Loading...
01-640Council Fffe # �� — � yq o�����AL Presented Green Sheet # 106162 RESOLUTION CI'fY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA � q Refesed To Committee Date BE IT' RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the June 19, 2001 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer: Proper[v Apnealed A�roellant 2650 Universitv Avenue (Laid over from S-IS-01) Peter Lund for Transportation Components Decision: Lay over to the July 17, 2001, Properiy Code Enforcement meeting. 1753 Marshall Avenue Heidi Brownlee for OHB Properties LLC Decision: Variance ganted on the non-confornung doors on the following conditions: 1) if the non-conforming doors ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated door assemblies; 2) the building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with a11 applicable codes and ordinances. 251 Maria Avenue A1 Hannestad Decision: Variance is granted to provide mechanical ventilation in the Unit 9 bathroom on condition that inspectors in the future do not observe any moisture related problems. 134 Elizabeth Street East Lyle Hall Decision: Variance granted with respect to the Second Floor stairway. 52 and 58 Dou¢las Street Mazk Osadchuk Decision: Variance granted on the escape windows for each sleeping room. 239 Selbv Avenue Father John Estrem for Cathedral of St. Paul Decision: Variance granted on the temporary standpipes as Father John Estrem, the appellant, and Tom Nonnemacher, McGough Construction Company representative, aze accepting responsibility for any risks that might result from this variance being granted. � 762 Robert Street South Herschel G. Jacobson Decision: Variance granted on the escape windows for each bedroom on condition that if the windows ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming windows where possible. 970 Fuller Avenue Lawrence Walker Decision: Appeal denied on Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated May 31, 2001. Green Sheet 106162 o�-G�10 Yeas Na s Absent Blakey f Coleman � Harris Benanav � Reiter � Bostrom � Lantry ;/ ` O C� Adopted by Council: Date: � 2 c p� Adoption Ce ified by Council Secretary By: a _ � Approved by Mayor: Date: .-.� v�Lj t O 2ld� f By: �� � !� 2 l Requested by Department o£ � Form Approved by City Attorney � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � o �..tyd Counci�I Of f ices Gerry Strathman, 266-8560 6-20-2001 �xum� rort nartvm TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET onMr�r owcao. No 106162 � arcanwar ❑ arcuavK � � m�w�u�miwcuew. ❑ rwuryu.ammuero ❑MYCRI�YNGIIIJ ❑ (CUP ALL LOCATIONS FOR S(GNATUREj Approving the 6-19-01 decisions of the I.egislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 2650 University Avenue, 1753 Marshall Avenue, 251 Maria Avenue, 134 Elizabeth Street East, 52 and 58 Douglas Street, 239 Selby Avenue, 762 Robert Street South, and 970 Fuller Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 1�.��Fii ny_�.s:z.ri=.i TRANSACT�ON SOURCE ws Nis ceBONrmn e„er wonrea unaer a a�o-aa r« mie depammemv YES NO iles this Da�B�xJfim� evr bean a dry empbyee? YES NO Daes ihie Persailfi�m P�s a sitill not namel�YP� M anY curteM city emWoyee4 YES t�p b tlNS petaorvTpm e teryeted venda? rES rio Yain an vea enex+en on aeoarate sneM and atluh m areen aheet . « `' «: JuN 2 a 20�1 �',0l4P4�'� RBS�c'$CC�I Ci8t1t2P -_� � � 2001 cosvnEVaue euooereo (cuca.e oN� ACTIVRY NtRdBER YES NO INFORMAiION (IXPWN) ot -c�{o WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT Lyle C. Hall, 1361 Lafond Ave. St. Paul, MN 55104 Tfris is a written statement subsequent to the appeal of part of code compliance order of May 24th. This appeal was held on June 19, 2001 in Room 330, City Hall before Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer. The application for the appeal cites several items which were covered at this hearing (a copy of this part of the application attached). The reason for the appeal was to be able to make this properry suitable for use as a rental unit which is in very short supply in St. Paul at a reasonable cost Some of the items in the letter of May 24th would require major changee which would necessitate charging rent which is probably above what most would consider affordable housing. The items of most concern were the second floor stairway which is only 2'3" wide and code requires three foot wide stairway. The second is the order to "Replace ali wastes and vents". I have no problem with making the necessary changes for the kitchen sink and the waste lines which serve the first floor but to replace the stack and vent which goe to the second floor half bath and vent to roof is very costly. The item "Provide e�aust ventilation for batt�rooms" als requires some major woric. The item whica states "Repair or replace retaining walls" is a considerable concern becau; retaining walls can be very expensive and it is not clear what is required. I would like to state that I thought Mr. Strathman gave all of these points fair consideration but I would like to make some fiuther comments. I do not wish to make the case that the Legislative Hearing Officer is in error. Mr. Strathman said he would recommend a variance that would allow the existing stairway (after needed repair to fix the broken steps) which is only 2'3" wide and code requires a three food wide stairway to be used to serve the upstairs bedrooms. When the point about the stack and vent were considered, he asked Mr. Wagner, the building inspector, about it. Mr. Wagner said that he thought the second floor half bath was added after the house was built and that the waste was connected to the vent. However, he didn't provide any envidence that this was the case. Mr. Strathman asked if the current situation was a real problem. Mr Wagnor said that he wasn't sure and that he wasn't the pluxnbing inspector. I contend that the current waste and vent for the second floor work properly and there is no problem and hope that a variance can be granted. When Mr. Wagnor was asked about the bathroom vents, he replied that since a new stack and vent were necessary this would not be a significant added expense. When the point about the retaining walls came up, Mr. Wagnar said he would meet with me and give me a clear understanding of what was required. I talked with Mr. Wagnor after the hearing and he told me that he would not be able to meet with me for at least 10 day and perhaps two weeks since he was going on vacation. AT the end of my application for appeal, I wrote the following paragraph. "I am also requesting that when all the items related to the interior of the house are made that there be authorization to reoccupy the house. The remainin items ;�vil: be x:iade in a Yir.iely fashiar. basad on mutual agreement. Tr.is is especizlly impartant for the it�r.i of retzini walls. The need for rental units in St. Paul is severe. Large numbers of individuals and families ha�e contacted me about renting this property." I failed to ask Mr. Strathan to act on this request and will add this to this "written statement". Since raceiving the letter of May 24th, I have had to consider the option of selling the properry because of making all the corrections may be too costly. This is not my preference but it may be necessary. I have talked with NeDA about selling the properiy to them and they are interested. Their majar concern of the items on the list is the retaining walls. This properiy was a HUD house in the late 80's and I assume that the house had passed inspection when this properiy was sold to Mr. Sudmeier. Council Research Cerrter JUN 212pp1 o��c�o APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Property Code Enforcement Legislative Hearing 6. State specifically what is bein� appealed and why. This appeai �ows out of a series of events set forth in a letter to Sfeve Ma�nor dafed May 29, 200I (a copy of which is added to this appeal). Owners of rental properiy often have problems with tenants and when they leave, it is necessary to do a lot of work to be able to rent the properiy a�ain. This is the case of 134 E. Elizabeth. The last tenant moved out in November of 2000. Work was in progess to put the house in proper condirion. Because I had pl ans to spend much of last winter traveling, ihe work not finished was put off until April. A seazch warrant was issued by Judse James Campbell on April 16th to seaxch the property for drugs sent to a person usin� this address. I am not sure but believe that this warrant caused the property to be inspected I was not contacted by the Division of Code Enforcement to ask to make an inspection. I received a letter dated April 18, 2001 from Michael R. Morehead which notified me. The heading of xhis letter was NOTICE OF CONDEMNATION AS UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION AND ORDER TO VACATE. In retrospect I should have appealed that notice since work was in progress to correct the Principal Violations set out in this lettec However in this letter it states that conection of these violations would lead to authorization to reoccupy this dwelling and I had no problem with that. A second letter was sent to me by Stave Magnor dated Apri123, 2001. This ]etter found that the property met the legal definition of a vacant building. I again could have appealed but because of my inexperience on these matters, I did not. This has led to another inspection of the property made on May 23rd and the lerter which followed dated May 24th. Making a property which has been designated as vacant certified to reoccupy has much more rigorous code compliance requirements. There was a list of Principal V iolations in the April 18th letter and now in the letter of May 24th are more items some of which will require considerable rebuilding of the structure and cost of the compliance is considerable. Therefore I am requesting that some of the items listed in the May 24th but not in April I Sth letter be set aside or made more clear for compliance. These items are: BUILDING 6. If second floor is to be used for habitable space, a proper stairway, windows, etc. will have to be installed. Second floor considered attic. When the house was buik the second floor has two bedroom with a half bath. The stairway has a width of 2'3" which has to be made to three feet to comply. There aze many, many houses in St. Paul which have this type of stairways and aze only required to be changed when a building falls into the vacant building category. Making this change will require a major rebuilding of the house. Therefore, I request that this part of this item be modified so the existing stairway can be used when the broken stairs have been repaired (item 8, Principal Violations in April 18th letter). 