Loading...
10-170Council File # ��/�U Green Sheet# 3098559 Presented by BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul, based on a review of the legislative hearing record and testimony heard at public hearing on Februazy 3, 2010 hereby memorializes its decision to certify and approve the January 5, 2010 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for the following address: l� 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ADDRESS 771 Fuller Avenue Decision: Appeal denied. APELLANT Reverand Sylvester Davis Carter Requested by Department oE � Stark Thune Adopted by Council: Date RESOLUTION CITY OF Slj,If�T PAUL, MINNESOTA � Adoption Certified by Cou il Secretary By: � Approved by te ZO� c� By: Form Approved by City Attorney By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council sy: � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � ������ DepartmenVOffice/Council: Date Inkiated: co -°o°^°�� 10 FEB 2010 Green Sheet NO: 3098559 Contact Person & Phone: Department SentTOPerson InkiallDate Marcia Moermond � o onnca � 6857D 1 ounci] De artmeniDirector A55ign Z ' Clerk Lti Clerk Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 3 0 Fo. , o Routing Doc.Type:RE50LUTION Order 5 0 E-Document Required: Y DocumentConWCt: MaiVang ConWct Phone: 6-8563 Totai # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Resolution memoria7izing City Council action taken February 3, 2010 denying the appeal for property at 771 Fuller Avenue. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contrects Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this personlfirm everworked under a contract for ihis department? CIB Commiltee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/5rm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current Gity employee? Yes No F�cplain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: DisadvanWges If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of Trensaction: CosVRevenue Budgeted: Funding Source: Activity Number: Financial Information: (6cplain) February 10, 2010 12:08 PM Page 1 6 Cli9 Of � �i ���u����o � 5 0 i m 1� E December 18, 2009 Rev Sylvester Davis 507 N Dale St St. Paul, MN 55103 RE: 771 Fuller Dear Rev Syfvester Davis : CITY OF SAINT PAUL CITY CLERK'S OFF`ICE Your application for an appeal has been received and processed. (a-�7U Please attend the public hearing before the Legislative Hearing O�cer on Tuesday, January 5, 2010 at 1:30p.m. in Room 330 City Hall and Courthouse to consider your appeal concerning the above referenced property. At that time the Legislative Hearing Officer will hear all parties relative to this action. Failure to appear at the hearing may result in denial of your appeal. Sincerely, ���� ��� Shari Moore City Clerk cc: James Seeger, Code Compliance Officer Ken Eggers, DSI Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer Jerry Hendrickson, Deputy City Attorney DRB#24 LLC, Owner IS 4VEST KELLOGG BOULEVARD, SUITE 310 SAINT PAU[, MINNESOTA55102 Tel: 651-266-8658 Fa�c: 651-266-8574 wcvr��.stpaul.gov M A�rmaGVe Acnon Equal Opport�niTy Employer � APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Saint Paui City Cierk I5 W. KeIlogg Blvd. 910 Ci� Hall Saint Pau1 MinaesotA 55102 'Felephone: (651) 266-8688 i�-/�U ������� Q �� ��2ppg �'�]�•` ���� 1. Address of Property being Appealed: I 2. Number of Aw�lIing Units: 3. Date of I.°,�ter Appealed: /�d �e.!I�riSr � t I 1��� %C��i:s'i�' 4. ?vame of Owner: 1 J � \� ��' �l � � • r Address:_� � �1 � ��t' ��`��P City: 7�' �t%I �r,�'_State: ���� Zip: Phone Numbers: Business Residence Cellulaz S. Appellant / Applieant (if other than owner): �f c1 S' (t t-P5� ""�' �/,�}"�b 5(' �51s� GtP1� Address:_ �'� N{� „!�_ 5fi" City: S� �` �,.e.� State: F�1 °`� Zig: 5��%O 3 Phone � � � i�� Residence Celiular 6 Stat� speciftcally w�ia# is being a�pealed and why (Use an atfachment if necessary): f �� NOTE: A�25.00 filing fee made payable To the City of Saint Pau1 must accompany ttris application as a necessary coadition for nLing. You must attacb a couy of the original orders and any other cosespondence relafive to this zppeal. Any person unsatisfied by the final decision af the City Council may obtain judicial zeview by timely filing of an acrion as provided by law in District Court. Date For O€fice Use Fee Received: Receipt Number: Date of Hearing: y �u�t�;! I kJ�'`� � � J � Rev�sed CTI'Y OF SAINT PAUL Christopi�er B. Coleman, Mayor DEPARTMEN'I' OF SAFEIY AND INSPECTiONS Bob Kess(er, Director � 0 3757acksonSme;Su"ve220 Telephone: Soa�tPmal,Mou�esom55101-1806 Fac.r6rtile: Web: Code Compliane� Report December 15, 2009 DRB#24 LLC PO BOX 16595 ST PALTL MN 551 i 6-0545 Re: 771 Fuller Ave File#: 09 268'763 VB2 Dear Property Owner: The following is the Code Compliance report you requested on November 03, 2009. J 65I-266-8989 651-266-9724 Please be advised that this report is accurate and correct as of the date December I5, 2009. All deficiencies identified by the City after tlus date must also be corrected and all codes and ordinances must be complied with. This repoft is valid for 365 days from December 15, 2009. This report may be used in lieu of a Truth in Housing Report required in 5t Paul L.egislative Code 189. 