Loading...
10-169Council File # ��r/� � Green Sheet # 3098557 RESOLUTION 41N�P�AUL, MINNESOTA Presented by //� 1 SE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul, based on a review of the legislative 2 heazing record and testimony heard at public hearing on February 3, 2010 hereby memorializes its decision 3 to certify and approve the January 12, 2010 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for the following 4 address: 5 6 ADDRESS APELLANT 7 8 508 Fry Street James Daly 9 10 Decision: Appeal denied. Carter Bostrom Stazk Thune Adopted by Council: Date Yeas � Nays � Absent N Requested by Deparhnent of: � � � Adoption Certified by Council Secretary BY� ./ / //9!Iil//_��c�Y/h Approved ay �. ate �?J-�/Zp i c7 BY� � .�._/�_�_�s � Form Approved by City Attorney By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � 00-1(��l Departmentl�celCouncil: Date Initiated: co -°oanoi 10 FE82010 Green Sheet NO: 3098557 ContaM Person & Phone: DeoaRment Sent To Person InitiallDate Marcia Moermond o oonc;� 0 S$�J7� 1 ouncrl De ariment Dic¢cfor Assign 2 ' Clerk C5 Clerk Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 3 � Routing 4 0 Doc. Type: RESOLUTION Order 5 0 E•DOCUment Required: Y DocumentConWCt: MaiVang ConWct Phone: 6-8563 7oW1 # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Resolution memorializing City Council action taken Febmary 3, 2010 denying the appeal for property at 508 Fry Street. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? 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 current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers an sep8rate sheet and attach to green sheeL Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportuniry (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Approved: Disadvanqges If Not Approved: ToWI Amount of Transaction: Cost/Revenue Budgeted: Funding Source- Activity Number: Financial Infortnation: (F�cplain) February 10, 2010 12:05 PM Page 1 i ` � � ��mium a „��� e � January 8, 2010 James Daly 10550 Dale Road St. Paul, MN 55129 RE: 508 Fry St Dear Mr. Daly: CITY OF SAINT PAUL CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Your application for an appeal has been received and processed. JD�i �� Please attend the public hearing before the Legislative Hearing Officer on Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 11:30 a.m. in Room 330 City Hall and Courtnouse to consider your appeal concerning the above referenced property. Atthattimethe Legislative Hearing O�cerwiil hear all parties relative to this action. Failure to appear at the hearing may result in denial of your appeal. Sinc�rely, ����r 1���;� Shari Moore City Clerk cc: Mike Urman�, DS4 (Fire) Leanna Shaff, DSI (Fire) Phil Owens, DSI (Fire) Marcia Moermond, Legisiative Hearing Officer Jerry Hendrickson, Deputy City Attorney 15 4VEST KELLOGG BOULEVARD, SUITE 310 S.AINT PALR, MINNESOTA55102 Tel: 651-266-8688 FaY: 651-266-5574 wwwstpaul.gw M Affirma4ve Action Equal Opportuniry Employer /a-i(�� ���F�v�� :_,:�_� =r: � ;, � ���i�t� APPLICATION FOR APl'EAL � S aint Paui City Clerk 15 W. geIIogg BIvd., 310 City Hall S aint Paul, Minnesota 55102 'Felepuone: (6�1) 266-8688 JAN 0 � 201Q �{!�" i:���� 1. AddFess of Properry being Appeaied: 2. Number of pwelli�g Units: 3. Date of Leuer Appeal �� r��, I t 5 `�-�� l> -d� , 4. Nazne of Owner. �"-=� Address: �!'�`.���_��61-� 1 City: � �4`1- ( State: Phone Numbers: Business S�' ��� �� a�� � �' Residence S�g:_:_ _ - i 5. Appellanf /' "earif (if Qther than own8r): . Address: City: Phone Nu�bers: Business Residence �ignature: r/�-v� Cellular �ellulaz b State specifically �v�a# is being agpealed' and why (LTse an attachment if necessary): �y� G I ��, -�/'G c-� 5 L-� �z �� d� �Ar f-� ,! � r,Y'C:. ! NOTE: A$25.00 filing tee made payable To the City o# Saint Paul must accompany dris application as a necessary condition for fiIing. You must attach a copy of the oraginal orders and any other correspondence re3ative to this appeal. Any persoa� unsatisfied by the final decision Qf the City Council may obtain judicial review by timely filing of an actioa as provided by law in Districi Court. ��� 3�- cfij 6 ' For O�hce Use Only ` Daze Received: Fee Received: Raceipt Nnmber: Date of Heari�g: ��5��1 ��P�' ���C����I�'��f dec.16. 2009 2:48PM OWATONNA CLINIC 26TH CTI`Y" OF SAINr PAUL Chrisiophcr e. Cole�nan. Mayor December 15, 2009 JQS�PH R SANDHOFER 5159 NW 46T$ ST O'WATONIVA NIN SSQ60-5681 RE: REFERRAL WITFIDUT 1NSPECTION 508 FR�Y ST Re£ # Dear Property Representative: DEPARTMENTO�SAFETNO. ��O9fSPBP. 2�2 Fire Tnspecfion Division Robert Kesster, Dfredar �� / � � 375lackranEYreaLSuite220 Tel¢phnne�b3/-26G-8989 Sav�lPaul,MN55101-[806 Far 651-266-895t �� ` ��Q� � � V � A referral has been made to our office regazding code deficiencies that aie reported to exist in your building oY on the premises. An inspection has not been conducted by the Fzze Prevention Division_ If these deficiencies do in fact eacist, you aze heTeby notified that the following deficiencias xnust be corrected immediately. An inspecfion will be made on or after January 13, 2010. DEFICIENCY LIST 1. unit 8- SPLC 34.14 (2), 34.34 (5) - Provide an approved eleotrical service adequate to meet the buildings needs. Thzs wozk may require a permit(s), call DSI at (651) 266-9090. 2, unit 8- SPLC 33.05 - Uncertified portions of the buzlding must not be occupied until inspected and ap�roved by this office. 3. unit 8- SPLC 34.23, MSFC 110.1- This occupancy is condemned as unfit £or human habitation. This occupancy must not be used until ze-inspected and approved by ttus office. For an explanarion or in£ormation an some of the violations contained in this report, please visit our web page at: http://cwww•ci.stpaul.mn.uslindex.aspx?NID= You have the right to appeal these ordezs to the Legislative Hearing O�cer. Applications for appeals may be obtained at the Office of the City C1erk, 310 City Hail, City/County Courthouse, 15 W Kellogg Blvd, Saint Paul MN 55102 Phone: (651-266-8688) and must be filed witYain 10 da�s of the date of the original orders. If you have any questions, email me at: jim..pzill@�i.stpaul.mn.us or call me at 651-266-8993 between 7:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Please help to make Saint Paul a safer place in which to live and work. Sincerely, 7im Pnll Fire Inspeotor Ref. # January 12, 2010 Legslative Hearing Minutes Jb -�(p � Page 7 � 8. Appeal of James Daly to a Certificate of Occupancy Condemnation for property at 508 Fry Street. James Daly, appellant, appeared. Leanna Shaff, DSI - Fire, appeared on behalf of the department. Ms. Shaff clarified that the actual C of O address was 500 Fry Street which was a 15-unit building. They received a refenal from Xcel Energy that the utilities had been shut off in unit 8. When they receive this type of notification from Xcel, they typically send a letter without an inspection to allow rime for the owner or tenant to restore the urilities. It was her understanding that the urilities had not been restared. According to the appellant, he claims that he was between tenants and the utilities had been shut off at his request, which was his common practice. Fire disagreed with allowing the utilities to be shut off and issued orders condemning the unit. She said this building and owner had a long history of non-compliance at this property and other properties he owned. She requested that before the unit can be re-occupied, it have a fixll inspection. Mr. Daly responded that he had been dealing with Fire C of O for many years and the condemnation letter had not been sent to him which he could not understand since Fire had his contact information. He explained that Joseph Sandhofer, the name listed on the orders, was deceased and the estate of Mr. Sandhofer now owns the property. He had purchased the property on a contract for deed and was making payments to the estate. He said he didn't want to pay Xcel when he was between tenants as Xcel sometimes had a difficult time changing the name on an account to a new tenant. He also did not want to be billed by Xcel as the responsible party for services when a unit was vacant. He said he could not find any law which required him to maintain electric service between occupants and didn't understand why Xcel would