9. Rebuild rear entry steps with proper rise, ruu, rails, etc. I am not sure about this item, The reaz entry seems to be in proper condition and I don't know what is required here. 10. Repair or replace retaining walls. Here again I need some information about what is required. ELECTRICAL 4.Insure proper groauding I am not sure here whether or not this will require rewiring of the house with all outlets serviced with three wires with a ground wire to each outlet. PLTJMBING 3. All wasfes and vents throughout the bnilding are incorrect or inadequate. Replace all wasfes and vents. I was present when the inspection cn May 23rd and the plumbing ir.specto: talked aboat .eplace the nain plumbing stack and vent which service the bathroom on the first and second floor. To replace the stack and vent will again require a major rebuilding of the house. This stack and vent are a part of the original construction and is common to most of the houses in St. Paul and I request that this part of this item be modified so the existing stack and vent can be used. HEATING 11. Provide exhaust venrilation for bathrooms. .This is another item not found icunost old houses and would require rebuilding I am also requesting that when all the items related to the interior of the house aze made that there be authorization to reoccupy the house. The remaining items will be made in a timely fashion based on mutual agreement. This is especially important for the item of retaining walls. The need for rental uniTS in St. Paul is severe. Large numbers of individuals and families have contacted me about renting this property. I want to know what permits I can obtain as the properiy ownec The May 24th letter does state that permits for plumbing and electorial work on vacant building must be obtained by licensed and bonded conhactors. 6�_tKa 136I Lafond Ave. St. Paul, MN SSId4 June 20, 2001 Christopher B. Coleman St. Paul City Councilmember, Wazd 2 St. Paui City Hall St. Paul, MN 55102-1615 Deaz Mr. Coleman, Thank you for your letter of June 6th about my concern about tl�e cost of code compliance of the properry at 134 E. Elizabeth. The compliance letter of May 24th had some items which seemed to be difficult to comply at a reasonable cost. I asked for a hearing from the Legislative Hearing Officer and one was held on June 19th. The recommendation of Mr. Strathman, the Legislative Hearing O�cer, is being forwarded to the Ciry Counc I have the opporiunity to add a written statement and I am doing that. I am enclosing the statement of what was appealed and a copy of my written statement. Thank you for your concerns about affordable housing in St. Paul. Sincerely yours, Lyle C. Hall cc: Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Off cer (� � ��vY�Q�i.av U _ ..� O�- ��C� \ °� . NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, June 19, 2001 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislafive Hearing Officer STAFF PRESENT: Christopher Cahill, Fire Prevention; Michael Urmann, Fire Prevention; Don Wagner, L1EP (License, Inspections, Environmental Protection) The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. 2650 University Avenue (Laid over from 5-15-01) Gerry Strattunan stated this will be laid over to the July 17, 2001, Properry Code Enforcement meeting. The owner is near a solution to his problem. 1753 Marshall Avenue (No one appeared to represent the properiy.) Gerry Strathxnan granted a variance on the non-conforming doors on the following conditions: 1) if the non-conforxning doors ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated door assemblies; 2) the building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with a11 applicable codes and ordinances. 251 Maria Avenue (No one appeared to represent the properiy.) Mike Urmann reported this is regarding bathroom ventilation. There are no signs of mold and mildew in the unit or deterioration due to water damage; however, the owner would need to install the ventilation for this unit to be compliant. Gerry Strathxnan asked is it difficult to install. Mr. Urmann responded di�cult, but not unpossible. Gerry Strathman granted a variance to provide mechanical ventilation in the Unit 9 bathroom on condition that inspectors in the future do not observe any moisture related problems. 134 Elizabeth Street East Lyle Hall, owner, appeazed and stated he had this property since October 1999. The problem tenant was evicted in November 1999. Mr. Hall retired and was not able to complete things to bring it up to the condition for it to be rented while he was out of the country. While he was away, someone moved into this address and was receiving shipments of drugs. A raid occurred in Aprii, and the inspection occurred since that time. The second inspection required quite a few ��- b�t C� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JLJNE 19, 2001 Page 2 tUiugs and would be quite substantial to bring up to code. Some items would require rebuilding the inside, such as widening the stairway. Building Item 6- If second floor is to be used for habitable space, a proper stairway, windows, etc. wiIl have to 6e instalied. Second fIoor considered aftic. Gerry Strafi�man asked is it kus intent that the Second Floor is a habitable space. Mr. Hall responded yes. Many stairways in Saint Paul are that width, rise, and run. It is the original stairway. This space has been used as a bedroom for many yeazs. Don Wagner stated the Second Floor was built as an attic and finished as a livable space later. The windows and stauway aze inadequate. Building Item 9- Rebuild front entry steps with proper rise, run, platform, rails, etc. Mr. Ha11 stated the deck on the back of the house has been there since he purchased the house. People have no irouble going up and down the stairs. Mr. Wagner responded it is a second stairway coming down from the deck. It seems it was built without a proper perxnit. The rise, run, and rails do not meet code. They aze not uniform; one rise is 10 inches. Electrical Item 4- Insare proper gronnding. Mr. Hall stated old wiring is being used. This was a HLTD (Housing and Urban Development) house. One hundred amp service has been installed. It was rewired into the exisring wiring. It is uncleaz if the inspector wants all grounded wires complete from the box in the basement to all the electrical thittgs in the house. Mr. Wagner responded all the outlets in the walls need to be changed from two prong to three prong. Plumbing Item #3 - All wastes and vents throughout the building are incorrect or inadequate. Replace all wastes and vents. Mr. Hall stated the stack and vent have been there since the house was built. He asked did the stack have to be replaced all the way to the roo£ Mr. Wagner responded he is sure there was originally a bathroom on the First Floor where the stack went up through the attic space. A half bath has been added to the Second Floor that someone tied into the vent stack, which makes the First Floar and Second Floor improper. Basically, the entire waste and vent system is wrong. Mr. Hall stated installing a new stack and vent would require tearing out wa11s and going out to the roof. Also, he is still puzzled if the Second Floor bathroom can become habitable space. Mr. Wagner responded if Mz. Strathman feels the stairway will be adequate because of width, that could be approved. But the windows should be changed to meet light, venfilation, and egress requirements. The electrical and plumbing should be updaxed. Mr. Strathman asked what is the nature of the hazard because of the improper stack. Mr. Wagier responded the house could get gas from the plumbing if it is not vented properly. The waste siphons without proper vents and then gas gets into the house. Mr. Wagner considers this item important. 'The owner could eliminate the plumbing on the Second Floor on the attic space, redo that section of pipe, and it would become a vent stack again. The entire Second Floor was bootlegged in. Heating Item Il - Provide Exhaust Ventilation for Bafhrooms. Mr. Hail stated this is a major thing to install. Mr. Wagner stated there is major work on this properry. To install a vent along with the plumbing is minor with what he is faced with here. o �- �,� o PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JUNE 19, 2001 Page 3 Mr. Strathman asked is it his intenTioa to use the Second Floor as a habitable space. Mr. Hall responded he is thinkiug about selling it� It would be a one bedroom house without that space. Mr. Strathman stated the owner has to not use it as a living space or make it meet code as a living space. Mr. Hall asked could he get a variance for the stairwell. Mr. Strathman asked is that the only issue that he is unable to resolve that prevents him you from using this as a habitable space. Mr. Hall responded that is correct. Mr. Wagner stated it is a straight run of stairway to about four feet off the kitchen floor and then it winds down into the kitchen. Building Item #10 - Repair or replace retaining walls. Mr. Hall stated he needed clarification. Mr. Wagner responded any retaining wa11s on his property have to be in good condition. He can stop at the properry and discuss the walls with him. Gerry Strathman grauted a variance with respect to the Second Floor stairway. The other items will have to be resolved with the inspector. It sounds lika they are a11 solvable. 52 and 58 Douglas Street Mark Jossant, representing the owner Mark Osadchuk, appeazed and stated he is requesting a variance on the window well. The owner has complied with all other deficiencies on the list. The windows are 20 inches high and need to be 24 murimum openable height. The building was built in 1900. The 20 inch opening is a good sized opening. It will cost $2,000 to install four windows. The chances of getting out of this window are just as good as making the opening higher. Instead of opening the height of the opening, it would be easier to lower the sill height. (Mr. Jossant had a diagram of the window.) Mike Urmann stated the sill height is conect. The 20 inches by 30 inches is meeting with the intent of the code for the 5.7 squaze foot opening. He would not oppose an appeal in this case. