Loading...
09-168Council File # � — � (P Green Sheet# 3066387 � Presented RESOLUTION CITY QF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA / �J �-- - - - -- - --- -- - 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the January 2 6, 2009 decision of the Legislarive Hearing O�cer on the Appeals of Letters and Letters of Deficiency, for 3 the following addresses: 4 5 Pronertv Appealed Appellant 6 7 2127 Hudson Road Daniel Vansteenburg 8 o/b/o Jimmy Johns 9 Decision: Deny the appeal. 10 11 12 1999 Cottage Avenue East Paul Mai 13 14 Decision: Grant a variance for the egxess windows. 15 16 17 189 Seventh Street East Gayle Peterson 18 19 Decision: Deny the appeal far fire separation on Item #3 and for window sill height on Item #13 and grant 20 an extension to February 28, 2009. Grant a variance for window egress on Item #6 to be consistent with 21 the variance already granted by the St. Paul Board of Zoning dated September 14, 1998. 22 23 24 733 Blair Avenue Thai Yang 25 26 Decision: Deny the appeal and waive the vacant building fee to April 15, 2009. 27 28 29 904-906 Beech Street James Swartwood 30 31 Decision: Deny the appeal. 6�1-1/v� 32 Bostrom Carter Harris Thune Absent � Requested by Depariment of: � Adopted by Council: Date y � �/, Adoprion CerLified by Coy�cil Secretary BY� �/ /Ll�GY l /J �%.�50�7 Approvedb a Date [� BY� i / � Form Approved by City Attomey By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: Approved by the Office of Financial Services By: � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � �� ll�S , DepartmenYOffice/CounciL � Date Initiated: , I �o-��°°°�� Z,_��,,,_09 Green Sheet NO: 3066387 � Conqct Person & Phone: ' Maraa Moermond i 6-8570 Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): ; Doa Type: RESOLUTION E•Document Required: Y DocumentContaM: MaiVang Contact Phone: 6-8563 � ', 0 Cauncil ••`••••••' c•,,•••• '� I Couucil DeoartmeutDirec[or ' �` � ' 2 Citv Clerk Citv Clerk ' Number I For ! 3 Routing i� 4 �� '�I �I Order �- 5 , ' Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip AII Lacatians for Signature) Action Requested: Resolution approving the Ianuary 6, 2009 decisions of the Legislative Heazing Officer on Appeals of Letters and Letters of Deficiency for properties at 2127 Hudson Road, 1999 Cottage Avenue East, 189 Seventh Street East, 733 Blair Avenue, and 904-906 Beech Street. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Planning Commission CIB Committee Civil Service Commission Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department� Yes No 2. Has this person/firtn 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 separete sheet and aitach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): AdvanWges If Approved: Disadvantages If Approved: Disativantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of Transaction: Funding Source: Pi nancial Informati on: (Explain) CosVRevenue Budgeted: Activity Number: January 30, 2009 1:47 PM Page 1 b�-/Gg MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARiNG LE OF DEFICIEN CO NOTICES AND CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, January 6, 2009 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Boulevard West Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 132 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Leanna Shaff, Department of Safety and Inspection (DSn — Fire; Dennis Senty, DSI — Code Enforcement; and Mai Vang, City Council Offices Appeal of Daniel Vansteenburg, representing Jimmy Johns, to an Inspection Report for property at 2127 Hudson Road. The appellant did not appear. Ms. Moermond stated that she would recommend that the appeal be denied. 2. Appeal of Dan Carlson, D.T. Carlson Real Estate LLC, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1302 Reanev Avenue. Property owner Dan Carlson (3609 E. 47`" Street, Minneapolis) appeared. Ms. Shaff provided a staff report. She said that the property had been inspected for the Fire Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) on December 18, 2008 and that the inspector had found that the openable height of egress windows at the property ranged from 16" to 20" and that the minimum required was 24". Mr. Carlson provided photos and measurements for the windows, and documentation of financial hardship. He stated that the height of the windows measured by the inspector at 16" were actually 18 3 /4". He said that the house was built in the `SOs and that the windows were in great shape. He stated that he and his wife owned several rental properties and most were Secrion 8, and that replacing the windows was burdensome and represented a hardship. He said they'd owned the house for five years and would lose the house if they had to replace the windows. He said that tenant family had lived there for 4'h years. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Carlson whether he had thought about refinancing. Mr. Carlson said that banks were not refinancing investment properties. He said that he worked in construction and understood about egress and wouldn't put the tenants in harms way. He said they were good-sized windows. Ms. Moermond questioned the widths of the windows. Mr. Carlson said that the widths ranged from 39" to 24". Ms. Moermond asked whether the inspector had taken width measurements. Ms. Shaff stated that the inspector had not. Ms. Moermond stated that there was a large shortfall in the openable height. Mr. Carlson stated that the windows were wide and that replacing them would represent a financial hardship. Ms. Moermond stated that she could not consider financial hudship in a life/safety January 6, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes b y�/ �� Page 2 situation, but that she could take financial hardship into considerarion when determining the length of ti me she cou a llow to have the windows replaced. She stated that s he wo uld n eed goo w idth __ ___ measurements in order to decide how the replacements should be staggered. Mr. Carlson said that the front window was the smallest and that it would have to be a double-hung window to retain the architectural integrity. He asked about the possibility of the windows being grandfathered. Ms. Moermond stated that the city had expanded C of O requirements to duplexes and single-family rental properties. She said that she could help with the timing of the required window replacements but part of the cost of the doing business was maintenance. Mr. Cazlson stated that the size of the front window was restricted by other structural considerations. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Carlson to provide measurements of all window dimensions and photographs with notes about any special concerns regarding fit and structure. Mr. Cazlson stated that he was worried about the property's Section 8 status if he were not granted a variance on the window size. Ms. Shaff stated that Section 8 inspectors made their own decisions and might not accept a time variance. Mr. Carlson stated that the cost of window replacement would be $16,000 without contractor fees. Ms. Shaff stated that a sprinkler system might be less expensive and would remove the egress window requirement. Ms. Moermond stated that she would look at the dimensions and recommend a schedule for replacements. On January 22, 2009, Ms. Moermond reviewed the records and recommended granting variances for window egress on Items #2 and #3. She recommended denying the appeal for window egress on Items #1 and #4 and granted an extension for 90 days. 3. Appeal of Paul Mai to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1999 Cottage Avenue East. Property owner Paul Mai (1360 University Avenue W., #488, St. Paul) appeared. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She stated that an inspection had been done on December 26 in response to a complaint about egress window height. The inspector reported that the windows were of adequate size but that outside storm windows restricted the openable area. The windows had an openable area of 21 %z" high and 39" wide. Ms. Moermond stated that since the window width was twice what was required and the openable height was just 2%2" short of the requirement she would recommend that a variance be granted. Ms. Shaff stated that she would inform Section 8. January 6, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes b����� Page 3 4. Appeal of Gayle Peterson to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 189 Sev enth S treet East. Property owner Gayle Peterson (5741 Heather Ridge Drive, Shoreview) and her son Steve Peterson appeared. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She stated that a Fire C of O inspection had been completed on December 19 and a list of 16 deficiencies developed. She said that many of the items were being appealed. Ms. Moermond asked how long Ms. Peterson had owned the property. Ms. Peterson stated that she'd owned the property for 25 years. Ms. Peterson stated that the report was confusing because the property included part of the grocery store, part of the upstairs, and part of the Temperence Street building and that the address far Temperence Street was wrong. She said that the address of her property had originally been 1$9 %z 7` Street but that when 7` Place had been added the city had changed her address to 189 7`" Street and now there was confusion between 189 7 Street and 189 7` Place. Ms. Moermond asked about the Property Identification Number (PIN). Ms. Peterson stated that the PIN was listed with the wrong address. Ms. Shaff stated that her inspectors were clear on the address. Ms. Peterson stated that her mail was misdelivered to 7 Place. She requested that the address be corrected. She said that she'd never been out of compliance but that the inspection history for her property had not followed her to the new address. Ms. Moermond stated that Ms. Peterson could submit an application to Public Works to have the address changed. She reviewed each item being appealed. Ms. Peterson stated that Item 1(multi-plug adapters) had been addressed by her tenants. She stated that Item 2(floor tile) �was the responsibility of the commercial tenant. Ms. Shaff said that the property owner was ultimately responsible for complying with the orders, and