contact Fire for a utility shut off. He said he would be happy to have the unit inspected; however, he vehemently disagreed that the unit should have been condemned for a utility shut off. Ms. Shaff stated that she now understood that the property was purchased on a contract for deed; however, it was ancumbent upon the purchaser to update their contact information with Ramsey County Taa�ation. Since there were multiple addresses, she said the department could assist in cross-referencing addresses when a complaint was received. She said that at one of Mr. Daly's other properties which he owns, he had electrical issues which he attempted to repair himself without a permit. If this unit continues to remain unoccupied, she again said that the department would like to inspect the unit priar to re-occupancy. It was her experience with this property that there was difficulty in bringing the property into code compliance and taking an exceptional amount of time to do so. Mr. Daly said that in the past 10 or so years, he had approximately 8 or 9 different inspectors and found it difficult having continuity in a relationship with an inspector. If he had the same inspector, they would have his phone number and correct address to mail orders. Ms. Shaff asked Mr. Daly when he received the letter. Mr. Daly responded that he received it on December 28, after it had been passed on by four different individuals. He said again that he didn't understand why Xcel would contact Fire regarding the utility shut off at this unit. Ms. Moermond responded that this was standard procedure by Xcel and generally they allowed for approximately 30 days prior to notifying the city of a utility shut off at a property. She said it appeared from the property records that the utilities had been shut off at all units in July 2009. January 12, 2010 Legislative Hearing Minutes /����� Page 8 l Mr. Daly responded that he had a tremendous number of vacancies and the utiliries were shut off. Ms. Moermond asked if all of the units were vacant. Mr. Daly responded that nearly all units were vacant except for maybe five and he worked to have the utilities restored to those units. Ms. Shaff stated that when the utilities were shut off, Mr. Daly admitted by-passing meters from one to another in order to restore part of the power. She said there were huge concerns with doing this. Mr. Daly admitted that he had run a power cord from one unit that had power to a water heater until he could resolve his issues with Xcel. Ms. Moermond clarified that the power had been shut off and it was not due to un-occupancy of the units. Mr. Daly responded that this was correct. Ms. Moermond stated that she was looking at Ramsey County property tax records and she found that Mr. Daly was listed as the owner for 500 Fry; however, in looking at 508 Fry, 7oseph Sandhofer was listed as the owner and he was only listed as the tax owner; there was no C of O responsible party listed as there usually would be which was likely why he did not receive the notification. Ms. Shaff stated that when there are multiple addresses for a single property, it was difficult to discern ownership through Ramsey County tas records. She believed Ramsey County needed to merge all of the various addresses for this property into one address. Ms. Moermond asked whether this building was due for a C of O inspection. Ms. Shaff responded that an inspection was due at the end of May 2010. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Daly how long he owned the property. Mr. Daly responded that he purchased the property in 1999. He said he wanted the order amended on the condemnation that he not be required to have a permit before the electrical could be restored. He again said he was not opposed to having the unit inspected. Ms. Moermond stated that electrical service was required before a unit could be re-occupied. She did not read the order to say that a permit was required before electrical service was restored, it only said that "it may" require a permit. She recommended denying the appeal and ardered that the property must be inspected prior to re-occupation of the unit.