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the escape windows for each sleeping room. 239 Selby Avenue The following appeared: Father John Estrem, Pastor of Cathedral of St. Paul; and Tom Nonnemacher, McGough Construction Company. Mr. Estrem stated the cathedral is undergoing a majar exterior restoration replacing the roof, cleaning and tuckpointing the outside of the building. A few weeks ago they received an order to provide two temporary standpipes during construction and had a series of conversations with the Fire Department about that. Mr. Estrem has accepted the limitation of fighting a fire on the dome, which is what the issue here is about. They have designed scaffolding with two egresses and rivo cranes with man baskets so they can safely remove workers in any situation. This is not an apartment or an office building; therefore, they are not talking about life safety concerning workers and people who live there. Mr. Estrem feels they have designed an adequate way to remove workers in an emergency. b 1- ��-1� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JUNE 19, 2001 Page 4 Father Estrem went on to say there seems to be no precedent for this. When the Capitol and the Basilica--both tall buildings--were remodeled, there was no requirement for standpipes. No one has been able to e�cplain how this would help to have a standpipe attached to the outside of the building n,nn;ng up ne�ct to the scaffolding 250 feet in the air. If fhe dome is on fire, he is not sure how safe it would be to send a fireman up on scaff'olding that is attached to the dome. There is very little to burn on the dome. There is some wood under the copper. Under the wood is a layer of clay tile and a layer of cement on top of the clay tile. It is an all steel dome structure. Also, they are quite uncertain how they would attach the staudpipe to the building. They have fire extinguishers. They have fire watch in place whenever they aze using anything flauvnable. It is a very careful job they are doing. It could cost $125,000 to $150,000 to install standpipes that would not be very useable if there was a fire. The Fire department first cited a code that did not apply. Now, they aze talking about a different code that is sort of a catch all code that says they can require all sorts of different things. Chris Cahill, Fire Deparhnent Engineer, reported the Fire DeparLment became aware of this after the scaffolding started to be built. A district chief and fire company visited the site to see what is needed to be done if there is an incident. The Chief said he needed a standpipe to fight a fire. It is a vertical pipe with outlets that helps firefighters get water to high elevations when they cannot fight a fire through tradirional means on the ground. The ciuef found a lot of combustibles. There is a lot of wood: planking of the walkways, handrails, multiple layers of plywood on the dome. Also, there are plastic rubber membranes that aze being put over the top for waterproofing. They aze doing hot wark (using soldering irons). During the construction of the arena, for example, there were three fires caused by hot work. There is a section of the code that if special circumstances apply, the fire chief is authorized to ask for additional fire protection features. Mr. Cahill stated this is a lot of scaffolding. It is not typical reroofing. There aze not many buildings 225 feet up in the air. Since the first day the Fire Department considered this, the chief the assistant chief, three deputies, and a vast number of district chiefs and captains have been trying to fgure out a better way to provide equat protection. They have considered stretching a hose up there and leaving it in place, but they do not have that much spare hose and they were concerned about daxnage from the elements and construction workers. They were considering buckets to attach to the cranes; however, crane operators aze not on site 24 hours a day. None of these things would work, and it would appear the fire departrnent is standing azound doing nothing. The essence is tune. They need to get there are as fast as they can with water in sufficient quantities to fight the fire. Mr. Cahill went on to say the fire department conducted a test on Sunday afternoon to see how high up on the building the fire trucks could spray. There aze a couple of spots they can get to, but they cannot get all the way up to the top. The district chiefs said the 12 to 14 minutes it would take to set up the ladders would not be an acceptable option. The contractor has been helpful in accommodating the fire department visits to the site. It is a$32 Million project, and it is an irreplaceable building. Mr. Nonnemacher stated the Fire Department does not think a fire will happen during the day. His workers has water up there, a lot of fire ea�tinguishers, and people on fire watch watching. o� �40 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JLTNE 19, 2001 Page 5 The Fire Departments concem is after hours. He asked how long it will take for the following to occur: someone observes a fire, the fire department responds, they arrive on their trucks, they hook up, energize the standpipe, put all the hose over theu shoulders, carry it up 250 feet, and hook it on to the standpipe. Gerry Strathman asked is he comfortable that his men are safe there. Mr. Nonnemacher responded yes. If the building is damaged and destroyed because of a fire, asked Mr. Strathman, does he accept the fact that the City attempted to do something and he objected that attempt. Also, if it should later come to be that this solution might have prevented a fire, does he still accept responsibility for what happened. Father Estrem responded he does understand this. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the temporary standpipes as Father John Estrem, the appellant, and Tom Nonnemacher, McGough Construction Company representative, aze accepting responsibility for any risks that might result from this variance being granted. 762 Robert Street South Herschel G. Jacobson, owner, appeared and stated his windows are not big enough. An egress window on side would put him in the middle of the sidewalk. On the other side, there is a sidewalk and a wall in the way. Two yeazs ago, he installed new windows, which cost him almost $3,000. Now, he is being told that he did not get a variance on those windows. Barb Cummings was the fire marshal that let him install the windows two years ago. Mike Urmann reported this is a basement apariment. By his measurement, the windows are 17 inches openable height, which makes it half a foot too small and impossible for ingress or egress. A window could be installed that is compliant. A crank out, full open window of a different size would meet the minimum requirements. The space is large enough for a compliant window. Mr. Strathman asked how many windows would need to be replaced. Mr. Urmann responded one in each bedroom. Mr. Jacobson responded there are four bedrooms in the lower level. On one side there is no way to instail a conforming window because he would have to lrnock out the sidewaik and dig a hole for water. On the other side, if he has to put in an egress window, he would need four feet in front of the window. He only has a foot and a half before the sidewalk. Mr. Jacobson stated on one side, he could cut the brick out and install a lazger window. On the other side is a big concern because of the sidewalk. Mr. Strathman asked is the building compliant. Mr. Urmann responded yes. Gerry Sirathman granted a variance on the escape windows for each bedroom on condition that if the windows ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming windows where possible. Given the fact the window is there and reachable, these are special circumstances. 970 Fuller Avenue (No one appeared to represent this property.) U\-1�,�-1C� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JLJNE 19, 2001 Page 6 Gerry Strathman denied the appeai on the Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated May 31, 2001. The meeting was adjourned at 228 p.m. �] Council Fffe # �� — � yq o�����AL Presented Green Sheet # 106162 RESOLUTION CI'fY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA � q Refesed To Committee Date BE IT' RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the June 19, 2001 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer: Proper[v Apnealed A�roellant 2650 Universitv Avenue (Laid over from S-IS-01) Peter Lund for Transportation Components Decision: Lay over to the July 17, 2001, Properiy Code Enforcement meeting. 1753 Marshall Avenue Heidi Brownlee for OHB Properties LLC Decision: Variance ganted on the non-confornung doors on the following conditions: 1) if the non-conforming doors ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated door assemblies; 2) the building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with a11 applicable codes and ordinances. 251 Maria Avenue A1 Hannestad Decision: Variance is granted to provide mechanical ventilation in the Unit 9 bathroom on condition that inspectors in the future do not observe any moisture related problems. 134 Elizabeth Street East Lyle Hall Decision: Variance granted with respect to the Second Floor stairway. 52 and 58 Dou¢las Street Mazk Osadchuk Decision: Variance granted on the escape windows for each sleeping room. 239 Selbv Avenue Father John Estrem for Cathedral of St. Paul Decision: Variance granted on the temporary standpipes as Father John Estrem, the appellant, and Tom Nonnemacher, McGough Construction Company representative, aze accepting responsibility for any risks that might result from this variance being granted. � 762 Robert Street South Herschel G. Jacobson Decision: Variance granted on the escape windows for each bedroom on condition that if the windows ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming windows where possible. 970 Fuller Avenue Lawrence Walker Decision: Appeal denied on Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated May 31, 2001. Green Sheet 106162 o�-G�10 Yeas Na s Absent Blakey f Coleman � Harris Benanav � Reiter � Bostrom � Lantry ;/ ` O C� Adopted by Council: Date: � 2 c p� Adoption Ce ified by Council Secretary By: a _ � Approved by Mayor: Date: .-.� v�Lj t O 2ld� f By: �� � !� 2 l Requested by Department o£ � Form Approved by City Attorney � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � o �..tyd Counci�I Of f ices Gerry Strathman, 266-8560 6-20-2001 �xum� rort nartvm TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET onMr�r owcao. No 106162 � arcanwar ❑ arcuavK � � m�w�u�miwcuew. ❑ rwuryu.ammuero ❑MYCRI�YNGIIIJ ❑ (CUP ALL LOCATIONS FOR S(GNATUREj Approving the 6-19-01 decisions of the I.egislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 2650 University Avenue, 1753 Marshall Avenue, 251 Maria Avenue, 134 Elizabeth Street East, 52 and 58 Douglas Street, 239 Selby Avenue, 762 Robert Street South, and 970 Fuller Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 1�.