'd'his building must be properly secured and the properry maintained at all times. In order to sell os reoccupy this property the following deficiencies must be corrected: BUII.DING ImSUector: Jim Seeeer Phone: 651-266-9(146 • Install handrails and guazdrails at all stairways, including basement stairways, and return handrail ends to the wall or newel post per attachment. • Strap or support top of stair stringers • Install tempered or safety glass in window over stair landing to code • Repair or Replace any deteriorated window sash, broken glass, sash holders, re-putty, etc as necessary • Provide complete storms and screens, in good repair for all door and window openings • Provide and operable latching device for all windows • Provide thumb type deadbolts for all entry doors. Remove any surface bolts • Repair or seplace damaged doors and frames as necessary, including storm doors • Prepare and paint interior and exterior as necessary. Observe necessary abatement procedure if lead base paint is present (See St Paul I.egislafive Code, Chap. 34 for additionat information). An Equa! OppoanmiTy Employer ��� �o-f�0 Re: 771 Fuller Ave Page 2 BUII.DING Insuector• iim SeeQer Phone: 651-266-9046 • Charred building components shall be scraped or sandblasted completely clean and water-damaged components replaced. A determination of necessary fire damage corrective measures shall be made be this department or by a registered structural engineer as to replacemenk repairs, etc. All smoke damaged and charred members shall be cleaned, sealed and deodorized in attic stair area. • Provide smoke detectors per the MN Building Code and carbon monoxide detectors per State Law. • Provide general clean-up of premise • Provide pmper drainage azound house to d'u�ect water away from foundation of house. • Install address numbers visible from sh�eet and alley. • A building permit is requized to cosect the above deficiencies • Repair fascia on front porch and install soffit on rear porch roof under deck. • Replace front door. • Replace lower section of basement stairs to code. • Repair siding at second floor rear deck water going behind siding. • Install new door and threshold to second floor deck. ELECTRICAL Insuector: Mike Ponovich Phone: 651-Zb6-9035 • Provide a complete circuit directory at service panel indicating locafion and use of all circuits • verify/install a separate 20 ampere laundry circuit and a separate 20 ampere kitchen appliance circuit • Verify that circuit breaker amperage matches wire size • Remove all cord wiring • Repair or Replace all broken, missing or loose light fixtures, switches and ouflets, covers and plates • Check all oudets for proper polarity and verify ground on 3-prong oudets • Remove any 3-wire ungrounded ouUets and replace with 2-wire or ground 3-wire to code • Remove and or/ re-wire all illegal, improper or hazardous wiring in basement/gazage • Install second duplex ouflet in second floor northwest bedroom. • Properly staple romex in basement. • Properly support conduit, 7-box and AC cable to boiler per code. • Replace moisture damage service panel. • Replace any painted over receptacle ouflets. • All added receptacles must be grounded, tamper-resistant and be on an Arc-Fauit Circuit Interrupter-protected circuit. • All electrical work must be done by a Minnesota-licensed electrical contractor under an electrical pernut. • Any open walls or walls thaY are opened as part of this project must be wired to the standazds of the 2008 NEC. • All buildings on the property must meet the St. Paul Property Maintenance Code (Bulletin 80-1). ��-I�D Re: 771 Fuller Ave Page 3 PLUMBING Insnector• Tom Schweitzer Fhone: b51-266-9055 • Basement - Water Meter - Remove galvanized piping between sernce valves. • Basement - Water Piping - boiler fill water line requires backflow assembly or device • Basement - Soil and Waste Piping - no front sewer clean out • Second F1oor - Tub and Shower - provide stopper gEATIlyG Insuector Bill Dalv Phone• 651-266-9042 • Clean and Orsat test boiler burner. Check all controls for proper operahon. Provide documentation from a licensed contractor that the heating unit is safe. • Replace boiler flue venting to code. • Vent clothes dryer to code. • Provide adequate combustion air and support duct to code. • lnstall back flow preventer on city water fill line to hot water heating system and pipe vent as required. • Repair or replace radiator valves as needed. • Gas and hydronic mechanical pernuts are required for the above work. ZOIVING 1. This pmperty is in a(n) R4 zoning district 2. This property was inspected as a Single Family Dwelling. Notes• • See attachment for pernait requirements and appeals procedure. • Most of the roof covering could not be inspected from grade. Recommend this be done before rehabilitation is attempted. This is a registered vacant building. In order to sell os reoccupy tmis building, all deficaencies listed on this code compliance report must be corrected w➢thin six (6) months of the date of this report. One (1) six-month time extension may be requested by the owner and will be considered if it can be shown that the code compliance work is