that the commercial and residential spaces in the property were all under one Certificate of Occupancy. Ms. Peterson stated that she would get the tenant to repair or replace the floor tiles Ms. Moermond asked about Item 3(fire-rated ceiling tiles). Ms. Peterson said that the same ceiling tiles were used in the grocery store and had been approved for the previous 5 ar 6 years. She said that the fire rating had been tested by United Laboratories. She provided a report. Ms. Moermond asked about item 6(egress window size). Ms. Peterson stated that they'd been granted a variance far the window in 1988. Ms. Shaff stated that the window width was 9". Ms. Peterson presented a partial copy of minutes of the St. Paul Board of Appeals meeting during which the variance was granted. Ms. Moermond asked about Items 8 and 9. Ms. Peterson stated that those items weren't being appealed. January 6, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes ��� ��Pb Page 4 Ms. Moermond asked whether a step could be installed to address the egress window sill height in Item 13. Ms. P eters on p ro v ided ph of the room and window and stated that it had be approved in the past because a room that was adjacent and not separated by a door had an approved egress window. Ms. Moermond asked whether the heating facility had been serviced. Ms. Peterson stated that it had been done, and provided documentation. She said that the paperwork she submitted was not getting to the appropriate file. She said that the smoke detector affidavit had also been submitted. Ms. Moermond said she would look into what would be requized to change the address. She said she would like more time to consider the report on the fire separation (Item 3), and the window sill height (Item 13) and window size variance (Item �. On January 22, 2009, Ms. Moermond reviewed the records and recommended denying the appeal for fire separation on Item #3 and for window sill height on Item #13 and granted an extension to February 28, 2009. She recommended granting a variance for window egress on Item #6 to be consistent with the variance already granted by the St. Paul Board of Zoning dated September 14, 1998. 5. Appeal of Thai Yang to a Vacant Building Registration Notice and Fee for property at 733 Blair Avenue Building owner Thai Yang (233 Sherburne Avenue), and Anong Xiong appeared. Mr. Senty presented a staff report. He stated that on November 25, 2008 the vacant building program received a referral from the certificate of occupancy (C of O) program that the certificate status at the property was listed as condemned/vacant with a Category 2 recommendation. The property was posted as a Category 2 vacant Building on December 8. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Yang whether he lived at the property. Mr. Yang said that he'd lived there until it was posted. He said he`d pnrchased the property from his sister in 20Q7. He said he worked nights and slept all day and Yhat the upstairs tenant had called him at work and said that there were police at the property. He said the tenant was Hmong and did not speak English well and that he decided that it had probably been an inspector at the property. He said that he called the city to inquire but there were no records or reports associated with the property. Mr. Xiong stated that he assumed that the first inspections were initiated in July. He said that no one at the property spoke English and that when they'd attempted to follow up with the city there had been no records on the property. He stated that there had been two or three incidents when kids at the property had said "police" had visited, and that the condemnation had been posted in October. Ms. Moermond asked about the history leading to the condemnation. Mr. Senty stated that he didn't have information on the C of O condemnation. He said that if a police officer had been riding along with an inspector there would not have been a separate police report. Mr. Xiong stated that the previous tenant had been asked to move out in June and may haue complained about the property. January 6, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes �9 J�� Page 5 Ms. Shaff stated that that an appointment letter was sent on July 1 for a C of O inspection on 3uly 15. Mr. Xiong said that they hadn't received a letter and didn't lrnow about�hing until the ---- — — ------ -- ---- — — condemnation notice had been posted. Ms. Moermond asked where and to whom the notice had been sent. Ms. Shaff stated that it had been sent to Thai Yang at 1907 E. Wayzata Boulevard. Mr. Yang stated that that was not his address and that the appeal notice had been sent to the correct address on Sherbume. He said that the condemnation letter had been found folded up inside the Blair Avenue mailbox. He said that he'd tried to get the address corrected and to communicate with the appropriate people at the city. He said they were just asking for a re-inspection. Ms. Moermond asked how they had obtained a copy of the deficiency list. Mr. Xiong stated that they'd scheduled an inspection as soon as they'd found the condemnation notice and that the