��Fii ny_�.s:z.ri=.i TRANSACT�ON SOURCE ws Nis ceBONrmn e„er wonrea unaer a a�o-aa r« mie depammemv YES NO iles this Da�B�xJfim� evr bean a dry empbyee? YES NO Daes ihie Persailfi�m P�s a sitill not namel�YP� M anY curteM city emWoyee4 YES t�p b tlNS petaorvTpm e teryeted venda? rES rio Yain an vea enex+en on aeoarate sneM and atluh m areen aheet . « `' «: JuN 2 a 20�1 �',0l4P4�'� RBS�c'$CC�I Ci8t1t2P -_� � � 2001 cosvnEVaue euooereo (cuca.e oN� ACTIVRY NtRdBER YES NO INFORMAiION (IXPWN) ot -c�{o WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT Lyle C. Hall, 1361 Lafond Ave. St. Paul, MN 55104 Tfris is a written statement subsequent to the appeal of part of code compliance order of May 24th. This appeal was held on June 19, 2001 in Room 330, City Hall before Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer. The application for the appeal cites several items which were covered at this hearing (a copy of this part of the application attached). The reason for the appeal was to be able to make this properry suitable for use as a rental unit which is in very short supply in St. Paul at a reasonable cost Some of the items in the letter of May 24th would require major changee which would necessitate charging rent which is probably above what most would consider affordable housing. The items of most concern were the second floor stairway which is only 2'3" wide and code requires three foot wide stairway. The second is the order to "Replace ali wastes and vents". I have no problem with making the necessary changes for the kitchen sink and the waste lines which serve the first floor but to replace the stack and vent which goe to the second floor half bath and vent to roof is very costly. The item "Provide e�aust ventilation for batt�rooms" als requires some major woric. The item whica states "Repair or replace retaining walls" is a considerable concern becau; retaining walls can be very expensive and it is not clear what is required. I would like to state that I thought Mr. Strathman gave all of these points fair consideration but I would like to make some fiuther comments. I do not wish to make the case that the Legislative Hearing Officer is in error. Mr. Strathman said he would recommend a variance that would allow the existing stairway (after needed repair to fix the broken steps) which is only 2'3" wide and code requires a three food wide stairway to be used to serve the upstairs bedrooms. When the point about the stack and vent were considered, he asked Mr. Wagner, the building inspector, about it. Mr. Wagner said that he thought the second floor half bath was added after the house was built and that the waste was connected to the vent. However, he didn't provide any envidence that this was the case. Mr. Strathman asked if the current situation was a real problem. Mr Wagnor said that he wasn't sure and that he wasn't the pluxnbing inspector. I contend that the current waste and vent for the second floor work properly and there is no problem and hope that a variance can be granted. When Mr. Wagnor was asked about the bathroom vents, he replied that since a new stack and vent were necessary this would not be a significant added expense. When the point about the retaining walls came up, Mr. Wagnar said he would meet with me and give me a clear understanding of what was required. I talked with Mr. Wagnor after the hearing and he told me that he would not be able to meet with me for at least 10 day and perhaps two weeks since he was going on vacation. AT the end of my application for appeal, I wrote the following paragraph. "I am also requesting that when all the items related to the interior of the house are made that there be authorization to reoccupy the house. The remainin items ;�vil: be x:iade in a Yir.iely fashiar. basad on mutual agreement. Tr.is is especizlly impartant for the it�r.i of retzini walls. The need for rental units in St. Paul is severe. Large numbers of individuals and families ha�e contacted me about renting this property." I failed to ask Mr. Strathan to act on this request and will add this to this "written statement". Since raceiving the letter of May 24th, I have had to consider the option of selling the properry because of making all the corrections may be too costly. This is not my preference but it may be necessary. I have talked with NeDA about selling the properiy to them and they are interested. Their majar concern of the items on the list is the retaining walls. This properiy was a HUD house in the late 80's and I assume that the house had passed inspection when this properiy was sold to Mr. Sudmeier. Council Research Cerrter JUN 212pp1 o��c�o APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Property Code Enforcement Legislative Hearing 6. State specifically what is bein� appealed and why. This appeai �ows out of a series of events set forth in a letter to Sfeve Ma�nor dafed May 29, 200I (a copy of which is added to this appeal). Owners of rental properiy often have problems with tenants and when they leave, it is necessary to do a lot of work to be able to rent the properiy a�ain. This is the case of 134 E. Elizabeth. The last tenant moved out in November of 2000. Work was in progess to put the house in proper condirion. Because I had pl ans to spend much of last winter traveling, ihe work not finished was put off until April. A seazch warrant was issued by Judse James Campbell on April 16th to seaxch the property for drugs sent to a person usin� this address. I am not sure but believe that this warrant caused the property to be inspected I was not contacted by the Division of Code Enforcement to ask to make an inspection. I received a letter dated April 18, 2001 from Michael R. Morehead which notified me. The heading of xhis letter was NOTICE OF CONDEMNATION AS UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION AND ORDER TO VACATE. In retrospect I should have appealed that notice since work was in progress to correct the Principal Violations set out in this lettec However in this letter it states that conection of these violations would lead to authorization to reoccupy this dwelling and I had no problem with that. A second letter was sent to me by Stave Magnor dated Apri123, 2001. This ]etter found that the property met the legal definition of a vacant building. I again could have appealed but because of my inexperience on these matters, I did not. This has led to another inspection of the property made on May 23rd and the lerter which followed dated May 24th. Making a property which has been designated as vacant certified to reoccupy has much more rigorous code compliance requirements. There was a list of Principal V iolations in the April 18th letter and now in the letter of May 24th are more items some of which will require considerable rebuilding of the structure and cost of the compliance is considerable. Therefore I am requesting that some of the items listed in the May 24th but not in April I Sth letter be set aside or made more clear for compliance. These items are: BUILDING 6. If second floor is to be used for habitable space, a proper stairway, windows, etc. will have to be installed. Second floor considered attic. When the house was buik the second floor has two bedroom with a half bath. The stairway has a width of 2'3" which has to be made to three feet to comply. There aze many, many houses in St. Paul which have this type of stairways and aze only required to be changed when a building falls into the vacant building category. Making this change will require a major rebuilding of the house. Therefore, I request that this part of this item be modified so the existing stairway can be used when the broken stairs have been repaired (item 8, Principal Violations in April 18th letter). 9. Rebuild rear entry steps with proper rise, ruu, rails, etc. I am not sure about this item, The reaz entry seems to be in proper condition and I don't know what is required here. 10. Repair or replace retaining walls. Here again I need some information about what is required. ELECTRICAL 4.Insure proper groauding I am not sure here whether or not this will require rewiring of the house with all outlets serviced with three wires with a ground wire to each outlet. PLTJMBING 3. All wasfes and vents throughout the bnilding are incorrect or inadequate. Replace all wasfes and vents. I was present when the inspection cn May 23rd and the plumbing ir.specto: talked aboat .eplace the nain plumbing stack and vent which service the bathroom on the first and second floor. To replace the stack and vent will again require a major rebuilding of the house. This stack and vent are a part of the original construction and is common to most of the houses in St. Paul and I request that this part of this item be modified so the existing stack and vent can be used. HEATING 11. Provide exhaust venrilation for bathrooms. .This is another item not found icunost old houses and would require rebuilding I am also requesting that when all the items related to the interior of the house aze made that there be authorization to reoccupy the house. The remaining items will be made in a timely fashion based on mutual agreement. This is especially important for the item of retaining walls. The need for rental uniTS in St. Paul is severe. Large numbers of individuals and families have contacted me about renting this property. I want to know what permits I can obtain as the properiy ownec The May 24th letter does state that permits for plumbing and electorial work on vacant building must be obtained by licensed and bonded conhactors. 6�_tKa 136I Lafond Ave. St. Paul, MN SSId4 June 20, 2001 Christopher B. Coleman St. Paul City Councilmember, Wazd 2 St. Paui City Hall St. Paul, MN 55102-1615 Deaz Mr. Coleman, Thank you for your letter of June 6th about my concern about tl�e cost of code compliance of the properry at 134 E. Elizabeth. The compliance letter of May 24th had some items which seemed to be difficult to comply at a reasonable cost. I asked for a hearing from the Legislative Hearing Officer and one was held on June 19th. The recommendation of Mr. Strathman, the Legislative Hearing O�cer, is being forwarded to the Ciry Counc I have the opporiunity to add a written statement and I am doing that. I am enclosing the statement of what was appealed and a copy of my written statement. Thank you for your concerns about affordable housing in St. Paul. Sincerely yours, Lyle C. Hall cc: Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Off cer (� � ��vY�Q�i.av U _ ..� O�- ��C� \ °� . NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, June 19, 2001 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislafive Hearing Officer STAFF PRESENT: Christopher Cahill, Fire Prevention; Michael Urmann, Fire Prevention; Don Wagner, L1EP (License, Inspections, Environmental Protection) The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. 2650 University Avenue (Laid over from 5-15-01) Gerry Strattunan stated this will be laid over to the July 17, 2001, Properry Code Enforcement meeting. The owner is near a solution to his problem. 1753 Marshall Avenue (No one appeared to represent the properiy.) Gerry Strathxnan granted a variance on the non-conforming doors on the following conditions: 1) if the non-conforxning doors ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated door assemblies; 2) the building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with a11 applicable codes and ordinances. 