Loading...
09-245Council File # Q �� � Green Sheet # 3067159 RESOLUTION � CITY Q,F SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the February 2 3, 2009 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on the Appeals of Letters, Letters of Deficiency, and 3 Vacant Building Registration Notice and Fee for the following addresses: 4 5 Propertv Appealed Appellant 6 7 1267-1269 Cook Avenue East Ronald Parramore 8 9 Decision: Grant variances for the egress windows. 10 11 12 1704 Reaney Avenue John Mann 13 14 Decision: Grant a variance for the egress window. 15 16 17 668 Fourth Street East Joe Price 18 o/b/o Quality Residences LLC 19 Decisions: Deny the appeal on the deficiency list. 20 21 22 780-782 Larpenteur Avenue East Patrick Leahy 23 24 Decision: Grant a variance for the 21 inch by 39 inch windows; deny the appeal for the 22 inch by 25.5 25 inch windows and grant an extension for four months to replace the 22 inch by 25.5 inch windows. 26 27 28 1328 Arcade Street Chadoua and Youa Vue 29 30 Decision: Deny the appeal on the vacant building registration and fee. 31 32 33 946 Forest Street Chadoua and Youa Vue 34 35 Decision: Grant the appeal for the vacant building registration notice and fee; deny the appeal on the 36 deficiency list and grant an extension for all work to be completed by April I, 2009. 37 38 39 '727 Sixth Street East Mercy Miantona 40 41 Decision: Deny the appeal on the vacant building registration notice and fee. �� ��� 42 Bostrom Carter Hasis Thune Adopted by Council: Date Yeas I Navs I Absent Adoprion Certified by C uncil Secretary By: ' Appr e by 1 or: at ��+ By: �J1r Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney 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 � b9�,�clr DepartmenUOffice/Council: Date Initiated: co-�°°^��� 24-FEB-09 Green Sheet NO: 3067159 Contact Person 8 Phone- Department Sent To Person InitiaVDate Marcia Moermond y o 000cu 0 6-8570 1 onncit De artment Director Assign Z 'tyClerk C7tvClerk Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 3 0 For Routing 4 0 Doc. Type: RESOLUTION Order 5 0 E-Document Required: Y Document Contact: Mai Vang Contact Phone: 6-8563 ToWI # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Resolution approving the February 3, 2009 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters, Letters of Deficiency, and Vacant Building Registration Notice and Fee for properties at 1267-1269 Cook Avenue East, 1704 Reaney Avenue, 668 Fourth Sfreet East, 780-782 Larpenteur Avenue East, 1328 Arcade Street, 946 Forest Street, and 727 Sixth Street East. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contrects Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for ihis deparfinent? CIB Commiriee 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 current city employee? Yes No Expiain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, lssues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of Trensaction: CosURevenue Budgeted: Funding Source: Activity Number: Financia l Information: (Facplain) February 24, 2009 2:09 PM Page 1 b 1���{� MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES AND CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, February 3, 2009 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West The hearing was called to order at 1:35 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Leanna Shaff, Department of Safety and Inspections (DSn — Fire Prevention; Barbara Cununings, DSI — Fire Prevention; Richard Singerhouse, DSI — Code Enforcement; and Mai Vang, City Council Offices 1. Appeal of Ronald Parramore to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1267-1269 Cook Avenue East Appellant Ronald Parramore (1179 Jessie Street, St. Paul, MN 55130) and Scott Bowles appeared. Mr. Bowles submitted photographs of the property. Ms. Shaff stated that the property was inspected on January 9, 2009 for the certificate of occupancy and that nine of the units were found to have undersized egress windows. The windows were 20 inches high by 39 inches wide; code requires an openable height of at least 24 inches and an openable width on at least 20 inches. Ms. Moermond stated that she was hesitant to grant a variance. Mr. Panamore and Mr. Bowles stated that they had measured the height at 21 inches. Mr. Bowles stated that the photographs showed the structural constraints to replacing the windows. Mr. Parramore stated that the building was built around 1960 and that he thought the windows could be grandfathered in. Ms. Moermond stated that the shortfall in openable height was a safety code issue. Mr. Parramare stated that there was no problem getting out of the windows. Ms. Moermond stated that the uniform fire code required an openable height 24 inches based on lrnowledge and experience with emergency situations. The windows were extra wide but that the measurements Mr. Parramore and Mr. Bowles had