The URL can be used to link to this page

97-153�_._�� '� Presented Referred To RESOLUTION SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA � CommiSSee Date i BE TT RESOLVED, that the Council of ffie City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the February 4, 2 1997 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer: 3 Pro�erty Appealed Avpellant 4 924 Forest Sireet Donald Folske 5 Decision: Deny appeal to remove condemnation; deny appeal for vacant building registrafion fee. 6 438 Etna Street, #105 Nancy Erickson 7 Decision: Grant variance for flu gas test on the condition that cazbon monoxide detectors, either hardwired or 8 electrical units, be installed in all owner-occupied units. Requested by Deparhnent of. Adoption Certified by Council Secretary � Appro � � Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � Council File # �`l — � S 3 Green Sheet # �� Adopted by Council: Date � �� —\S3 �� pT�EMlOFACER'AUNGL DATE INITIATED � V J C.) V ci�courrcu, 2isim GREEN SHEE �TACT pERSON & PHONE W RIALIDATE INRIAL/DA7E O DEPAR7MENT DIRE � CITY COUNCIL �rry Stratbman 266-8575 A$$IGN � CRYATTORNEY � CRYCLERK MUST BE pry (pUNCIL AGENOA BY (DAT� NUYBER i0fl ❑ BUDGET OIflECTO � FlN. $ MGT. SERVICES DIR. NOUT7NG February 12, 19g7 onoea � MqVOR (OR ASSISTANT) � TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACfION qEQUES7Ep: APPro�'ing the decision of the Legislative Heazing Officer on Properry Code Enforcement Appeals for the February 4, 1997 meeting. p EWMMENDATIONS: Appmve (A} or fleject (q) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTHAC7S MUS7 ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUE3TiONS: — PLANNING (;pMMISSION _ CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contrect for Mis tlepar[melrt? _ CIB CqMM1T7EE _ VES NO — STAFF 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? — YES NO __DISTRICTCOURT _ 3. Doesthis efsOnfirm p possess a skill no[ normally possessed by any cuneM ciry employee? SUPPpq7'� yyHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? VES NO Explaln ell yes enswers on separate sheet a�E atteeh to green sheet INITIATIN(`a PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITV (V✓ho, Whet. When. Where, Why): ADVAMAGES IF qppqpyED� DISADVANTAGES IF qPPqOVED: DISADVqNTAGES IF NOTAPPROVED. x F!°.2�t,"�45 a ... � - "�;�7 TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION $ COS7/REVENUE BUDGE7ED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDIfdG SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORFnqT�pN: (EXPLAIN) Property Code Enforcement Meeting �`1 — � S 3 Febrnary 4,1997 924 Forest Street Donald Folske, property owner, appeared and stated that he had owned the properry for 32 years and had never had a problem prior to this time. The water and gas had been shut off and he did not believe that the entire building should have been condemned since the problem was contained to one unit. The tenant in the upstairs unit had lived there for three years and totally destroyed the unit without his lmowledge. He was unsure as to the tenant's whereabouts. He became awaze ofthe situation after he received a message from Chuck Votel to call him who then apprised him of the problems. He was in the process of cleaning out the unit, however, needed to have the water tumed on before he could complete the clean up. He requested addidonal time to be able to complete the clean up of the building. Chuck Votel, Public Health, stated that he received a call from the Eastern District Police that this building was a gross unsanitary and that they had removed dead and dying dogs from the unit. He presented pictuzes of the property. He inspected the building and described the second floor as a filthy, dirty dog kennel. It appeared that the first floor had been vacated and upon locating the first floor tenant, she confirsned that she had indeed moved out, however, had not removed all of her possessions. Subsequent to the condemnaxion order, he was informed that the Fire Department had been contacted that water was running out of the foundation of the house and the Fire Department ordered the water turned off. The yazd also contained junk and numerous debris, however, it was difficult to deterniine what would need to be removed because of the snow. It was his opinion that the building needed significant repairs to bring it up to code and, therefore, a code compliance inspection would need to be done and building pernuts would need to be obtained. The