251 Maria Avenue (No one appeared to represent the properiy.) Mike Urmann reported this is regarding bathroom ventilation. There are no signs of mold and mildew in the unit or deterioration due to water damage; however, the owner would need to install the ventilation for this unit to be compliant. Gerry Strathxnan asked is it difficult to install. Mr. Urmann responded di�cult, but not unpossible. Gerry Strathman granted a variance to provide mechanical ventilation in the Unit 9 bathroom on condition that inspectors in the future do not observe any moisture related problems. 134 Elizabeth Street East Lyle Hall, owner, appeazed and stated he had this property since October 1999. The problem tenant was evicted in November 1999. Mr. Hall retired and was not able to complete things to bring it up to the condition for it to be rented while he was out of the country. While he was away, someone moved into this address and was receiving shipments of drugs. A raid occurred in Aprii, and the inspection occurred since that time. The second inspection required quite a few ��- b�t C� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JLJNE 19, 2001 Page 2 tUiugs and would be quite substantial to bring up to code. Some items would require rebuilding the inside, such as widening the stairway. Building Item 6- If second floor is to be used for habitable space, a proper stairway, windows, etc. wiIl have to 6e instalied. Second fIoor considered aftic. Gerry Strafi�man asked is it kus intent that the Second Floor is a habitable space. Mr. Hall responded yes. Many stairways in Saint Paul are that width, rise, and run. It is the original stairway. This space has been used as a bedroom for many yeazs. Don Wagner stated the Second Floor was built as an attic and finished as a livable space later. The windows and stauway aze inadequate. Building Item 9- Rebuild front entry steps with proper rise, run, platform, rails, etc. Mr. Ha11 stated the deck on the back of the house has been there since he purchased the house. People have no irouble going up and down the stairs. Mr. Wagner responded it is a second stairway coming down from the deck. It seems it was built without a proper perxnit. The rise, run, and rails do not meet code. They aze not uniform; one rise is 10 inches. Electrical Item 4- Insare proper gronnding. Mr. Hall stated old wiring is being used. This was a HLTD (Housing and Urban Development) house. One hundred amp service has been installed. It was rewired into the exisring wiring. It is uncleaz if the inspector wants all grounded wires complete from the box in the basement to all the electrical thittgs in the house. Mr. Wagner responded all the outlets in the walls need to be changed from two prong to three prong. Plumbing Item #3 - All wastes and vents throughout the building are incorrect or inadequate. Replace all wastes and vents. Mr. Hall stated the stack and vent have been there since the house was built. He asked did the stack have to be replaced all the way to the roo£ Mr. Wagner responded he is sure there was originally a bathroom on the First Floor where the stack went up through the attic space. A half bath has been added to the Second Floor that someone tied into the vent stack, which makes the First Floar and Second Floor improper. Basically, the entire waste and vent system is wrong. Mr. Hall stated installing a new stack and vent would require tearing out wa11s and going out to the roof. Also, he is still puzzled if the Second Floor bathroom can become habitable space. Mr. Wagner responded if Mz. Strathman feels the stairway will be adequate because of width, that could be approved. But the windows should be changed to meet light, venfilation, and egress requirements. The electrical and plumbing should be updaxed. Mr. Strathman asked what is the nature of the hazard because of the improper stack. Mr. Wagier responded the house could get gas from the plumbing if it is not vented properly. The waste siphons without proper vents and then gas gets into the house. Mr. Wagner considers this item important. 'The owner could eliminate the plumbing on the Second Floor on the attic space, redo that section of pipe, and it would become a vent stack again. The entire Second Floor was bootlegged in. Heating Item Il - Provide Exhaust Ventilation for Bafhrooms. Mr. Hail stated this is a major thing to install. Mr. Wagner stated there is major work on this properry. To install a vent along with the plumbing is minor with what he is faced with here. o �- �,� o PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JUNE 19, 2001 Page 3 Mr. Strathman asked is it his intenTioa to use the Second Floor as a habitable space. Mr. Hall responded he is thinkiug about selling it� It would be a one bedroom house without that space. Mr. Strathman stated the owner has to not use it as a living space or make it meet code as a living space. Mr. Hall asked could he get a variance for the stairwell. Mr. Strathman asked is that the only issue that he is unable to resolve that prevents him you from using this as a habitable space. Mr. Hall responded that is correct. Mr. Wagner stated it is a straight run of stairway to about four feet off the kitchen floor and then it winds down into the kitchen. Building Item #10 - Repair or replace retaining walls. Mr. Hall stated he needed clarification. Mr. Wagner responded any retaining wa11s on his property have to be in good condition. He can stop at the properry and discuss the walls with him. Gerry Strathman grauted a variance with respect to the Second Floor stairway. The other items will have to be resolved with the inspector. It sounds lika they are a11 solvable. 52 and 58 Douglas Street Mark Jossant, representing the owner Mark Osadchuk, appeazed and stated he is requesting a variance on the window well. The owner has complied with all other deficiencies on the list. The windows are 20 inches high and need to be 24 murimum openable height. The building was built in 1900. The 20 inch opening is a good sized opening. It will cost $2,000 to install four windows. The chances of getting out of this window are just as good as making the opening higher. Instead of opening the height of the opening, it would be easier to lower the sill height. (Mr. Jossant had a diagram of the window.) Mike Urmann stated the sill height is conect. The 20 inches by 30 inches is meeting with the intent of the code for the 5.7 squaze foot opening. He would not oppose an appeal in this case. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the escape windows for each sleeping room. 239 Selby Avenue The following appeared: Father John Estrem, Pastor of Cathedral of St. Paul; and Tom Nonnemacher, McGough Construction Company. Mr. Estrem stated the cathedral is undergoing a majar exterior restoration replacing the roof, cleaning and tuckpointing the outside of the building. A few weeks ago they received an order to provide two temporary standpipes during construction and had a series of conversations with the Fire Department about that. Mr. Estrem has accepted the limitation of fighting a fire on the dome, which is what the issue here is about. They have designed scaffolding with two egresses and rivo cranes with man baskets so they can safely remove workers in any situation. This is not an apartment or an office building; therefore, they are not talking about life safety concerning workers and people who live there. Mr. Estrem feels they have designed an adequate way to remove workers in an emergency. b 1- ��-1� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JUNE 19, 2001 Page 4 Father Estrem went on to say there seems to be no precedent for this. When the Capitol and the Basilica--both tall buildings--were remodeled, there was no requirement for standpipes. No one has been able to e�cplain how this would help to have a standpipe attached to the outside of the building n,nn;ng up ne�ct to the scaffolding 250 feet in the air. If fhe dome is on fire, he is not sure how safe it would be to send a fireman up on scaff'olding that is attached to the dome. There is very little to burn on the dome. There is some wood under the copper. Under the wood is a layer of clay tile and a layer of cement on top of the clay tile. It is an all steel dome structure. Also, they are quite uncertain how they would attach the staudpipe to the building. They have fire extinguishers. They have fire watch in place whenever they aze using anything flauvnable. It is a very careful job they are doing. It could cost $125,000 to $150,000 to install standpipes that would not be very useable if there was a fire. The Fire department first cited a code that did not apply. Now, they aze talking about a different code that is sort of a catch all code that says they can require all sorts of different things. Chris Cahill, Fire Deparhnent Engineer, reported the Fire DeparLment became aware of this after the scaffolding started to be built. A district chief and fire company visited the site to see what is needed to be done if there is an incident. The Chief said he needed a standpipe to fight a fire. It is a vertical pipe with outlets that helps firefighters get water to high elevations when they cannot fight a fire through tradirional means on the ground. The ciuef found a lot of combustibles. There is a lot of wood: planking of the walkways, handrails, multiple layers of plywood on the dome. Also, there are plastic rubber membranes that aze being put over the top for waterproofing. They aze doing hot wark (using soldering irons). During the construction of the arena, for example, there were three fires caused by hot work. There is a section of the code that if special circumstances apply, the fire chief is authorized to ask for additional fire protection features. Mr. Cahill stated this is a lot of scaffolding. It is not typical reroofing. There aze not many buildings 225 feet up in the air. Since the first day the Fire Department considered this, the chief the assistant chief, three deputies, and a vast number of district chiefs and captains have been trying to fgure out a better way to provide equat protection. They have considered stretching a hose up there and leaving it in place, but they do not have that much spare hose and they were concerned about daxnage from the elements and construction workers. They were considering buckets to attach to the cranes; however, crane operators aze not on site 24 hours a day. None of these things would work, and it would appear the fire departrnent is standing azound doing nothing. The essence is tune. They need to get there are as fast as they can with water in sufficient quantities to fight the fire. Mr. Cahill went on to say the fire department conducted a test on Sunday afternoon to see how high up on the building the fire trucks could spray. There aze a couple of spots they can get to, but they cannot get all the way up to the top. The district chiefs said the 12 to 14 minutes it would take to set up the ladders would not be an acceptable option. The contractor has been helpful in accommodating the fire department visits to the site. It is a$32 Million project, and it is an irreplaceable building. Mr. Nonnemacher stated the Fire Department does not think a fire will happen during the day. His workers has water up there, a lot of fire ea�tinguishers, and people on fire watch watching. o� �40 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JLTNE 19, 2001 Page 5 The Fire Departments concem is after hours. He asked how long it will take for the following to occur: someone observes a fire, the fire department responds, they arrive on their trucks, they hook up, energize the standpipe, put all the hose over theu shoulders, carry it up 250 feet, and hook it on to the standpipe. Gerry Strathman asked is he comfortable that his men are safe there. Mr. Nonnemacher responded yes. If the building is damaged and destroyed because of a fire, asked Mr. Strathman, does he accept the fact that the City attempted to do something and he objected that attempt. Also, if it should later come to be that this solution might have prevented a fire, does he still accept responsibility for what happened. Father Estrem responded he does understand this. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the temporary standpipes as Father John Estrem, the appellant, and Tom Nonnemacher, McGough Construction Company representative, aze accepting responsibility for any risks that might result from this variance being granted. 762 Robert Street South Herschel G. Jacobson, owner, appeared and stated his windows are not big enough. An egress window on side would put him in the middle of the sidewalk. On the other side, there is a sidewalk and a wall in the way. Two yeazs ago, he installed new windows, which cost him almost $3,000. Now, he is being told that he did not get a variance on those windows. Barb Cummings was the fire marshal that let him install the windows two years ago. Mike Urmann reported this is a basement apariment. By his measurement, the windows are 17 inches openable height, which makes it half a foot too small and impossible for ingress or egress. A window could be installed that is compliant. A crank out, full open window of a different size would meet the minimum requirements. The space is large enough for a compliant window. Mr. Strathman asked how many windows would need to be replaced. Mr. Urmann responded one in each bedroom. Mr. Jacobson responded there are four bedrooms in the lower level. On one side there is no way to instail a conforming window because he would have to lrnock out the sidewaik and dig a hole for water. On the other side, if he has to put in an egress window, he would need four feet in front of the window. He only has a foot and a half before the sidewalk. Mr. Jacobson stated on one side, he could cut the brick out and install a lazger window. On the other side is a big concern because of the sidewalk. Mr. Strathman asked is the building compliant. Mr. Urmann responded yes. Gerry Sirathman granted a variance on the escape windows for each bedroom on condition that if the windows ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming windows where possible. Given the fact the window is there and reachable, these are special circumstances. 970 Fuller Avenue (No one appeared to represent this property.) U\-1�,�-1C� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JLJNE 19, 2001 Page 6 Gerry Strathman denied the appeai on the Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated May 31, 2001. The meeting was adjourned at 228 p.m. �] Council Fffe # �� — � yq o�����AL Presented Green Sheet # 106162 RESOLUTION CI'fY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA � q Refesed To Committee Date BE IT' RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the June 19, 2001 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer: Proper[v Apnealed A�roellant 2650 Universitv Avenue (Laid over from S-IS-01) Peter Lund for Transportation Components Decision: Lay over to the July 17, 2001, Properiy Code Enforcement meeting. 1753 Marshall Avenue Heidi Brownlee for OHB Properties LLC Decision: Variance ganted on the non-confornung doors on the following conditions: 1) if the non-conforming doors ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated door assemblies; 2) the building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with a11 applicable codes and ordinances. 251 Maria Avenue A1 Hannestad Decision: Variance is granted to provide mechanical ventilation in the Unit 9 bathroom on condition that inspectors in the future do not observe any moisture related problems. 134 Elizabeth Street East Lyle Hall Decision: Variance granted with respect to the Second Floor stairway. 52 and 58 Dou¢las Street Mazk Osadchuk Decision: Variance granted on the escape windows for each sleeping room. 239 Selbv Avenue Father John Estrem for Cathedral of St. Paul Decision: Variance granted on the temporary standpipes as Father John Estrem, the appellant, and Tom Nonnemacher, McGough Construction Company representative, aze accepting responsibility for any risks that might result from this variance being granted. � 762 Robert Street South Herschel G. Jacobson Decision: Variance granted on the escape windows for each bedroom on condition that if the windows ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming windows where possible. 970 Fuller Avenue Lawrence Walker Decision: Appeal denied on Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated May 31, 2001. Green Sheet 106162 o�-G�10 Yeas Na s Absent Blakey f Coleman � Harris Benanav � Reiter � Bostrom � Lantry ;/ ` O C� Adopted by Council: Date: � 2 c p� Adoption Ce ified by Council Secretary By: a _ � Approved by Mayor: Date: .-.� v�Lj t O 2ld� f By: �� � !� 2 l Requested by Department o£ � Form Approved by City Attorney � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � o �..tyd Counci�I Of f ices Gerry Strathman, 266-8560 6-20-2001 �xum� rort nartvm TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET onMr�r owcao. No 106162 � arcanwar ❑ arcuavK � � m�w�u�miwcuew. ❑ rwuryu.ammuero ❑MYCRI�YNGIIIJ ❑ (CUP ALL LOCATIONS FOR S(GNATUREj Approving the 6-19-01 decisions of the I.egislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 2650 University Avenue, 1753 Marshall Avenue, 251 Maria Avenue, 134 Elizabeth Street East, 52 and 58 Douglas Street, 239 Selby Avenue, 762 Robert Street South, and 970 Fuller Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 1�.��Fii ny_�.s:z.ri=.i TRANSACT�ON SOURCE ws Nis ceBONrmn e„er wonrea unaer a a�o-aa r« mie depammemv YES NO iles this Da�B�xJfim� evr bean a dry empbyee? YES NO Daes ihie Persailfi�m P�s a sitill not namel�YP� M anY curteM city emWoyee4 YES t�p b tlNS petaorvTpm e teryeted venda? rES rio Yain an vea enex+en on aeoarate sneM and atluh m areen aheet . « `' «: JuN 2 a 20�1 �',0l4P4�'� RBS�c'$CC�I Ci8t1t2P -_� � � 2001 cosvnEVaue euooereo (cuca.e oN� ACTIVRY NtRdBER YES NO INFORMAiION (IXPWN) ot -c�{o WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT Lyle C. Hall, 1361 Lafond Ave. St. Paul, MN 55104 Tfris is a written statement subsequent to the appeal of part of code compliance order of May 24th. This appeal was held on June 19, 2001 in Room 330, City Hall before Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer. The application for the appeal cites several items which were covered at this hearing (a copy of this part of the application attached). The reason for the appeal was to be able to make this properry suitable for use as a rental unit which is in very short supply in St. Paul at a reasonable cost Some of the items in the letter of May 24th would require major changee which would necessitate charging rent which is probably above what most would consider affordable housing. The items of most concern were the second floor stairway which is only 2'3" wide and code requires three foot wide stairway. The second is the order to "Replace ali wastes and vents". I have no problem with making the necessary changes for the kitchen sink and the waste lines which serve the first floor but to replace the stack and vent which goe to the second floor half bath and vent to roof is very costly. The item "Provide e�aust ventilation for batt�rooms" als requires some major woric. The item whica states "Repair or replace retaining walls" is a considerable concern becau; retaining walls can be very expensive and it is not clear what is required. I would like to state that I thought Mr. Strathman gave all of these points fair consideration but I would like to make some fiuther comments. I do not wish to make the case that the Legislative Hearing Officer is in error. Mr. Strathman said he would recommend a variance that would allow the existing stairway (after needed repair to fix the broken steps) which is only 2'3" wide and code requires a three food wide stairway to be used to serve the upstairs bedrooms. When the point about the stack and vent were considered, he asked Mr. Wagner, the building inspector, about it. Mr. Wagner said that he thought the second floor half bath was added after the house was built and that the waste was connected to the vent. However, he didn't provide any envidence that this was the case. Mr. Strathman asked if the current situation was a real problem. Mr Wagnor said that he wasn't sure and that he wasn't the pluxnbing inspector. I contend that the current waste and vent for the second floor work properly and there is no problem and hope that a variance can be granted. When Mr. Wagnor was asked about the bathroom vents, he replied that since a new stack and vent were necessary this would not be a significant added expense. When the point about the retaining walls came up, Mr. Wagnar said he would meet with me and give me a clear understanding of what was required. I talked with Mr. Wagnor after the hearing and he told me that he would not be able to meet with me for at least 10 day and perhaps two weeks since he was going on vacation. AT the end of my application for appeal, I wrote the following paragraph. "I am also requesting that when all the items related to the interior of the house are made that there be authorization to reoccupy the house. The remainin items ;�vil: be x:iade in a Yir.iely fashiar. basad on mutual agreement. Tr.is is especizlly impartant for the it�r.i of retzini walls. The need for rental units in St. Paul is severe. Large numbers of individuals and families ha�e contacted me about renting this property." I failed to ask Mr. Strathan to act on this request and will add this to this "written statement". Since raceiving the letter of May 24th, I have had to consider the option of selling the properry because of making all the corrections may be too costly. This is not my preference but it may be necessary. I have talked