taken of the height did not take the window frame into account and that the openable height did appear to be 20 inches. She said that the shortfall represented 17-18% of the height required and that she wasn't comfortable with a variance of that size. Ms. Moermond asked how many bedrooms were in each unit and whether the units had similar lay-outs. Mr. Parramore stated that there were four efficiency aparhnents and six one-bedroom aparhnents and that they all had similaz layouts. Ms. Moermond referred to the photographs and asked whether the bedroom windows were single or double windows. Mr. Bowles stated that the double windows were in the efficiencies. Mr. Parramore said that the bedrooms had single windows. Ms. Moermond stated that she would get back to Mr. Parramore with her decision. On February 12, 2009, Ms. Moermond reviewed the records and recommended granting variances for the egress windows. February 3, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes ��a�J Page 2 2. Appeal of John Mann to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1704 Reanev Avenue. Appellant John Mann appeared. He presented a drawing of the window being appealed. The drawing showed that the window had an openable height of 22.5 inches and an openable width of 31 inches. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a variance for the egress window. 3. Appeal of Joe Price, on behalf of Quality Residences LLC, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 668 Fourth Street East. Appellants Joseph Price and Mindy Ostrow (923 Payne Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55130) appeared. Ms. Cummings gave a staff report. She said that the property was a problem property and that a certificate of occupancy (C of O) inspection had been referred to her because of a police report and complaint of bricks falling off of the west side of the building. She said that she had grouped some items in the report by type of violation and some by unit. Mr. Price stated that the brick had been cited in two previous reports and that he hadn't been given sufficient time to address the problem. He said he felt that similar violations in separate units could have been combined on the report. Ms. Moermond asked whether it would have made a difference in how the problems were addressed. Mr. Price stated that listing the violations individually caused the letter to be long and he believed led to the "problem property" designation. Ms. Moermond stated that the police had referred the building as a problem property because of the nuisance activity in Unit 2. Ms. Ostrow stated that there was a neighbor who watched the property and took notes and called the city with complaints. She said that the neighbor had aclrnowledged that she didn't like African Americans, and that most of the tenants were African American. Ms. Ostrow said that she believed the property was being called a"problem property" because of the tenants and that the number of items on the deficiency list seemed to affect the classification and number of inspections. Ms. Moerxnond asked about the inspection patterns at the property. Ms. Shaff responded that the police had been called to the property for legitimate reasons and that the police issues were not due to complaints from the neighbors. Ms. Ostrow stated that the usual inspectar would have done a standard inspection and that Ms. Cuimnings appeared to have been looking for different things. She said she felt that the same items had been listed several times on the report. She said she believed the complaints had led to excessive inspection reports. Ms. Moermond stated that the items on the deficiency list were founded Ms. Ostrow acl�owledged that there had been some problems but stated that there had been four write-ups for the same thing. February 3, 2009 Properiy Code Hearing Minutes �.�� Page 3 Ms. Cummings stated that the inspection had been a standard C of O inspection but had been passed on to a different inspector. Ms. Moermond recessed the hearing to review the police records and to review the Legislative Code. Ms. Moermond asked what the appellants were asking for. Mr. Price stated that they'd like some items on the deficiency list combined and some removed. Ms. Moermond asked which items they'd like removed. Mr. Price requested #2 removed because the basement doors had always been secured with padlocks and the tenants did not have access to those azeas. He said that the basement area addressed in #27 could be accessed from outside the building and that the faucet cited in #35 did not drip. Ms. Shaff stated that padlocks were not an acceptable way to secure doors to accessible spaces. Ms. Cummings stated that the faucet could not be completely turned off without a lot of effort. Ms. Moermond reviewed the police records which covered the time period from February 2008 through December 2008. She said that of the 30 calls, ten had resulted in reports being written, and that only three of the 30 were insignificant. She said that it was surprising that there hadn't been a problem property referral in the past. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal. 4. Appeal of Patrick Leahy to a Certificate Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 780-782 Larpenteur Avenue East. Appellant Pari Leahy (1372 Scheffer Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55116) appeared. Ms. Moermond reviewed the window dimensions in the inspector's report. She initially stated that she would recommend a variance for the windows with a 22 inch openable height but not for those with a 21 inch openable height. Mr. Leahy stated that the windows with the 21 inch openable height had an openable width of 39 inches. Ms. Moermond stated that after further review, she was not comfortable with the windows with the 22 inch openable height because of the width. Ms. Shaff stated that the inspection report gave the following egress window dimensions (openable height and width) for 780 Larpenteur: 39 inches wide by 21 inches high in the northwest bedroom and south bedroom, and 25.5 inches wide by 22 inches high in the northeast bedroom; and the following dimensions for 782 Larpenteur: 39 inches wide by 21 inches high in the master bedroom and south bedroom, and 25.5 inches wide by 22 inches high in the northwest bedroom. Ms. Moermond asked whether the glazed window area of the 22 inch by 25.5 inch window was adequate. Ms. Shaff stated that they were double-hung windows and that the area was close to being adequate. February 3, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes �y' �"l � Page 4 Ms. Moermond stated that she would recommend granring a variance far the 21 inch by 39 inch windows, deny the appeal for the 22 inch by 25.5 inch windows and grant an extension for four months to replace the 22 inch by 25.5 inch windows. Appeal of Chadoua and Youa Vue to a Vacant Building Registration Notice and Fee for property at 1328 Arcade Street. Appellants Chadoua and Youa Vue appeared. Mr. Singerhouse stated that the property had been condemned by Fire and referred to Vacant Buildings on September 18, 2008. Ms. Shaff stated that a complaint had been received on August 13, 2008 for water service shut-off and that orders had been issued the same day. The inspector was not able to gain entry on August 13 or August 22. On August 28 there was still no water service and the property was condemned. She said that according to the inspector's notes, on September 22 water service had been restored and the owners' son had said that Mr. Singerhouse had okayed occupancy, but that the property was still listed as condemned. On September 25, Mr. Singerhouse confirmed with the inspector that he had not had conversations with the property owner regarding reoccupying the property. Mr. Singerhouse stated that the inspector notes were accurate. He said that he had confirmed with the inspector that the property could not be reoccupied without a re-inspection. He said that it had appeared that the property was still occupied at the time it was posted. Ms. Moermond asked what was being appealed. Mr. Vue stated that the tenant had not paid rent in July or August and had given notice that she was moving out. He said they'd done a walk-through of the property between August 17 and August 19 and that the water service was off at that time. He said that the tenant said she'd had water service discontinued because she was moving out and that he'd told her to have the service restored. He said he'd been out of town beginning August 20 and had discovered the vacant building posting when he returned. He said they had not received any notice of the condemnation or vacant building referral. Ms. Moermond asked what other problems there had been at the time of the condemnation. Ms, Shaff read the exterior items on the inspector's report but that the inspector had not been able to gain entry. Mr. Vue stated that there were ten items on the list. Ms. Vue stated that she had called Fire the day affer she discovered that the property had been condemned. She said she had told the inspector that they hadn't received any notice and had asked why the property had been condemned. She said she was told that the property was condemned because the water had been shut off and that if the water bill was paid and water service restored, everything would be okay. Ms. Moermond asked whether an inspector had ever been inside the house. Ms. Shaff said that the interior had not been accessed and that appoinhnent letters had been sent but that the owners had not shown up for the appoinhnents. Ms. Moermond asked approximately how many appointments had been missed. Ms. Shaff responded there were fewer than five. February 3, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes �{�d'�� Page 5 Ms. Vue stated that they had not shown up for the inspection appointments because they'd been toid that if the water was on they were okay. She said that she asked her son to call the inspector and that her son said he'd been told that if the water was on they could take dov✓n the placards and re- rent the property. Ms. Moermond stated that as the property owners were responsible for showing up for inspections. She said that a code compliance inspection was required before the property could be re-rented. Mr. Vue stated that they would have shown up for the inspections if they had received the letter. He said that by the time he knew about the problems, he only had five days to correct the exterior problems. Ms. Moermond stated that the notices had been sent, there had been no returned mail, and that interior access was required. She read the definitions of a vacant building and stated that the property met two of the criteria. She said that the property needed to be a registered vacant building, that the fee had to be paid and that the property had to be inspected. Mr. Vue expressed concerns about the problems his wife had had communicating with the inspector after the initial inspector visit. Ms. Moermond asked why the eazlier orders hadn't been appealed. Ms. Vue stated that they were confused about the communications. Ms. Moermond asked how many properties the appellants owned. Ms Vue responded that they owned 12 properties. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal. 6. Appeal of Chadoua and Youa Vue to a Vacant Building Registration Notice and Fee for property at 946 Forest Street. Appellants Chadoua and Youa Vue appeared. Mr. Singerhouse stated that the property had been condemned on October 15, 2008 and that the Category II vacant building file had been opened October 21. Ms. Moermond asked the reason for the referral. Ms. Cuxnmings stated that it was a single-family home and that the refenal had been the result of nuisance activity with an order to vacate and numerous violations that had not been corrected. Ms. Moermond asked whether the property had been occupied at that time. Ms. Curntnings said that it was. Ms. Moermond asked the appellants why they had waited so long to file the appeal. Mr. Vue stated that they had been trying since July to evict the tenant for nonpayment of rent. He said the tenant had initially submitted falsified rent receipts to the court. Mr. Vue submitted copies of letters he'd received from the court. Ms. Moermond asked how that connected to the vacant building stahxs. Mr. Vue stated that they'd just received a final letter from the judge on December 4, 2008. He said he'd gone out of town on August 20 and had expected that the tenant would move out while he was gone and that he had planned to make repairs when he returned. He said that that the inspector was there on August 27 February 3, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes (j �(� �{� Page 6 and September 30. He said told his wife to call someone and have the repairs done and that his son had corrected some items. The re-inspection had been scheduled for October 15 but that he had received notification from the Fire Marshal that the inspection would not take place and property had been referred to vacant buildings because of nuisance activity. He said that they hadn't known anything about the nuisance activity. The tenant had told him that a neighbor had called the police in July but that she (the tenant) hadn't done anything wrong. He said he'd been awaze of problems with the tenant having several people on the front porch and being loud and that he'd sent her a letter about it on August 12. Ms. Cummings stated that she had a copy of an October 15 letter from Fire Inspector Pat Fish to the appellant asking that the nuisance activity be abated. Ms. Moermond asked whether that was related to the vacant building referral. Ms. Cutnmings said that it was not. Mai Vang brought in a copy of the condemnation report. Ms. Moermond stated that the initial orders had been written on September 30, and that the building was condemned with a vacate and re-inspection date of October 15. She asked whether the principle life-safety issues had been addressed by October 15. Ms. Cummings said that they had not. Ms. Moermond asked whether the building had still been occupied on that date. Mr. Singerhouse stated that it had been occupied and that he'd met the police there and ordered everyone out. Ms. Moermond stated that there were property and tenant problems but that the letter from Pat Fish had been a warning and not related to the vacant building referral. Ms. Vue stated that they were not able to repair the building until the tenant moved out. Mr. Vue stated that they had always cooperated with city inspectors but that he hadn't been home at the time that the inspections and condemnation took