Loading...
09-624Council File # v — a Green Sheet# 3070860 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 14 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 GITY Presented by RESOLUTION 41�IT PAUL, MINNESOTA /� BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves ttte Apri121, 2009 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals on Letters of Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency Lists and Vacant Building Registration Notices and Fees for the following addresses: Proaertv Appealed 581 Hatch and 588 Hatch Avenue Appellant Thomas Rooney Decision: Grant a variance on the sleeping room egress wzndow in the second bedroom in basemem Unit 1 and deny the appeal on all egress windows with a 15 inch width for property at 581 Hatch Avenue. Grant variances on the sleeping room egress windows in all of the units for 588 Hatch Avenue. 1051 Suburban Avenue Robert Jansen olblo L. Meat Decision: Grant a 5 inch variance on the sleeping room egress windows in Units 4 thru 11 and deny the variance on the egress windows in Units 1 thru 3. 484 Van Buzen Street Tim Wollen Decision: Deny the variance for the egress window and granting an e�ctension for 90 days to bring into compliance. Grant the sill height if the window well if fixed to meet the minimum code requirement. 594 Chazles Avenue Tammy Davis Decision: Grant a 4 inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the master bedroom and child's bedroom. 1444 Sherburne Avenue Thu Pham Decision: Grant a 3 inch variance on the ceiling height on the second floor, and a L2 square foot variance on the glazed area of the egress �vindow in the second floar sleeping room. 1291 Idaho Avenue West Erick Flyckt & Cazol Finneran Decision: Grant a 4 inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in both first floor bedrooms, and a 5 inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the second floor bedroom. 758 Victoria Street North Tom Gallagher, Dadders Estates LLC. Decisions: Crrant a 3 inch variance on the openable height of the sleeping room egress windows in all units. �- �,�� 42 1497 Mareatet Street Floyd & Badri Johnson 43 44 Decision: Grant a 2 inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in both sleeping rooms. 45 46 1579 Sloan Street Vang Xue Yang 47 48 Decision: Deny the appeal. 49 50 400 Sates Avenue Gary Rosenbaum 51 52 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension to June 1, 2009 or the property must be vacated. 53 54 1440 Arcade Street Dave Benshoof 55 56 Decision: Deny the appeal and granring an extension to July 1, 2009 for all items except Item #3. �7 Requested by Depamnent oE Adopfion Certified �by Council Secretary BY: / / .� � 3 Approve y ay r �ate By: � Form Approved by City Attorney By: Form Approved by Mayor foi Submission to Council Bp: Approved by the Office of Financial Services By: .....,r..,., ,, y .� ........... ..u.., � � v� a T � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � a9-�a� DepartmenUOffice/Council: Date Initiated: CO—Council 2$_�,Y-09 Green Sheet NO: 3070860 Contact Person & Phone: Deoar6nent Sent To Person InRiaUDate Marcia Moertnond o onnc;t 0 6-$$7Q 1 ooncil De artment D'uector ��9^ 2 ' Cleck Q' Clerk Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Num6er 3 � For 4 C � Routi�g Doc.Type:RESOLUTION Order 5 � E-DOCUment Required: Y Document Contact: Mai Vang Conpct PM1one: 6-8563 Totai # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Resolution approving the Apri121, 2009 decisions of the Legislative Hearing O�cer on Appeals of Letters of Deficiency Lists and Vacant Building Registxation Notices and Fees for properties at 1440 Arcade St, 581/SS8 Hatch Ave, 1051 Suburban Ave, 984 Van Buren Ave, 594 Charles Ave, 1444 Sherbume Ave, 1291 Idaho Ave W, 758 Victoria St N, 1497 Mazgazet St, 400 Bates Ave, and 1579 Sloan St. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Rejec[ (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission t, Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this depaRmentl 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 curcent city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Probiem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of Trensaction: CosURevenue Budgeted: Funding Source: Activiry Number: Financial lnformation: (Explain) May 28, 2009 1:42 PM Page 1 �,�va� MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON LETTER5 OF DEFIC]ENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES AND CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, Apri121, 2009 Room 330 City Ha11, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West The hearing was called to order at 135 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Leanna Shaff, Department of Safety and Inspections (DSn — Fire Prevention; Peggy Schlichte, DSI — Fire Prevention; Joe Yannarelly, DSI — Code Enforcement; and Mai Vang, City Council Offices 2. Appeal of Thomas Rooney to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 581 Hatch and 588 Hatch Avenue. (Continued from Apri17) Appellant Thomas Rooney appeared. 