glazed area of 44 inches high by 22 inches wide. Each room used for sieeping purposes must have at least one approved egress window. All ee,} window replacement must be done under permit. Call DSI at (651)266-9090. 3. Basement - MSFC 315.2.3 - Remove combustible storage from the fuel burning equipment rooms.- Remove ail combustible storage from entire basement unless i hour fire resistive construction is provided sepazatinQ storage from the boiler room and from the ceiling structure above. Exterior - East Side Stairway - SPLC 34.09 (2) 34.32 (2) - Provide an approved handrail. The top of the .�andrail must be between 34 and 38 inches above the treads and run the entire leng[h of the stair. r��roia �. Exterior - Stairways and Front Decks - SPLC 34.09 (2), 3432(2) - Repair ox replace the unsafe stairways, porch, decks or railines an an approved manner. This work wiii require a permit(s). Call LIEP at (6� i ) 266-9090. 6. Exterior - SPLC 34.09 (1) b,c, 3432 (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 professionai manner free from chipped or peelin� paint.-Scrape and paint as necessary throughout wherever paint is chipped or peeling. 7. Throu;hout - All Units - SPLC 34.09 (3), 3432 {3) - Repair and maintain the window in good condiTion.-Repair all u�indows as necessary. Repair damaged sash cords, all windows must be able to remain in the open position when opened. Repair putty where peeling or missing. Scrape and paint window frames where peeling. Repair tom screens. SPLC 34.09 (1) e, 3432 (1) d- Provide and maintained the roof weather tight and free from defects. If you have any questions, call me at 651-266-8986. Sincerely, Mitchell Imbertson Fire Inspection Email: mitchell.imbertson@ci.stpaul.mn.us Ref. # 10675 cc: Force August 25, 2009 Property Code Minutes �� rb I Page 6 '� 1 9. Appeal of Alan Petersen, on behalf of Provest, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for praperry at 1137-1139 Universitv Avenue West. Appellant Alan Peterson (1951 University Avenue W., St. Paul 55104) and architect Norm Wells appeared and provided small scale architectural drawings. Ms. Moermond asked for a staff report. Ms. Shaff stated that the issue had started in June 2007 as a referral for exterior issues including both front stairways, the west stairway, and exterior surfaces. She said the property had been transferred to the Fire C of O Program after three inspections and the C of O had been revoked for noncompliance in December 2007. There had been multiple inspections and orders citing the same with additional issues, and the property manager had been issued a citation for noncompliance. Ms. Moermond asked whether the C of O had been reinstated at some point and then re-revoked in July 2009. Ms. Shaff responded that the property was still under revocation on July 6, 2009. Ms. Moermond asked whether the C of O had ever been reinstated. Ms. Shaff said it had not. Ms. Moermond said the wording used in the letter, "official notice of revocation," implied first time notification, which would be the component being appealed; she said the orders appeared to be old, Ms. Shaff said there had been 13 revocation letters and the template used for all revocation letters used that language. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Palm for a report. Mr. Palm raised an objection that the appeal was untimely. He stated that Mr. Brown, the property manager, had been issued a citation which had gone to court; the result had been a June 24 agreement to suspend prosecution wherein Mr. Brown had agreed that all of the repairs would be completed and the C of O obtained by August 14. That task was not accomplished and Mr. Brown had been back in court on August 20. The judge had agreed to vacate the agreement and Mr. Brown had pleaded not guilty at that time; the case was conrinued to September 17 for pre-trial. Mr. Palm said that, according to Mr. Brown, they wanted to make the repairs but finances were now the issue. His main concern was the amount of time which had passed. Mr. Wells stated they started wozking on this at the end of 2007. He said the department was asking for compliance with the building code but there wasn't enough space to build a code-compliant stairway. Jim Bloom and Ken Eggers had told him they would meet with Fire SaFety to come up with a solution, but he had not heard back from them and phone calls and e-mails were not being rehuned. He was frustrated with the amount of time he had to devote to the project without getting any results and that the unsafe situation could have been resolved months before if the city had been responsive. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Wells whether he was contending that the reason nothing had been done to mitigate the danger was because the city did not retum phone calls. Mr. We11s said he submitted drawings and plans and never heard back. He showed Ms. Moermond a list of the times he met with Mr. Bloom ar Mr. Eggers. Ms. Moermond said the list did not provide information on the outcomes of the discussions. Mr. Peterson said they had eventually received an e-mail on June 18 from Mr. Bloom indicating that the plans submitted were not acceptable. Mr. Wells reviewed other options that had been suggested and said Mr. Bloom indicated he would consult with Fire Safety but had not followed up. August 25, 2009 Property Code Minutes b � � O�(� Page 7 Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Shaff whether there was a standard procedure in terms of site plan _Y review and pulling permits. Ms. Shaff said the code required the permit applicant be the one to supply plans to the building official. Ms. Moermond clarified that someone applying for a permit would be required to obtain a site plan review. Ms. Shaff said either a site plan review would be required or plans would be submitted for review. Ms. Moermond asked whether the building permit was the trigger for those conversations. Ms. Shaff said that was typically the case but not aiways. Mr. Peterson said they tried the back, but to meet the letter of the law, they would have to come out to the front which would have a 20.6 foot drop which would be unsightly. He said that to solve the problem and move on, he was requesting a variance of 0.10 of a foot for 3.5 feet on the side of the building. Ms. Shaff stated that the code did allow for the building official to give a variance in certain circumstances or accept an altemative method of compliance to meet the intent of the code. She asked Mr. Wells whether they had supplied an alternative to the building official. Mr. Wells responded that they had supplied several. Ms. Shaff said the code required a rise and run of 7.75 and 11. She suggested supplying 8 and 9 as the rise and run without a landing. She suggested Mr. Wells redraw and resubmit this as a plan. Ms. Moermond stated that she agreed with Mr. Palm that the orders had been issued too long ago to be appealable. She said the wording of the revocation letter did not make it clear that the revocation was not a new condition and that this revocation was appealabie. She noted that the architect had not been contacted until six months after the orders had been issued and after the C of O had been revoked, and that the first communication with the building people had been in January 2009. She said the orders had been ignared for a long period of time and believed it was appropriate that the C of O had been revoked under those circumstances, and follow-up should be made through the courts. She recommended denying the request for a variance. Mr. Palm asked Mr. Peterson to clarify ownership of the property. Mr. Peterson said the property was owned by Provest and that he was a partner. Mr. Peterson stated that everything would be resolved if they were able to get a permit. Ms. Moermond said the C of O issue would not be resolved. Mr. Peterson asked whether the status of the C of O would affect their ability to get a permit. Mr. Palm responded that it would not. The goal of the criminal proceeding was to encourage compliance.