Loading...
09-132Council File # � `1 � Green Sheet# 3066195 Presented RESOLUTION CITY OF, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA /3 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the 2 November 4, 2008 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on an Appeal of a Letter of Deficiency for 3 the following address: 4 5 Pronertv Annealed Appellant(s) 6 7 790 Sherburne Avenue Zaspel Properties LLC 8 9 Decision: Deny the appeal. 10 Bosh Carter Thune Adopted by Council: Date Adoption Certified by Council cretary BY� �/ /ii9i� �%%S�� Approved a oi� ate J BY� � � �(A,CSL�ii ��rGF Requested by Department o£ � Form Approved by City Attomey By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Cowicil By: Approved by the Office of Financial Services � oR-��z. � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � co - co��a� Za��-o9 � j Green Sheet NO: 3066195 � � � Assign I Number i For Routing '�, Order 0 i 2 3 4 5 ; Contact Person 8 Phone: � ' Marcia Mcermond 6-8570 � i Must Be on Councii Agenda by (Date): 1 I j i ) Doa Type: RESOLUTION I E-Document Required: Y Document Contact: Mai Vang ConWCt Phone: 6-8563 Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Resolution approving the decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on an Appeal of a Letter of Deficiency for property at 790 Sheburne Averme. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Planning Commission CIB Committee Civil Service Commission Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Foilowing questions: 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? Yes No 2. Has this personffirm 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 Euplain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): AdvanWges If Approved: Disadvantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: ToWI Amount of Transadion: Funding Source: Financia11n4ormation: (Explain) CostlRevenue Budgetetl: Activity Number: January 21, 2009 1024 AM Page 1 09- i3� November 4, 2008 Property Code Hearing Minutes Page 4 3. Appeal of Zaspel Properties LLC to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 790 Sherburne Avenue. Appellants Robert and Theresa Zaspel (537 Ivy Avenue E.) appeared. Michelle Anderson, attorney with Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services (SMRI.S), and Al Harris, paralegal with SNII2I,S, appeared representing the tenants. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She said that an inspection had been made on October 13, 2008 in response to report of bed bugs and rodents. She said that the inspector was unable to gain access to the building at that time and that orders were written to provide access and proof of extermination services. Mr. Zaspel stated that proof of extermination services had been provided with the appeal. Ms. Shaff said that the extermination records provided predated the inspection. Ms. Moermond asked when the call regarding bed bugs and rodents had been received. Ms. Shaff said that she wasn't sure but that it would have been shortly before the October 13 inspection. Ms. Moermond asked what was being appealed. Ms. Zaspel stated that the tenant had brought the bed bugs with her when she moved in and that she had not followed the prescribed procedure for cleaning and encapsulating clothing and upholstery at the time extermination service was provided. Ms. Anderson responded that the issue was the current situation. Ms. Zaspel stated that they would provide extermination service again if the tenant would follow the procedure set out by the pest control company. Ms. Anderson stated that SMRI,S was working with the tenants and explaining what needed to be done. Ms. Moermond asked whether there were rodents at the property. Ms. Anderson said the tenant had reported that there were mice. Mr. Zaspel responded that this was untrue. Ms. Anderson stated that the appeal was for allowing the inspector access to the property and that the other items being discussed were for Housing Court. She said she wanted to make sure that inspectors were allowed access. Ms. Zaspel stated that they had always complied at all of their properties and that this was their first appeal. She said that they were appealing because they felt they were already in compliance. Ms. Moermond reviewed the code regarding the responsibilities of occupants relating to the maintenance of dwelling units. She said that the property was due for a full certificate of occupancy inspection and asked that it be scheduled in a week. She said that if the Zaspels wanted to appeal anything having to do with that inspection, the fee would be waived. She said that orders would be issued to the tenants if it was determined that they were responsible for any deficiencies at the property.