with NeDA about selling the properiy to them and they are interested. Their majar concern of the items on the list is the retaining walls. This properiy was a HUD house in the late 80's and I assume that the house had passed inspection when this properiy was sold to Mr. Sudmeier. Council Research Cerrter JUN 212pp1 o��c�o APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Property Code Enforcement Legislative Hearing 6. State specifically what is bein� appealed and why. This appeai �ows out of a series of events set forth in a letter to Sfeve Ma�nor dafed May 29, 200I (a copy of which is added to this appeal). Owners of rental properiy often have problems with tenants and when they leave, it is necessary to do a lot of work to be able to rent the properiy a�ain. This is the case of 134 E. Elizabeth. The last tenant moved out in November of 2000. Work was in progess to put the house in proper condirion. Because I had pl ans to spend much of last winter traveling, ihe work not finished was put off until April. A seazch warrant was issued by Judse James Campbell on April 16th to seaxch the property for drugs sent to a person usin� this address. I am not sure but believe that this warrant caused the property to be inspected I was not contacted by the Division of Code Enforcement to ask to make an inspection. I received a letter dated April 18, 2001 from Michael R. Morehead which notified me. The heading of xhis letter was NOTICE OF CONDEMNATION AS UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION AND ORDER TO VACATE. In retrospect I should have appealed that notice since work was in progress to correct the Principal Violations set out in this lettec However in this letter it states that conection of these violations would lead to authorization to reoccupy this dwelling and I had no problem with that. A second letter was sent to me by Stave Magnor dated Apri123, 2001. This ]etter found that the property met the legal definition of a vacant building. I again could have appealed but because of my inexperience on these matters, I did not. This has led to another inspection of the property made on May 23rd and the lerter which followed dated May 24th. Making a property which has been designated as vacant certified to reoccupy has much more rigorous code compliance requirements. There was a list of Principal V iolations in the April 18th letter and now in the letter of May 24th are more items some of which will require considerable rebuilding of the structure and cost of the compliance is considerable. Therefore I am requesting that some of the items listed in the May 24th but not in April I Sth letter be set aside or made more clear for compliance. These items are: BUILDING 6. If second floor is to be used for habitable space, a proper stairway, windows, etc. will have to be installed. Second floor considered attic. When the house was buik the second floor has two bedroom with a half bath. The stairway has a width of 2'3" which has to be made to three feet to comply. There aze many, many houses in St. Paul which have this type of stairways and aze only required to be changed when a building falls into the vacant building category. Making this change will require a major rebuilding of the house. Therefore, I request that this part of this item be modified so the existing stairway can be used when the broken stairs have been repaired (item 8, Principal Violations in April 18th letter). 9. Rebuild rear entry steps with proper rise, ruu, rails, etc. I am not sure about this item, The reaz entry seems to be in proper condition and I don't know what is required here. 10. Repair or replace retaining walls. Here again I need some information about what is required. ELECTRICAL 4.Insure proper groauding I am not sure here whether or not this will require rewiring of the house with all outlets serviced with three wires with a ground wire to each outlet. PLTJMBING 3. All wasfes and vents throughout the bnilding are incorrect or inadequate. Replace all wasfes and vents. I was present when the inspection cn May 23rd and the plumbing ir.specto: talked aboat .eplace the nain plumbing stack and vent which service the bathroom on the first and second floor. To replace the stack and vent will again require a major rebuilding of the house. This stack and vent are a part of the original construction and is common to most of the houses in St. Paul and I request that this part of this item be modified so the existing stack and vent can be used. HEATING 11. Provide exhaust venrilation for bathrooms. .This is another item not found icunost old houses and would require rebuilding I am also requesting that when all the items related to the interior of the house aze made that there be authorization to reoccupy the house. The remaining items will be made in a timely fashion based on mutual agreement. This is especially important for the item of retaining walls. The need for rental uniTS in St. Paul is severe. Large numbers of individuals and families have contacted me about renting this property. I want to know what permits I can obtain as the properiy ownec The May 24th letter does state that permits for plumbing and electorial work on vacant building must be obtained by licensed and bonded conhactors. 6�_tKa 136I Lafond Ave. St. Paul, MN SSId4 June 20, 2001 Christopher B. Coleman St. Paul City Councilmember, Wazd 2 St. Paui City Hall St. Paul, MN 55102-1615 Deaz Mr. Coleman, Thank you for your letter of June 6th about my concern about tl�e cost of code compliance of the properry at 134 E. Elizabeth. The compliance letter of May 24th had some items which seemed to be difficult to comply at a reasonable cost. I asked for a hearing from the Legislative Hearing Officer and one was held on June 19th. The recommendation of Mr. Strathman, the Legislative Hearing O�cer, is being forwarded to the Ciry Counc I have the opporiunity to add a written statement and I am doing that. I am enclosing the statement of what was appealed and a copy of my written statement. Thank you for your concerns about affordable housing in St. Paul. Sincerely yours, Lyle C. Hall cc: Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Off cer (� � ��vY�Q�i.av U _ ..� O�- ��C� \ °� . NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, June 19, 2001 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislafive Hearing Officer STAFF PRESENT: Christopher Cahill, Fire Prevention; Michael Urmann, Fire Prevention; Don Wagner, L1EP (License, Inspections, Environmental Protection) The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. 2650 University Avenue (Laid over from 5-15-01) Gerry Strattunan stated this will be laid over to the July 17, 2001, Properry Code Enforcement meeting. The owner is near a solution to his problem. 1753 Marshall Avenue (No one appeared to represent the properiy.) Gerry Strathxnan granted a variance on the non-conforming doors on the following conditions: 1) if the non-conforxning doors ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated door assemblies; 2) the building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with a11 applicable codes and ordinances. 251 Maria Avenue (No one appeared to represent the properiy.) Mike Urmann reported this is regarding bathroom ventilation. There are no signs of mold and mildew in the unit or deterioration due to water damage; however, the owner would need to install the ventilation for this unit to be compliant. Gerry Strathxnan asked is it difficult to install. Mr. Urmann responded di�cult, but not unpossible. Gerry Strathman granted a variance to provide mechanical ventilation in the Unit 9 bathroom on condition that inspectors in the future do not observe any moisture related problems. 134 Elizabeth Street East Lyle Hall, owner, appeazed and stated he had this property since October 1999. The problem tenant was evicted in November 1999. Mr. Hall retired and was not able to complete things to bring it up to the condition for it to be rented while he was out of the country. While he was away, someone moved into this address and was receiving shipments of drugs. A raid occurred in Aprii, and the inspection occurred since that time. The second inspection required quite a few ��- b�t C� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JLJNE 19, 2001 Page 2 tUiugs and would be quite substantial to bring up to code. Some items would require rebuilding the inside, such as widening the stairway. Building Item 6- If second floor is to be used for habitable space, a proper stairway, windows, etc. wiIl have to 6e instalied. Second fIoor considered aftic. Gerry Strafi�man asked is it kus intent that the Second Floor is a habitable space. Mr. Hall responded yes. Many stairways in Saint Paul are that width, rise, and run. It is the original stairway. This space has been used as a bedroom for many yeazs. Don Wagner stated the Second Floor was built as an attic and finished as a livable space later. The windows and stauway aze inadequate. Building Item 9- Rebuild front entry steps with proper rise, run, platform, rails, etc. Mr. Ha11 stated the deck on the back of the house has been there since he purchased the house. People have no irouble going up and down the stairs. Mr. Wagner responded it is a second stairway coming down from the deck. It seems it was built without a proper perxnit. The rise, run, and rails do not meet code. They aze not uniform; one rise is 10 inches. Electrical Item 4- Insare proper gronnding. Mr. Hall stated old wiring is being used. This was a HLTD (Housing and Urban Development) house. One hundred amp service has been installed. It was rewired into the exisring wiring. It is uncleaz if the inspector wants all grounded wires complete from the box in the basement to all the electrical thittgs in the house. Mr. Wagner responded all the outlets in the walls need to be changed from two prong to three prong. Plumbing Item #3 - All wastes and vents throughout the building are incorrect or inadequate. Replace all wastes and vents. Mr. Hall stated the stack and vent have been there since the house was built. He asked did the stack have to be replaced all the way to the roo£ Mr. Wagner responded he is sure there was originally a bathroom on the First Floor where the stack went up through the attic space. A half bath has been added to the Second Floor that someone tied into the vent stack, which makes the First Floar and Second Floor improper. Basically, the entire waste and vent system is wrong. Mr. Hall stated installing a new stack and vent would require tearing out wa11s and going out to the roof. Also, he is still puzzled if the Second Floor bathroom can become habitable space. Mr. Wagner responded if Mz. Strathman feels the stairway will be adequate because of width, that could be approved. But the windows should be changed to meet light, venfilation, and egress requirements. The electrical and plumbing should be updaxed. Mr. Strathman asked what is the nature of the hazard because of the improper stack. Mr. Wagier responded the house could get gas from the plumbing if it is not vented properly. The waste siphons without proper vents and then gas gets into the house. Mr. Wagner considers this item important. 