proceeding and 'as more than Sfty (50) percent complete in accordance with Legislafive Code Section 33.03(f). You may file an appeal to this notice by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 651-266-8688. Any appeal must be made in writing within 10 days of this norice. (You must submit a copy of this norice when you appeal, and pay a fiiing feeJ ff you have any quesrions regazding this inspecdon report, please contact Jim Seeger between 730 - 9:00 AM at 651-266-89�9 or leave a voice mail message. Sincerely, Jaznes L. Seeger Code Compliance Officer JI,S:ml Attachments January 5, 2010 Property Code Minutes � Q�(� (� Page 10 10. Appeal of Rev. Sylvester Davis to a Code Compliance Inspection for property at 771 Fuller Avenue. The Reverend Sylvester Davis, appellant, appeared with David Busch and Linda Ji, Attomey. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Shaff if anyone from Vacant Buildings was coming for this case and Ms. Shaff responded that she did not know. Ms. Moermond asked who the inspector was. Ms. Shaff replied that it looked like a code compliance inspection. Ms. Moermond agreed and said she had read the appeal and understood Reverend Davis wanted to move into the home before the code compliance was complete. Reverend Davis said that was correct and that he wanted to do the work himself. Ms. Ji addressed Ms. Moermond and identified herself as an attorney representing Reverend Davis. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. 3i if Reverend Davis was the property owner and Ms. 7i stated he was the equitable owner. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Ji to clarify that. Ms. Ji stated that Dauid Busch was the title holder of 771 Fuller. She said Mr. Busch had entered into a contract for deed purchase agreement with Mr. Davis. Ms. Moermond asked if the agreement had been fully executed. Ms. Ji stated she did not believe it had been recorded, but that it was a legal agreement. Ms. Moermond asked if it had to be recorded. Mr. Busch responded, "We have an obligation to record it, but it doesn't make it any less of a contract." Ms. Ji stated that Mr. Davis wanted to move into the property and fix it for himself over time—six months to a year. She said she had spoken to Inspector Seeger, who advised her that if the home was owner-occupied, it was unnecessary for Mr. Davis to get all the bids ahead of time. She said she was advised that Mr. Davis would only need a licensed plumbing and electrical contractor. Ms. Ji stated Mr. Davis was capable of doing the general clean up of the premises. Ms. Ji stated the home was Section 8 certified. Ms. Moermond asked if it was or is Section 8 certified. Ms. Ji stated it �vas Section 8 certified approved at this time. Ms. Moermond said, "I don't think it possibly could be. You couldn't rent it out this minute. Mr. Busch stated he had been approved by Section 8. Ms. Moermond said Section 8 approval spoke to the home's livability. Ms. Ji said that there was nothing that presented any kind of danger or nuisance property. She said the home was not in danger of partial collapse. She did not believe there was anything wrong with the windows not having egress. She said Mr. Davis wanted to occupy the building because he needed a place to live and he needed to stop paying rent. She said it would be difficult for him to pay rent and pay the contract for deed at the same time. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Davis if he lived at 336 Sherburne. Mr. Davis replied that he lived at 336 Sherburne and paid rent at that address. Mr. Davis said he would save money if he could stop renting and move into 771 Fuller. January 5, 2010 Property Code Minutes /���� � Page 11 ( Ms. Ji said he could avoid double payments by living at 771 Fuller and that nothing "stood ouY' at the 771 Fuller address. Ms. Shaff asked, "What about the charred building components? David Busch responded that the house had been occupied for 15 years and that there had not been any recent fire. Ms. 7i asked, "If a building became vacant because of a fire, thaYs an exemption from the Vacant Building Program?" Mr. Busch responded that it had not become vacant. Ms. Ji again asked, "What if it had become vacant?" Ms. Moermond responded, "No, it's not a complete exemption. I think what you're misunderstanding is that would be a temporary exemption to allow for a quick clean up after a fire. Everybody has a kitchen fire from time to time." Ms. Ji asked if people had to move out if a fire occurred. Ms. Moermond said "It doesn't get thrown in the vacant building program for that circumstance for a limited period of time." Ms. Moermond said they were not discussing things needing to be done because this is a dangerous or nuisance building. She said it was a requirement of the vacant building program that it be up to code before it is reoccupied. She stated that when you are talking about a dangerous or nuisance structure, thaYs a finding that the City would make. They would need to make a nuisance finding and post it with an order to abate. Ms. Ji said that this was not the case for this building. Ms. Moermond stated the building is registered as vacant and that