581 Hatch: Mr. Rooney stated that he had met with Inspector Martin and had been able to re- measure some of the windows but had not been able to access all units. He said that the slider windows measured 15 inches wide by 46 inches high and that he had a price and a contractor for putting in casement windows. He said that two window wells would have to be altered but that there were no sill height isues at 581. He stated that they would need time and formal approval to complete the work. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal on a11 egress windows with a 15 inch width; however the City Council was conducting a review of egress window enforcement. She recommended that Mr. Rooney wait to proceed with the window replacement until after the Council had made a decision. 588 Hatch: Mr. Rooney stated that he and Inspector Martin had been able to access some of the units to re-measure the windows, and that the egress window openable dimensions were 33 inches high by 21 inches wide in Units 2 and 3; 46 inches high by 22 inches wide in Unit 1; and 33 inches high by 22 inches wide in Unit 4. He said there were sill height issues in three units in the basement and that said he would build and install steps to address sill height in the two apartments where the steps had been removed. Ms. Moermond stated that the windows at 588 Hatch were acceptable. 3. Appeal of Robert 7ansen, on behalf of L. Meat, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1051 Suburban Avenue. (original hearing scheduled for Apri17; improper notification was sent to appellant and hearing was rescheduled) Appellant Robert Jansen appeared and provided photographs. Mr. Jansen stated that the building had been built in 1960 and that the windows had been upgraded at some point. He said he measured the windows that day and the dimensions were 20 by 28 inches. He said that ai1 of the windows were easily removable and that the tenants were trained to reinove them. He said that he felt that crank-out windows presented other safety concerns. April 21, 2009 Properry Code Hearing Minutes �,(�j � l� Page 2 Ms. Moermond stated that she would not recommend a variance on the windows with a 15 inch openable height (LJnits 1- 3) but that she would recommend that the council grant a 5 inch variance on the openable height of the sleeping room egress windows in Units 4-11. She said that the Council was conducting a review of egress window enforcement and that Mr. Jansen could appeaz before the Council if he wanted the decision on Units 1— 3 to be reconsidered. 4. Appeal of Tim Wollen to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for properiy at 984 Van Buren Avenue. Appellant Tim Wollen (1540 Goose Lake Road, Gem Lake 55110) appeared. Ms. Moermond refened to the inspector's report and stated she would recommend that the council grant a 5 inch variance on the openable height of the sleeping room egress windows in all uniCS. Ms. Moermond asked for a clarification of window well requirements. Ms. Shaff stated that the window well space needed to be adequate to allow a fire fighter to access the room, and that the existing 21 inches was not adequate. Mr. VJollen stated that there was a second window without a window well but that that window had not been measured. Ms. Shaff stated that the inspectors typically measured the window they felt most closely met egress requirements. Ms. Moermond asked whether Mr. Wollen had provided measurements or photographs. Mr. Wollen said that he had not. Ms. Shaff asked whether the sill height for both windows was the same. Mr. Wollen said the siil height was the same but that there was an exterior grade change between the two windows. Ms. Moermond asked Mai Vang to contact Inspector Urmann to request that the second window be measured. She said that she would make a decision on the window wells after receiving the window measurement for the second window, and that she would recommend an extension until June 15 for all otheT items. On May 1, 2009, Inspector Urmann indicated that he had measured at 16'h inches of openable height and 34 inches of openable width. Ms. Moermond reviewed his information and recommended denying the variance far the egress window and granting an extension for 90 days to come into compliance. She recommended granting a variance for the siil height if the window we11 was fixed to meet the minimum code requirement. 6. Appeal of Tammy Davis to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List far property at 594 Charles Avenue. Appellant Taminy Davis appeared. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Ms. Davis that the windows were the only items being appealed. Ms. Moermond referred to the inspectors report and stated that she would recommend granting a 4 inch vaziance on the openable height of the egress windows in the master bedroom and child's bedroom. April 21, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes �� � a1.� Page 3 7. Appeal of Thu Pham to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1444 Sherburne Avenue. Appellant Thu Pham {1970 Dayton Avenue) appeared. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She said that Inspector Imberston had conducted an inspection far the Fire Certificate of Occupancy on March 30 and reported that ceiling height over the entire second floor room was 6 feet 9 inches, and that the egress windows measured 31 inches high by 21 inches wide and did not meet the glazed azea requirement. Ms. Moermond stated that she would recommend a variance on the window size. She said that the ceiling height was close to the required 7 feet over half of the area. Ms. Pham stated that they had purchased the house in 2000 as a three-bedroom and that the property had been on the taac records as a three-bedroom home. She said that Section 8 had notified them that the renters would need to be evicted if the house could not be rented as a three-bedroom. She said that they had rented the house as a three-bedroom for years and that it had always passed inspections in the past. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 3 inch variance on the ceiling height on the second floor, and a L2 square foot variance on the glazed azea of the egress window in the second floor sleeping room. 8. Appeal of Erick Flyckt and Carol Finneran to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1291 Idaho Avenue West. Appellant Erick Flyckt (396 Pineview N., Hudson, WI 54Q16) appeared. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Mr. Flyckt that the windows were the only items being appealed. Ms. Moermond referred to the inspector's report and recommended granting a 4 inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in both first floar bedroams; and a 5 inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the second floor bedroom. 9. Appeal of Tom Gallagher, Dadders Estates LLC, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 758 Victoria Street North. Appellant Tom Gallagher (461 Maryland Avenue W, #203, St. Pau155117) appeared. Ma Moermond confirmed with Mr. Gallagher that the windows were the only items being appealed. Mr. Gallagher said that his building was in better condition than many others in the area and that citing the peeling paint on the window frames seemed "nitpicky." Ms. Moermond referred to the inspector's report and recommended granting a 3 inch variance on the openable height of the sleeping room egress windows in all units. Apri121, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes v � ��� L y Page 4 10. Appeal of Floyd and Badri Joimson to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1497 Mar�azet Street. Appellant Floyd Johnson (1726 E. Iowa Avenue, St. Paul 55106) appeared. Ms. Moermond confimied with Mr. Johnson that the windows were the only items being appealed. Ms. Moermond refened to the inspector's report which listed openable dimensions of 22 inches high by 29 inches wide for the egress windows in both sleeping rooms. She recommended granting a 2 inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the sleeping rooms. 12. Appeal of Vang Xue Yang to a Vacant Building Registration Notice and Fee for property at 1579 Sioan Street. Appellant Vang Xue Yang (2192 Mohawk Road, N. St. Pau155109) appeared. Mr. Yannarelly gave a staff report. He said that the property was sent over by Certificate of Occupancy with a Category 2 recommendation. Inspector Girling had spoken with the property owner who had confirmed the vacant status and said that the property was going back to the bank. Mr. Yannarelly said that the C of O revocation letter listed numerous deficiencies. Mr. Yang stated that he could not afford to pay the $1 Q00 vacant building fee because his job was not steady and that his wife did not have a job. He said his wife had just had a baby and the hospital bills were $84,500. He said that he wasn't collecting rent from the property and couldn't afford to pay for the mortgage or for the water or garbage service, and that he was leaving the property to be foreclosed. He said he was siruggiing to support his family. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Yang whether he was making payments. Mr. Yang said that he was not. Mr. Yannarelly stated that the fee would be assessed to the property taxes. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Yang what he was looking for in the appeal. Mr. Yang said that he couldn't pay the fee and didn't Irnow what to do. Ms. Moermond explained that if the $1000 vacant building fee were not paid it would be assessed to the property taxes and would stay with the property. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal. 1 l. Appeal of Gary Rosenbaum to a Vacant Building Registration Notice and Fee for property aY 400 Bates Avenue. (continued from February 17) Appellant Gary Rosenbaum appeared. He stated that the code compliance inspection had been conducted on April 15 but that he hadn't received the report yet. He said that the building was being used as a single family home and was being ta�ed as a single family home. He said he hadn't pulled any permits because he'd been waiting for the report. Mr. Yannazeliy stated that the report was completed and was available. Ms. Moermond and Mr. Yannarelly reviewed the inspection report. Mr. Yannarelly stated that the house had been inspected as a single-family home. Mr. Rosenbaum presented a document listing Apri121, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes (�� -{j1 �/ Page 5 the house as a duplex. Mr. Yannarelly said that it appeared to be a typo. Ms. Moermond asked whether the error affected the inspection findings. Mr. Yannarelly said that it did not. Ms. Moermond asked whether Mr. Rosenbaum had a work plan or $5000 for the performance bond. Mr. Rosenbaum stated that all of his money was in the house. He said he paid cash for the house but was not able to bosow money against it because he could not insure it. He said he had $120,000 in the house and was living in it, but had no money and no job. Mr. Yannarelly said that Mr. Rosenbaum was not supposed to be living in the house because it was a Category 2 registered vacant building. Mr. Rosenbaum said that he had no other place to live and that he had been working on the house as much as he could. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Rosenbaum whether he had contacted either of the attorneys to whom he had been referred. Mr. Rosenbaum stated that he had called four times and waited on hold for 15 minutes each time and had not reached anyone but had left a message. Ms. Moermond stated that it was important that he contact someone and that DSI could start issuing criminal citations for occupying the house. Mr. Rosenbaum said that the house was very livable and just needed beautifying, and that it had been a ghetto house and he was trying to make it back into a rriae singla-family home. He said he'd done a lot of work on it but couldn't wark any faster then he was and couldn't afford to hire contractors. He said that the realtor had given him a paper saying that he could live in half of the house while he worked on it. Ms. Moermond asked who the realtor was. Mr. Rosenbaum said that the realtor was Edina Realty on Grand Avenue and the seller was Deutsche Bank. He said that he was never led to believe that he couldn't work on the house, but that when he'd tried to apply for permits he'd been told that he needed to use licensed contractors. He said that he could not have bought the house and hired contractors, and that he felt the house was livable. Mr. Yannarelly stated that DSPs position was that Mr. Rosenbatun could not be living in the house. Ms. Moermond stated that it was important that Mr. Rosenbaum take the time to contact an attorney. She clarified that she had referred Mr. Rosenbaum to an attorney so that he could initiate action against Deutsche Bank for misrepresenting the condition of the house. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Rosenbaum when he had purchased the property. Mr. Rosenbaum said that he had purchased it in May 2008. Ms. Moermond confirmed that the vacant building file had been opened in February of 2007. Ms. Moetmond said that she would lay the matter over for another month and continue to hold the fee in abeyance. Mr. Yannarelly stated that the fee had already gone to assessment. Ms. Moermond stated that when the assessment went before the council for ratification she would recommend that it be spread over five years. Ms. Moermond stated that the house had been sold to Mr. Rosenbaum without a ciear representation of what the vacant building situation was. Mr. Yannarelly stated that there did not appear to be a Truth in Sale of Housing (TISH) report. Apri121, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes ��(� a� Page 6 Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Rosenbaum the ages of his children and whether they lived with him. He said they were 11 and 13 and Iived with him part time. He said that his girlfriend lived in the house as well. Ms. Moermond said that It appeared the property was being well-maintained. Mr. Rosenbaum said that he mowed the lawn and shoveled the walk and cared for the property, but that all of the adjacent houses had been torn down due to toxic waste from a dry cleaning business and that a huge dust pile had been left. Ms. 3haff stated that the "Catch 22" was that Mr. Rosenbaum could not live in the house because of the vacant building status, but, according to the code, could not do the work on the property himself unless he was occupying it. Ms. Moermond asked which of the items on the code compliance inspection report were considered critical. Ms. Shaff stated that the unbonded electrical was a huge issue. She said that only licensed contractors or remodelers should be working on the house. She also listed the items addressing framing members, smoke detectors and cazbon monoxide detectors, supports for the gas line, outlet polarity and grounding, water heater temperature and pressure regulation, and sewer piping. Ms. Shaff asked whether the furnace had been inspected. Mr. Rosenbaum said that it hadn't but that the furnace had worked fine all winter and that he had a carbon mouoxide detector next to it. Ms. Shaff stated that