deficiency list was from that inspection. He said he'd been working every weekend to make the corrections and that the inspector had visited once or twice since but that no one had been available to let her in. He said the wark was done but the property had not been re-inspected befare they'd received the order to vacate and that they'd been unable to reach anyone at the city to request or schedule a re-inspection. Ms. Shaff showed computer file photographs of the property. The photographs showed an unapproved attic apartment, unsafe electrical wiring and fixtures and unapproved plumbing. Mr. Xiong acknowledged that there had been problems and said that they were working on making repairs. Ms. Moermond asked whether the vacant building fee had been paid. Mr. Xiong stated that it hadn't been paid and that that was what they were appealing. Ms. Moermond reviewed the vacant building definitions and said that the property met two of the criteria. She stated that the building was condemned and vacated and that the fee had to be paid. She said that the third floor attic area looked atrocious and frightening and that repairs would cost much more than the fee. Ms. Moermond stated that a code compliance inspection was required and would cost about $500. She said that if a code compliance inspection was completed and all wark done by April 15, 2009 she would recommend that the vacant building fee be waived. She said that the vacant building regish paperwork would still need to be completed. 6. Appeal of James Swartwood to a Vacant Building Classification for property at 904-906 Beech Street. (Note: the property owner did not provide any paperwark with this appeal) Property owner James Swartwood (5537 Dupont Avenue S., Minneapolis) appeared. Mr. Swartwood stated that he'd purchased the property from the bank this past summer. He said he thought it should be a Category 1 Vacant Building rather than Category 2. He said that Rich Singerhouse had told him that a he had no problem with it being a Category 1, but that Inspector Thomas had asked for approval from Ms. Moermond. January 6, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes �y�/ ��/ Page 6 Ms. Shaff stated that that was not accurate. Mr. Swariwood stated that that had been his u He presented photographs of th e property, permit records and__a__structural e eer's_ .__ _____ — report that said that the building was structurally sound. Ms. Shaff stated that the property had been listed as a Category 2 Vacant Building since July 24, 2007. Mr. Swariwood cited a state statue that he said superseded the Category 2 status. Ms. Moermond stated that the statute did not supersede the status according to the city's interpretation of the vacant building categorization and that if Mr. Swartwood wanted to litigate the matter with the city that would be handled separately. Ms. Moermond asked far the inspector's notes leading to the original Category 2 designation. Mr. Senty stated that a C of O revocation was referenced and that the only notes were that the building exteriar was in fair condition. Ms. Shaff stated that the C of O had been revoked due to nonpayment of fees by the previous owner. Ms. Moermond asked whether there had been previous issues. Ms. Shaff stated that the C of O had been revoked in December 2006 because of numerous issues. She said there had been lots of other typical deferred-maintenance items. Ms. Moermond asked whether those issues had been addressed at the time of the vacant building designation. Ms. Shaff said that the most recent certificate of occupancy was not certified. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Swartwood whether he had received a Truth in Sale of Housing or Code Compliance inspection report at closing. Mr. Swartwood stated that he had signed a waiver and had purchased the property "as is." Ms. Moermond said that the Truth in Sale of Housing or inspection report was still required and that the sale was illegally transacted. Mr. Swartwood stated that his understanding was that a new state law made the vacant building categories obsolete. Ms. Moermond stated that it did not apply. Ms. Moermond asked who the realtor had been. Mr. Senty stated that the realtor listed was EMC Mortgage Corparation. Ms. Moermond said she' d like to see a copy of the property history to review any open orders. Mr. Swartwood stated that Inspector Thomas had said he'd never been inside 904 or 906 Beech. Ms. Shaff stated that the designation was a year and a half old. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Swartwood why he was appealing the designation now. Mr. Swartwood stated that that had been the recommendation of the department. Ms. Shaff stated that it hadn't been given as a recommendation but as Mr. Swartwood's only available recourse. Ms. Moerxnond asked about permit status. Ms. Shaff and Mr. Senty checked the recards and stated that the permits had not been finalled. Mr. Swartwood stated that the contractors had been paid and that the permits should have been finalled. Ms. Moermond stated that the appeal was not timely and that she would recommend that it be denied.