she understood that was not the nature of the appeal--whether or not it should be vacant. She commented, "You're saying you want to move in and do the fixes. City says you have to do the fixes before you can move in to make sure that the fixes get actually done." Ms. Ji asked Ms. Moermond who would risk their own money trying to fix a building they did not have possession of. Ms. Ji said the property presented more danger to the public as a vacant building. She said people could go in there and squat, fire bomb it, or use it for a drug house. Ms. Ji said Mr. Dauis is a pastor and the neighborhood would be better off if he was in the building, rather than it being vacant. She stated that they thought the laws should be reasonable and in the public interest. "I don't really see the government interest in having the building stay vacant, waiting for somebody to fix it up, when there's somebody that will fix it up if he can live there. And are there variances for situations when a homeowner is going to be living there vs. he's not collecting rent, he's buying it. And there's other people that have been before you that aze living in properties that are in worse shape than this one is. With problems with the windows and things like that. Now why can't this man have the same kind of situation where he's living in his own home?" Ms. M asked Ms. Ji if she had had an opportunity to read the Code. Ms. Ji said she had read the Vacant Building Code and thought it was "incoherent " Ms. Ji stated that Mr. Seeger had sent her the Vacant Building Registration Form, which listed the following categories regarding plans for the property: 1) I plan to rehabilitate the sYructure; 2) I plan to demolish; and 3) T plan to authorize the city to demolish. Ms. Ji stated the City was asking for a full rehabilitation of the structure and was not just referring to addressing building code violations. She said the City was asking for a full rehab to get the building off of the Category 2 List. She stated the list was extensive and that the Compliance January 5, 2010 Property Code Minutes r ��(� (� Page 12 Report was a rehab plan which would cost her client $20,000-$50,000 to unplement. She said the City wants old buildings to be like new construction. She said she did not understand why Mr. Davis could not occupy the home while rehabbing it. Ms. Ji stated the Federal government offered rehab loans and she did not understand why the City did not Ms. Moermond asked if she had contacted the City's Department of Plamiiug and Economic Development. Ms. Moermond advised stated that the City had a loan fiznd and that they did a lot of this type of work, funded by Federal dollars. Ms. 7i asked, "But the rehab loans? Why couch this as a building code violation when what they really want is a rehab." Ms. Moermond stated it was a question of semantics. Ms. Ji reiterated there was nothing that qualified the building as a dangerous structure, or a nuisance property. She said her client was not going to die in the structure. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Ji if she was an attorney. Ms. Ji responded that she was a mechanical engineer and an attorney. Ms. Moermond commented that violations such as `Clean and Orsat test the boiler' were life/safety issues. Ms. Ji responded Mr. Davis would take care of this item. Mr. Busch (difficult to hear) stated, "There hasn't been one in this house for years and years and thaYs one procedural item that's easy enough to do. So if thaYs an issue for occupancy, it will..." Ms. Moermond said there were several different levels of correction of violations that were involved. One would be specific deficiencies that get pulled out, like in a Fire C of O inspection, egress windows. She said the building had become a registered vacant building. "The list that you have now, in a perfect world, would be exactly the same as that Fire C of O list. This is going to be more now because the four trade inspectars have gone through it. She said that rigktt now Fire staff don't have four trade inspectars to send through. But, the codes that are being applied are the same codes. And they're talking minimum safety. If the house were to be rebuilt, there would be different codes that apply for new constnzction, not for existing buildings. I think, just fyi, I think thaYs where the codes are at. With respect to whether these things can be done while he occupies the building, as opposed to them needing to be done before he occupies the building, Pm hearing you have a policy concern. You're thinking `iYs not in the public interesY is the phrase you used to have that requirement in place. I would say that, right now, the code does have that requirement in place and Pm not empowered to rewrite the Code. I think you're talking about a policy discussion that you'd like the City Council to have on this. You're welcome to bring it to the Council. I can tell you, as a point of interest, that the reasoning behind the Code is to make sure that these things get repaired. You know, this is the juncture where there can be a pause to say, leYs get this all fixed and addressed before it gets reoccupied or we'll be here again shortly. Because