place. Ms. Moermond asked whether the appellants wanted to repair the building and have it be reoccupied. Mr. Vue stated that they did, and that there were no major interiar repairs required but that the exteriar work could not be completed until sumuier. He said that they weren't able to pay the mortgage and would like more time to complete the interior work so the property could be rented and generate income. Ms. Vue said that they would make the exterior repairs in the spring. Ms. Moermond asked why there had been a condemnation rather than a revocation of the C of O. Ms. Cummings responded that she didn't recall whether the C of O had been revoked before the condemnation. Ms. Shaff stated that according to STAMP, the C of O had not been revoked. Ms. Cuinmings responded that she probably chose to condemn the property because of the nuisance activity that wasn't taken cue of. Ms. Moermond stated that she would recommend that the vacant building fee be waived for 90 days and that if a11 of the items that were not weather-dependent were completed within that time, the fee would not have to be paid. She said that the temporary support posts in the basement were the only condemnable items. She asked whether DSI could create a timeline for the repairs. Ms. Cuixunings stated that the building was a Category II vacant building and would require a code compliance inspection. Ms. Moermond said that she was going to ask that the Category II designation be changed. She said that if the interior items were completed the property could be rented by March 1. February 3, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes Q�( -- a-Gf �j' page 7 Ms. Cummings stated that temporary supports were structural problems and always led to orders being written. Mr. Vue stated that the basement beams had always been there. Ms. Moermond stated that she would meet with DSI separately about the support beams. She said that she would like the interior items completed right away and that she would provide an aggressive schedule for the exterior items. She said that the property could not be rented until the interior items were completed. She said that a certificate of occupancy with deficiencies could then be issued. On February 24, 2009, Ms. Moermond reviewed the records and recommended granting the appeal on the vacant building registration notice and fee; deny the appeal on the C of O with deficiencies and grant an extension to April 1, 2009 for all of the work to be completed. Appeal of Mercy Miantona to a Vacant Building Registration Notice and Fee for property at 727 Sixth Street East Appellant Mercy Miantona (6426 84` Court N., Brooklyn Park, MN 55445), and Paul Miantona appeared. Mr. Singerhouse stated that a Category II vacant building file had been opened on January 20, 2009 due to a certificate of occupancy revocation. Ms. Shaff stated that a complaint had been received from Xcel Energy on June 28, 2008 for gas and/or electric shut-off. The property was first inspected on June 30 and transferred to the C of O Program on July 11. The inspectar was unable to gain entry on August 4, August 18, and August 26; the interior was inspected on September 12 and correction orders were written. There was no entry again on October 9 and the C of O was revoked on October 10. On October 10, the owner faaced a letter requesting an extension because the repairs exceeded $5,000. Ms. Shaff said that no work was being done but that she gave until the end of the year to give the tenants time to vacate. On December 17, the property owner called and said that all of the work was done. The owner was tagged for noncompliance on January 3, 2009. Ms. Moermond asked whether the property was occupied at that time. Ms. Shaff said that it was. She said that the final letter referring the property to vacant buildings indicated that the work was not all done. She said that the standard compliance time for non-weather-related items was 90 days and that the property owner had been allowed more time than that. Mr. Miantona stated that the only work not done was the deck. He said a contractor had told them that the repairs to the deck would require having the foundation redone. He said that the estimate was at least $30,000 and since they could not afford that, they were letting the property go back to the mortgage company. Ms. Moermond asked the status of the mortgage. Mr. Miantona stated that payments were being made until one or two months ago when the building was condemned and most of the tenants had moved out. February 3, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes ���a��� Page 8 Ms. Moermond asked what was being appealed. Mr. Miantona stated that they were appealing the vacant building fee. Ms. Moermond stated that the vacant building fee was attached to the property and would be assessed to the mortgage company; therefore, she recommended denying the appeal.