building would not be allowed to be re-occupied until a certificate of code compliance was received. Steve Magner, Public Heahh, addressed the summary abatement appeal. He had inspected the property that day and found that the building was indeed secure from enhy. He stated that Public Health was withdrawing the order. Mr. Strathman reviewed the pictures of the property. He stated that in reviewing the evidence, the building was truly unfit for human habitation. Therefore, he denied the appeal to remove the condemnation order and denied the appeal for the vacant building registration fee. 438 Etna Street #105 Nancy Erickson, property owner, appeazed and stated that the building was a condominiwn association. She was appealing the flu gas test and the necessity for having a certificate of inspection on the furnace for each unit every two years. Every unit was individually owned and she did not believe that it was fair that they were being treated as an apartment buildin$ as she was aware that townhomes were exempt from this requirement. Mr. Sirathman stated that the concem of Fire Prevention was carbon mono�ride poisoning and this was the reason for the flu gas test. Jackie Breecher, Fire Prevention, stated that in a condominium unit, the owner was not the oniy person who was at risk of being eaposed to carbon monoxide poisoning. Mr. Strathman stated that he would grant a variance on the condition that cazbon monoxide detectors, either hardwired or electrical units, be installed in all owner-occupied units. • ;,� �_._�� '� Presented Referred To RESOLUTION SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA � CommiSSee Date i BE TT RESOLVED, that the Council of ffie City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the February 4, 2 1997 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer: 3 Pro�erty Appealed Avpellant 4 924 Forest Sireet Donald Folske 5 Decision: Deny appeal to remove condemnation; deny appeal for vacant building registrafion fee. 6 438 Etna Street, #105 Nancy Erickson 7 Decision: Grant variance for flu gas test on the condition that cazbon monoxide detectors, either hardwired or 8 electrical units, be installed in all owner-occupied units. Requested by Deparhnent of. Adoption Certified by Council Secretary � Appro � � Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � Council File # �`l — � S 3 Green Sheet # �� Adopted by Council: Date � �� —\S3 �� pT�EMlOFACER'AUNGL DATE INITIATED � V J C.) V ci�courrcu, 2isim GREEN SHEE �TACT pERSON & PHONE W RIALIDATE INRIAL/DA7E O DEPAR7MENT DIRE � CITY COUNCIL �rry Stratbman 266-8575 A$$IGN � CRYATTORNEY � CRYCLERK MUST BE pry (pUNCIL AGENOA BY (DAT� NUYBER i0fl ❑ BUDGET OIflECTO � FlN. $ MGT. SERVICES DIR. NOUT7NG February 12, 19g7 onoea � MqVOR (OR ASSISTANT) � TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACfION qEQUES7Ep: APPro�'ing the decision of the Legislative Heazing Officer on Properry Code Enforcement Appeals for the February 4, 1997 meeting. p EWMMENDATIONS: Appmve (A} or fleject (q) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTHAC7S MUS7 ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUE3TiONS: — PLANNING (;pMMISSION _ CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contrect for Mis tlepar[melrt? _ CIB CqMM1T7EE _ VES NO — STAFF 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? — YES NO __DISTRICTCOURT _ 3. Doesthis efsOnfirm p possess a skill no[ normally possessed by any cuneM ciry employee? SUPPpq7'� yyHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? VES NO Explaln ell yes enswers on separate sheet a�E atteeh to green sheet INITIATIN(`a PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITV (V✓ho, Whet. When. Where, Why): ADVAMAGES IF qppqpyED� DISADVANTAGES IF qPPqOVED: DISADVqNTAGES IF NOTAPPROVED. x F!°.2�t,"�45 a ... � - "�;�7 TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION $ COS7/REVENUE BUDGE7ED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDIfdG SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORFnqT�pN: (EXPLAIN) Property Code Enforcement Meeting �`1 — � S 3 Febrnary 4,1997 924 Forest Street Donald Folske, property owner, appeared and stated that he had owned the properry for 32 years and had never had a problem prior to this time. The water and gas had been shut off and he did not believe that the entire building should have been condemned since the problem was contained to one unit. The tenant in the upstairs unit had lived there for three years and totally destroyed