Loading...
09-975Council File # �-9?� Green Sheet # 3077756 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Presented by SE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the August 11, 2009 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeal to a Vacant Building Registration Notice and Fee for the following addresses: Pronertv Appealed 1314 Sherburne Avenue Decision: Grant the appeal. Anpellant Shalonda Glass Requested by Departrnent of: � Form Approved by City Attorney By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Counci] By: Approved by the Office of Financial Services � RESOLUTION �q Adoption Certified by Council ecretary By: r . Approve y a r: . ate /•f By: � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � � �1-9�5 : DepartmenflOffice/Council: ; Date Initiated: : _ _ - - � �o - �u���� --- - -- - - ����� ;- -6t-eerr S hEet-Nf�:=-367��5�—__— -- ! Contact Person & Phone: ' Marcia Moertnond I � Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): � i Doc. Type; �SQLUTION ! E-Document Required: Y I Document Contact: i ConWCtPhone: ToWI # of Signature Pages � Assign Number For Routing � Order � i i (Clip Ail Locations for Signature) 0 Govncil 1 Couucil : DepartmentDirector : 2 City Clerk �ry Cierk 3 I 4 5 I� Resolution approving the decision of ffie Legislative Aeazing Officer to an Appeal of a Vacant Building Regisiration Notice and Fee for property at 1314 Sherburne Avenue. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Planning Commtssion CIB Committee Crvil Service Commission Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following questions: 1. Has this persoNfirm ever worked under a contract for this departmenY� Yes No 2. Has lhis person�rm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this personlfirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current ciry employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): AdvanWges IfApproved: DisadvantageslfApproved: Disadvantages if Not Approved: Total Amount of Transaction: Funding Source: Financial information: (Explain) CosflRevenue Budgeted: Activity Number: August 27, 2009 9:03 AM Page 1 August 11, 2009 Property Code Minutes 61.� . Gf �-Tj Page 7 15. Appeal of Shalonda Glass to a Vacant Building Registration Norice and Fee for property at 1314 Si�erburne Avenue. Appellant Shalonda Glass (8856 Spring Lane, Woodbury 55125) appeazed. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She said there was a Fire C of O non-compliance history from December 16, 2008. She said the properiy owner had been tagged twice and had been to court. Ms. Moermond asked what the tags had been for. Ms. 5haff said the violations included egress window violations, no smoke detector affidavit, no C of O, and other issues related to not taking care of the building. Ms. Moermond reviewed the property records. She asked whether there had been any conditions on the dispositions. Ms. Glass said the condition was that she obtain the C of O, but that she wasn't able to because the property was a registered vacant building. Ms. Shaff noted that another condition was no same or similars for a year. Ms. Shaff suuunarized the inspector's notes beginning with December 16, 2008. Ms. Moermond noted that there had been approximately four months between the initial inspection and the court appearance. Ms. Shaff said the primary issue was the egress window. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Glass about the window. Ms. Glass said that a contractor had initially installed the window incorrectly, then had consulted with Inspector Imbertson and installed the window correctly but not under permit. She said the building inspector had eventually signed off on it. She said that all of the deficiencies had been corrected for the C of O but the permit had not been finalled until after the house had gone to vacant buildings. Ms. Shaff read addirional inspector's notes extending into June 2009. The report dated June 8 said that the building inspector had been unable to approve the window as installed. Ms. Moermond asked when the C of O had been revoked. Ms. Shaff said it had been revoked on April 2, 2009. Ms. Moermond asked what the vacate date had been. Ms. Shaff said that wasn't clear. She said it appeared that Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services (SMRLS) had been involved at one point. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Shaff to try to access a copy of the letter with the vacate date. Ms. Glass said she had to evict the tenants A they hadn't been paying rent and were no longer supposed to be living there. Ms. Moermond asked whether SMRLS had been representing Ms. Glass or the tenants. Ms. Glass said that SMRLS had been representing the tenants. Ms. Moermond asked how long the tenants had been living tl�ere. Ms. Glass said they had been there since October. Ms. Mcermond said that normally with a revoked C of O, the City would require a Certificate of Code Compliance inspection. She confirmed with Ms. Shaff that that was what the department was looking for. August 11, 2009 Property Code Minutes b� � y'� '�j_ Page 8 Ms. Shaff said that the property had been posted on Mazch 16 with a vacate date of April 2. She said the date was revised to Apri12 i and extended to May 4, June 1 and 7nne 8. Ms. Moermond asked when the tenants had finally moved out Ms. Shaff referred to the inspector's notes and said the tenants had vacated by June 10. Ms. Glass said they were supposed to have been out in May. Ms. Shaff asked whether copies of the eviction papers had been provided to the inspector. Ms. Glass said they had not. Ms. Moermond asked whether there had been a code compliance inspection yet. Ms. Glass said she was appealing that requirement. She said the work was done and had been approved by the building inspector. Ms. Moermond said she wanted to look into the situation further and her decision was forthcoming. On August 26, 2009, Ms. Moermond reviewed the records and discovered that the permit for the installation of the window had been approved by the deparhnent on 7une 15. Therefore, Ms. Moermond recommended granting the appeal.