Loading...
96-371t1f,� P'iP,! r �_o � 4 . 7 `.d . i l � ��i. ..�. Presented Referred To �N��ti � �� � �I���at� Green Sheet # 35 � � 7 Committee Date 1 BE TT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the April 2, 2 1996 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer: 3 Pro�ertv Appealed 4 2350 Wycliff Street 5 Decision: Grant the appeal. 6 1515 Carroll Avenue 7 Decision: Deny the appeal. 8 2650 University Avenue 9 Decision: Grant a five year variance. A�ellant John Tracy Thomas Wake Power Brake & Equiupment 10 689 Conway Street ���� �� ,�� James Simning 11 Decision: Deny the appeal. � � � � \ �� � � �� C ���� �� 12 FURTHER RESOLVED, that this action shail become effective unmedia ly upon approval of the ayor. Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attomey � Adoption Certified by Council Secretary L3T� App: � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � Council File # � � 3 r ( � Adopted by Council: Date ��_ _ � �� �� t DEPARTMENTlOFPICHCqUNqI DATE INR�ATED O � � � ` � cr�courrcu, aiai� GREEN SHEE �- �5677 COMACTPEflSON&PHONE ODEPARiMENTDIRE �CT'COUNCIL �NmAVOATE GEIfy SYTBTLII]3II ZC�-HSIS ASSIGM O CI7Y ATTORNEY O CT' CLEflK � NUYBERFOR MUST BE ON CpUNCIL AGENDA BY (DATEj y�p�� O&JDGET DIRECfOR O FlN. & MGT. SEPVICES OIR. April 10, 1996 opo�'+ O MAYOR (OR ASSISTANn � TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATUR� AGTION REQUE$TED: Approving the decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property-Code Enforcement Appeals for the April 2, 1996 meeting. RECOMMENDATIONS:Appmve(A)wRejecc(Po pERSONALSEiiVICECONTRACT5MU5TANSWERTHEFOLLOWING�UESTIONS: _ PLqNNMG COM4USSION _ CN0. SERVICE COMMISSIQN �- Has this pereoNfirtn e�er worked untler a conVact for this depertmeM? � � CIBCOMMfiTEE � YES NO _ STAFF 2. Has this perwnlfirm ever been a city empfoyee? — YES NO — �����T ��T — 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normall y possessed by any curtent ciry employee4 SUPPOflTS WHICH COUNCIL ORIECfIVE? YES NO Expla(n all yes answers on seperate sheet and attach to green sheet INRIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNIN (Who, Whet, When, VJhere.Why). ADVANTAGES IFAPPROVED: DISAOVANTAGES IGAPPROVED: � ^ c Y{.s.v.�'': :��i e.rae."5��� 4.,j*yC.d.. E.;',. ts � ��.�i� DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVEO: TO7AL AMOUNT OF TpANSAC710N E COST/REVENUE BUD6ETED (CIHCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDIHG SOURCE ACTIVITV NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) g� - 3�11 Property Code Enforcement Meeting April 2,1996 2350 WXcliff Street Jeffrey Benedict, representing Wycliff Partners, the properiy owner, appeazed and stated that they had purchased the building in December, 1995 and planned to renovate it to lease for office space. They had obtained the necessary building permits and had begun construction when they received a notice from Public Health that they owed vacant building fees. It was their understanding that the previous owner had not paid these fees and that it was tus responsibility. They did not believe that the building qualified as being vacant since they were in the process of renovating it and planned to move in tenants witrun the neatt 60 days. Cazolyn Shepard, Public Health, stated that building had been vacant since April, 1994. The previous owner never paid the vacant building fees and when the building was purchased, the new owner was given 30 days to pay the fee. Gerry Strathman, Heating Officer, stated that the previous owner was obligated to either pay the fees or inform them of the outstanding fees assessed to the property. Since Wycliff Partners represented that they had obtained the necessary building permits and were in the process of renovating the building, he recommended granting the appeal. 1515 Carroll Avenue Thomas Wake, property owner, appeared and stated that the building was condemned and he requested additional time to make these repairs. He admitted that the work was proceeding very slowly and he planned to hire someone to help him complete the repairs. He did not believe that the building should have been condemned. David Weisberg, Public Health, stated that when he inspected the building in January, there wexe tenants living on the third floor which was in a deplorable condition. He showed pictures of the rooms. He had granted an extension to allow the tenants time to find other accommodations. Mr. Wake stated that the tenants who had occupied the third floor had moved and assured that he would not rent out the space to anyone else. He believed that the remainder of the rooms were in compliance. Mr. Weisberg stated that he believed the building was still unfit for human habitation and recommended that the condemnation order remain. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal. 2650 University Avenue Peter Lund, representing Power Brake & Equipment, the property owner, appeazed and stated that they received notice from the city to disconnect the three rainleaders on the roof of their building. They had � c - �'� 1 Property Code Enforcement April 2, 1996 Page-2- disconnected two of the rainleaders, however, the third drain ran through the center of the office space in the building which would cause undue hazdship to remove it. He aiso pointed out that if the drain were moved, the water would dusnp out onto the public sidewalk which would ereate a hazard for pedestrians. He requested a variance from disconnecting the rainleader. Jim Vanderhoof, Public Works, stated that it was his opinion that there was adequate drainage between the building and the sidewallc. The water runoff could be piped from the roof to a grassy area which was approximately 1,250 squaze feet. He showed a diagram of the building and surrounding area. Mr. Strathman granted the appeal for a five yeaz vaziance. 689 ConwaXStreet James Simning, property owner, appeazed and stated that the house had been condemned in January. In ] 994, a former tenant literally trashed the house and he agreed that the house needed a substantial amount of repairs. He had been working on making those repairs, however, he lacked the financial resources to complete a11 of the necessary work. He also stated that his wife suffered from poor health and a majority of his rime was spent taking caze of her. There presently were rivo families living in the building. He did not want to displace these lazge families as it would be difficult for them to find other accommodations. He believed that the building was not a health hazard and requested the condemnation be removed. Mr. Weisberg stated that the building was condemned on January 12 and he had granted an extension to Mazch 15 in order for the tenants to find other accommodations. He had inspected the building on April 1 and found that some of the work had been done, however, it had not been repaired properly. He believed that the building was still unfit for human habitation and recommended the condemnation order remain. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal. vms