the unit without his lmowledge. He was unsure as to the tenant's whereabouts. He became awaze ofthe situation after he received a message from Chuck Votel to call him who then apprised him of the problems. He was in the process of cleaning out the unit, however, needed to have the water tumed on before he could complete the clean up. He requested addidonal time to be able to complete the clean up of the building. Chuck Votel, Public Health, stated that he received a call from the Eastern District Police that this building was a gross unsanitary and that they had removed dead and dying dogs from the unit. He presented pictuzes of the property. He inspected the building and described the second floor as a filthy, dirty dog kennel. It appeared that the first floor had been vacated and upon locating the first floor tenant, she confirsned that she had indeed moved out, however, had not removed all of her possessions. Subsequent to the condemnaxion order, he was informed that the Fire Department had been contacted that water was running out of the foundation of the house and the Fire Department ordered the water turned off. The yazd also contained junk and numerous debris, however, it was difficult to deterniine what would need to be removed because of the snow. It was his opinion that the building needed significant repairs to bring it up to code and, therefore, a code compliance inspection would need to be done and building pernuts would need to be obtained. The building would not be allowed to be re-occupied until a certificate of code compliance was received. Steve Magner, Public Heahh, addressed the summary abatement appeal. He had inspected the property that day and found that the building was indeed secure from enhy. He stated that Public Health was withdrawing the order. Mr. Strathman reviewed the pictures of the property. He stated that in reviewing the evidence, the building was truly unfit for human habitation. Therefore, he denied the appeal to remove the condemnation order and denied the appeal for the vacant building registration fee. 438 Etna Street #105 Nancy Erickson, property owner, appeazed and stated that the building was a condominiwn association. She was appealing the flu gas test and the necessity for having a certificate of inspection on the furnace for each unit every two years. Every unit was individually owned and she did not believe that it was fair that they were being treated as an apartment buildin$ as she was aware that townhomes were exempt from this requirement. Mr. Sirathman stated that the concem of Fire Prevention was carbon mono�ride poisoning and this was the reason for the flu gas test. Jackie Breecher, Fire Prevention, stated that in a condominium unit, the owner was not the oniy person who was at risk of being eaposed to carbon monoxide poisoning. Mr. Strathman stated that he would grant a variance on the condition that cazbon monoxide detectors, either hardwired or electrical units, be installed in all owner-occupied units. • ;,� �_._�� '� Presented Referred To RESOLUTION SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA � CommiSSee Date i BE TT RESOLVED, that the Council of ffie City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the February 4, 2 1997 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer: 3 Pro�erty Appealed Avpellant 4 924 Forest Sireet Donald Folske 5 Decision: Deny appeal to remove condemnation; deny appeal for vacant building registrafion fee. 6 438 Etna Street, #105 Nancy Erickson 7 Decision: Grant variance for flu gas test on the condition that cazbon monoxide detectors, either hardwired or 8 electrical units, be installed in all owner-occupied units. Requested by Deparhnent of. Adoption Certified by Council Secretary � Appro � � Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � Council File # �`l — � S 3 Green Sheet # �� Adopted by Council: Date � �� —\S3 �� pT�EMlOFACER'AUNGL DATE INITIATED � V J C.) V ci�courrcu, 2isim GREEN SHEE �TACT pERSON & PHONE W RIALIDATE INRIAL/DA7E O DEPAR7MENT DIRE � CITY COUNCIL �rry Stratbman 266-8575 A$$IGN � CRYATTORNEY � CRYCLERK MUST BE pry (pUNCIL AGENOA BY (DAT� NUYBER i0fl ❑ BUDGET OIflECTO � FlN. $ MGT. SERVICES DIR. NOUT7NG February 12, 19g7 onoea � MqVOR (OR ASSISTANT) � TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACfION qEQUES7Ep: APPro�'ing the decision of the Legislative Heazing Officer on Properry Code Enforcement Appeals for the February 4, 1997 meeting. p EWMMENDATIONS: Appmve (A} or