there were some huge issues on the code compliance list. Ms. Moermond stated that Mr. Rosenbaum needed safe housing and an attorney. She sa3d that the house was not safe to live in. Mr. Rosenbaum said that he felt the house was close to being good compared to what it had been. Ms. Shaff stated that some of the work being done was not being done to code and that continuing could be counter-productive. He said that there was a code compliance inspection dated February 2008 that may have been used as the disclosure document. Ms. Moermond asked whether the building had been inspected as a duplex at that time. Mr. Yannarelly said that it had. Mr. Yannarelly asked Mr. Rosenbaum whether he had de-converted the property. Mr. Rosenbaum responded that he had. Ms. Moermond stated that she wanted time to get input from Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services, Jim Seeger, Planning and Economic Development, and Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services. Ms. Shaff asked Mr. Rosenbaum whether he had known it was a vacant building when he bought it. Mr. Rosenbaum said he had. Mr. Yannarelly asked whether he had seen the February 2008 code compliance report. Mr. Rosenbaum said that he had but that he also had a paper stating that he could work on the half he was living in. Ms. Moermond stated that this document would be important to have. Mr. Yannarelly said that the fact that Mr. Rosenbaum had de-converted the building changed the situarion. Apri121, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes �� t Page 7 �� Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal with a vacate date of June 1 and would initiate conversations with the various deparhnents and agencies in the meantime. April Z1, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes ��j,-� t� Page 8 It�. �,� I. Appeal of David Benshoof to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1440 Arcade Street. Appellant David Benshoof (2398 South Shore Boulevard, White Bear Lake 55ll 0) appeared. Ms. Schlichte gave a staff report and addressed the items being appealed. She said that zoning needed to be notified with any change in occupancy but that a zoning change might not be required. She said that thzre were two azeas per the NFPA 13 (the Narional Fire Protection Association's Standazd for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems) that were missing sprinkler heads and that she had confirmed those with the sprinkler inspector. She said that the fact that those azeas had been missed in the past did not make them correct now. She said that the peeling paint had been cited because Fire inspected for property maintenance as well as for safety. Ms. Moermond asked for a clarification of Items 1 and 2 and the expected sprinkler coverage. Ms. Shlichte said that Item 1 required that the area in front of the disconnect be cleared, and that Item 2 addressed missing sprinkler coverage in the stairwell and bathroom. She said that she had consulted the sprinkler inspector, and provided a diagram. Mr. Benshoof stated that he had built the building and owned it for 22 years and had put in the sprinkler system of his own accord. He said that the building had not changed but that he spent $1,000 to $2,000 coming into compliance each time the building was inspected. He said that there was a little bit o£peeling paint from the recent snaw but that the building was otherwise very well- maintained and was the one of the nicest buildings on the East Side. He said that he'd never had to check with zoning in the past when there had been changes in tenants. He said he'd reduced his rents in response to Yhe economic situation but his taxes had increased and that he didn't understand the problem with hauing the new business in the building. He said that the shelving unit had been in front of the disconnect for years and that every year there was a new list of deficiencies, Ms. Moermond asked what Mr. Benshoof was looking for. Mr. Benshoof stated that he had no problem with the list except that he didn't see the problem with the new tenant, and he did not want to put more sprinklers in. He said that the exterior would get touched up. Ms. Shaff reiterated Ms. Shlichte's statements about why those items had been called out. Mr. Benshoof asked whether there would be more sprinkler heads required next year. He said there was a new list every yeaz. Ms. Moermond asked whether the building was required to have a sprinkler system. Ms. Shaff stated that the existing system needed to be maintained and could not be removed. She said that she did not know whether it was a requirement. Ms. Moermond asked for that information. Ms. Moermond stated that she would recommend that the council deny the appeal and grant an extension unfil the beginning of June for all items. She said that Mai Vang would collect the information on sprinkler requirements and from zoning and send a letter to Mr. Benshoof. She said that the new usage could continue pending the decision from zoning and that she would assume that the painting touah-up would be done.