'The owner could eliminate the plumbing on the Second Floor on the attic space, redo that section of pipe, and it would become a vent stack again. The entire Second Floor was bootlegged in. Heating Item Il - Provide Exhaust Ventilation for Bafhrooms. Mr. Hail stated this is a major thing to install. Mr. Wagner stated there is major work on this properry. To install a vent along with the plumbing is minor with what he is faced with here. o �- �,� o PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JUNE 19, 2001 Page 3 Mr. Strathman asked is it his intenTioa to use the Second Floor as a habitable space. Mr. Hall responded he is thinkiug about selling it� It would be a one bedroom house without that space. Mr. Strathman stated the owner has to not use it as a living space or make it meet code as a living space. Mr. Hall asked could he get a variance for the stairwell. Mr. Strathman asked is that the only issue that he is unable to resolve that prevents him you from using this as a habitable space. Mr. Hall responded that is correct. Mr. Wagner stated it is a straight run of stairway to about four feet off the kitchen floor and then it winds down into the kitchen. Building Item #10 - Repair or replace retaining walls. Mr. Hall stated he needed clarification. Mr. Wagner responded any retaining wa11s on his property have to be in good condition. He can stop at the properry and discuss the walls with him. Gerry Strathman grauted a variance with respect to the Second Floor stairway. The other items will have to be resolved with the inspector. It sounds lika they are a11 solvable. 52 and 58 Douglas Street Mark Jossant, representing the owner Mark Osadchuk, appeazed and stated he is requesting a variance on the window well. The owner has complied with all other deficiencies on the list. The windows are 20 inches high and need to be 24 murimum openable height. The building was built in 1900. The 20 inch opening is a good sized opening. It will cost $2,000 to install four windows. The chances of getting out of this window are just as good as making the opening higher. Instead of opening the height of the opening, it would be easier to lower the sill height. (Mr. Jossant had a diagram of the window.) Mike Urmann stated the sill height is conect. The 20 inches by 30 inches is meeting with the intent of the code for the 5.7 squaze foot opening. He would not oppose an appeal in this case. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the escape windows for each sleeping room. 239 Selby Avenue The following appeared: Father John Estrem, Pastor of Cathedral of St. Paul; and Tom Nonnemacher, McGough Construction Company. Mr. Estrem stated the cathedral is undergoing a majar exterior restoration replacing the roof, cleaning and tuckpointing the outside of the building. A few weeks ago they received an order to provide two temporary standpipes during construction and had a series of conversations with the Fire Department about that. Mr. Estrem has accepted the limitation of fighting a fire on the dome, which is what the issue here is about. They have designed scaffolding with two egresses and rivo cranes with man baskets so they can safely remove workers in any situation. This is not an apartment or an office building; therefore, they are not talking about life safety concerning workers and people who live there. Mr. Estrem feels they have designed an adequate way to remove workers in an emergency. b 1- ��-1� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JUNE 19, 2001 Page 4 Father Estrem went on to say there seems to be no precedent for this. When the Capitol and the Basilica--both tall buildings--were remodeled, there was no requirement for standpipes. No one has been able to e�cplain how this would help to have a standpipe attached to the outside of the building n,nn;ng up ne�ct to the scaffolding 250 feet in the air. If fhe dome is on fire, he is not sure how safe it would be to send a fireman up on scaff'olding that is attached to the dome. There is very little to burn on the dome. There is some wood under the copper. Under the wood is a layer of clay tile and a layer of cement on top of the clay tile. It is an all steel dome structure. Also, they are quite uncertain how they would attach the staudpipe to the building. They have fire extinguishers. They have fire watch in place whenever they aze using anything flauvnable. It is a very careful job they are doing. It could cost $125,000 to $150,000 to install standpipes that would not be very useable if there was a fire. The Fire department first cited a code that did not apply. Now, they aze talking about a different code that is sort of a catch all code that says they can require all sorts of different things. Chris Cahill, Fire Deparhnent Engineer, reported the Fire DeparLment became aware of this after the scaffolding started to be built. A district chief and fire company visited the site to see what is needed to be done if there is an incident. The Chief said he needed a standpipe to fight a fire. It is a vertical pipe with outlets that helps firefighters get water to high elevations when they cannot fight a fire through tradirional means on the ground. The ciuef found a lot of combustibles. There is a lot of wood: planking of the walkways, handrails, multiple layers of plywood on the dome. Also, there are plastic rubber membranes that aze being put over the top for waterproofing. They aze doing hot wark (using soldering irons). During the construction of the arena, for example, there were three fires caused by hot work. There is a section of the code that if special circumstances apply, the fire chief is authorized to ask for additional fire protection features. Mr. Cahill stated this is a lot of scaffolding. It is not typical reroofing. There aze not many buildings 225 feet up in the air. Since the first day the Fire Department considered this, the chief the assistant chief, three deputies, and a vast number of district chiefs and captains have been trying to fgure out a better way to provide equat protection. They have considered stretching a hose up there and leaving it in place, but they do not have that much spare hose and they were concerned about daxnage from the elements and construction workers. They were considering buckets to attach to the cranes; however, crane operators aze not on site 24 hours a day. None of these things would work, and it would appear the fire departrnent is standing azound doing nothing. The essence is tune. They need to get there are as fast as they can with water in sufficient quantities to fight the fire. Mr. Cahill went on to say the fire department conducted a test on Sunday afternoon to see how high up on the building the fire trucks could spray. There aze a couple of spots they can get to, but they cannot get all the way up to the top. The district chiefs said the 12 to 14 minutes it would take to set up the ladders would not be an acceptable option. The contractor has been helpful in accommodating the fire department visits to the site. It is a$32 Million project, and it is an irreplaceable building. Mr. Nonnemacher stated the Fire Department does not think a fire will happen during the day. His workers has water up there, a lot of fire ea�tinguishers, and people on fire watch watching. o� �40 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JLTNE 19, 2001 Page 5 The Fire Departments concem is after hours. He asked how long it will take for the following to occur: someone observes a fire, the fire department responds, they arrive on their trucks, they hook up, energize the standpipe, put all the hose over theu shoulders, carry it up 250 feet, and hook it on to the standpipe. Gerry Strathman asked is he comfortable that his men are safe there. Mr. Nonnemacher responded yes. If the building is damaged and destroyed because of a fire, asked Mr. Strathman, does he accept the fact that the City attempted to do something and he objected that attempt. Also, if it should later come to be that this solution might have prevented a fire, does he still accept responsibility for what happened. Father Estrem responded he does understand this. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the temporary standpipes as Father John Estrem, the appellant, and Tom Nonnemacher, McGough Construction Company representative, aze accepting responsibility for any risks that might result from this variance being granted. 762 Robert Street South Herschel G. Jacobson, owner, appeared and stated his windows are not big enough. An egress window on side would put him in the middle of the sidewalk. On the other side, there is a sidewalk and a wall in the way. Two yeazs ago, he installed new windows, which cost him almost $3,000. Now, he is being told that he did not get a variance on those windows. Barb Cummings was the fire marshal that let him install the windows two years ago. Mike Urmann reported this is a basement apariment. By his measurement, the windows are 17 inches openable height, which makes it half a foot too small and impossible for ingress or egress. A window could be installed that is compliant. A crank out, full open window of a different size would meet the minimum requirements. The space is large enough for a compliant window. Mr. Strathman asked how many windows would need to be replaced. Mr. Urmann responded one in each bedroom. Mr. Jacobson responded there are four bedrooms in the lower level. On one side there is no way to instail a conforming window because he would have to lrnock out the sidewaik and dig a hole for water. On the other side, if he has to put in an egress window, he would need four feet in front of the window. He only has a foot and a half before the sidewalk. Mr. Jacobson stated on one side, he could cut the brick out and install a lazger window. On the other side is a big concern because of the sidewalk. Mr. Strathman asked is the building compliant. Mr. Urmann responded yes. Gerry Sirathman granted a variance on the escape windows for each bedroom on condition that if the windows ever need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming windows where possible. Given the fact the window is there and reachable, these are special circumstances. 970 Fuller Avenue (No one appeared to represent this property.) U\-1�,�-1C� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF JLJNE 19, 2001 Page 6 Gerry Strathman denied the appeai on the Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated May 31, 2001. The meeting was adjourned at 228 p.m. �]