fleject (q) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTHAC7S MUS7 ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUE3TiONS: — PLANNING (;pMMISSION _ CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contrect for Mis tlepar[melrt? _ CIB CqMM1T7EE _ VES NO — STAFF 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? — YES NO __DISTRICTCOURT _ 3. Doesthis efsOnfirm p possess a skill no[ normally possessed by any cuneM ciry employee? SUPPpq7'� yyHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? VES NO Explaln ell yes enswers on separate sheet a�E atteeh to green sheet INITIATIN(`a PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITV (V✓ho, Whet. When. Where, Why): ADVAMAGES IF qppqpyED� DISADVANTAGES IF qPPqOVED: DISADVqNTAGES IF NOTAPPROVED. x F!°.2�t,"�45 a ... � - "�;�7 TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION $ COS7/REVENUE BUDGE7ED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDIfdG SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORFnqT�pN: (EXPLAIN) Property Code Enforcement Meeting �`1 — � S 3 Febrnary 4,1997 924 Forest Street Donald Folske, property owner, appeared and stated that he had owned the properry for 32 years and had never had a problem prior to this time. The water and gas had been shut off and he did not believe that the entire building should have been condemned since the problem was contained to one unit. The tenant in the upstairs unit had lived there for three years and totally destroyed the unit without his lmowledge. He was unsure as to the tenant's whereabouts. He became awaze ofthe situation after he received a message from Chuck Votel to call him who then apprised him of the problems. He was in the process of cleaning out the unit, however, needed to have the water tumed on before he could complete the clean up. He requested addidonal time to be able to complete the clean up of the building. Chuck Votel, Public Health, stated that he received a call from the Eastern District Police that this building was a gross unsanitary and that they had removed dead and dying dogs from the unit. He presented pictuzes of the property. He inspected the building and described the second floor as a filthy, dirty dog kennel. It appeared that the first floor had been vacated and upon locating the first floor tenant, she confirsned that she had indeed moved out, however, had not removed all of her possessions. Subsequent to the condemnaxion order, he was informed that the Fire Department had been contacted that water was running out of the foundation of the house and the Fire Department ordered the water turned off. The yazd also contained junk and numerous debris, however, it was difficult to deterniine what would need to be removed because of the snow. It was his opinion that the building needed significant repairs to bring it up to code and, therefore, a code compliance inspection would need to be done and building pernuts would need to be obtained. The building would not be allowed to be re-occupied until a certificate of code compliance was received. Steve Magner, Public Heahh, addressed the summary abatement appeal. He had inspected the property that day and found that the building was indeed secure from enhy. He stated that Public Health was withdrawing the order. Mr. Strathman reviewed the pictures of the property. He stated that in reviewing the evidence, the building was truly unfit for human habitation. Therefore, he denied the appeal to remove the condemnation order and denied the appeal for the vacant building registration fee. 438 Etna Street #105 Nancy Erickson, property owner, appeazed and stated that the building was a condominiwn association. She was appealing the flu gas test and the necessity for having a certificate of inspection on the furnace for each unit every two years. Every unit was individually owned and she did not believe that it was fair that they were being treated as an apartment buildin$ as she was aware that townhomes were exempt from this requirement. Mr. Sirathman stated that the concem of Fire Prevention was carbon mono�ride poisoning and this was the reason for the flu gas test. Jackie Breecher, Fire Prevention, stated that in a condominium unit, the owner was not the oniy person who was at risk of being eaposed to carbon monoxide poisoning. Mr. Strathman stated that he would grant a variance on the condition that cazbon monoxide detectors, either hardwired or electrical units, be installed in all owner-occupied units. • ;,