that's the cycle that housing has seemed to go in." Ms. Ji "So, is there a difference between this situation and those other people that had problems with their windows and they were occupying their homes?" Ms. Moermond replied, "Yes, this is a registered vacant building." Mr. Busch "What difference does that make?" Ms. Moermond responded, "You're in the Registered Vacant Building Program." Mr. Busch "From a fire and life safety point of view, it makes no difference. The people are in the same houses." January 5, 2010 Property Code Minutes � Q-�� � Page 13 Ms. Ji said, "I guess this is tuming into a test case about how you can treat citizens in a different way based on if the building was vacant or not. Because we believe in equal protecrion. And we believe in due process. The ability to transfer property and buy property is considered a property right. And if the government is saying you can't buy this or you can't sell that unless you do this, this and this, that raises like very, very serious constitutional issues if the government has got the compelling interest in doing it this way because we're talking about a fundamental right. We're talking about as if the government says people shouldn't get married. Or they shouldn't be living together because they're not married. And if the government starts telling people you can't live together because you're not married and so now you vacate your property, then you have all these other issues. And so what I'm saying is the right to buy and sell property is fundamental. And so, I mean the City is actually inviting a lawsuit just based on constitutional issues because they're holding up so much real property so people can't transfer it. So this has become a test case." Mr. Busch asked if there was a limitation on the transfer of this property because Ms. Moermond had asked when the contract for deed was filed. Ms. Moermond replied, "The limitation on the transfer will be transferring a Category 2 vacant building that there has to be a work plan submitted. I think you're familiar with that." Mr. Busch said he unfamiliar and asked her to address that because is the City taking a position that he could not enter into a contract with Mr. Davis. Ms. Moermond said they should contact the Deparhnent of Safety and Inspections and that it was the correct place because they have to put together a plan and pull permits to do the rehab. She advised Mr. Busch it was incumbent upon him to sell the property to someone who had the capacity to do the rehab. Mr. Busch stated they did not understand the law. He said, "If you put that in your order, then we will be able to appeal it because I believe there's a constitutional restriction on your restriction to me selling the property. But I understand." Ms. Moermond "That's not what Pm looking at today. Pve got the Code Compliance here and Pm not going to reach beyond what you guys originally appealed and start." Ms. Ji "Your honor, we're trying to exhaust your administrative remedies because we think this law needs to be tested. We're not hying to give you a hard time. We're trying to develop a record so we can say that we've exhausted our administrative remedies, which would be required." Ms. Moermond "Here's what Pm going to say for today, and I get where you want to go. Pm going to say he cannot live there unril a code compliance certificate is issued. Not just him, anybody. A Code Compliance Certificate needs to be issued. If you think that policy isn't a good policy, more power to you. You need to bring that to the City Council to have them address it as a policy issue if you want to see the Code rewritten. If you want to file a lawsuit, I can't help you file the case. You're going to have to go do your homework and try to file forms and do that. Whatever it is you think you need to do, but I'm not going to go beyond." Mr. Busch (iTnclear; was not sitting close to microphone during testimony) "If he wants to move in tomorrow night and he moves in, do we need to start a lawsuit to prevent them from throwing him out in the snow?" January 5, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 14 �a' �� � Ms. Moermond "Pm a hearing officer. I can't tell you." Mr. Busch "You have the power to issue recommendations on that subject." Ms. Moermond "And I'm not going to exercise my power to issue a recommendation on that My finding is that your appeal is denied is thaYs my recommendation to the Council." Ms. Ji "May I have one more question, your honor. If the homeowner is required to do the work, are they required to post the bond for the? Because I know they had something in the Code about posting a bond and a performance bond. But he's not required to hire all contractors to do this work because they already said owner-occupied homes, he can do the work himself." Ms. Moermond "I am not aware of a distinction in the Code about whether a Performance Deposit needs to be posted sepazately between investors vs. owner occupants, with respect to when the Deparhnent of Safety and Inspections applies it. Go forward. Talk to them. When you go to pull permits, you'll get your answer." Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal.