Loading...
03-140Council File # O � � �.0 Green Sheet # 200566 Presented Referred To Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the January 28, 2 2003, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals far Letters of Deficiency, Conection Orders, 3 Correction Notices, and Suminary Abatement Orders for the following addresses: 4 Propertv A� ero aled A�pellant 5 6 550 Summit Avenue Ann E. Kenefick for Summit Condo Assoc. 7 Decision: Variance granted on the existing handrail for the front walk on condition that the building will 8 otherwise be maintained in compliance with a11 applicable codes and ordinances. 9 1775 Grand Avenue, Apartment 306 Katku•yii Berryman 10 Decision: Appeal denied on Deficiency List dated January 3, 2003. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Yeas Nays Absent Benanav i / Blakey ✓ Bosnom ,/ Coleman ✓ Hanis � Lantry ✓ Reiter � 5 O �, 18 Adopted by Council: Date �.$o .\ al aoo 3 c 19 Adoption Certified by Council Secretary 20 By: 21 App� 22 By: RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �� Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � r��-►�a DEPARTMENT/OFFICElCWNCIL DAiEINfMTED _ ' ' City Council Offices Feb. 3 Zoos GREEN SHEET No 200566 CONTACT PERSON & PFiONE InHbUDri W WVDms Marcia Moermond, 266-8560 ,,,,,,,,,�„�� �,.� MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENDA BY (DA7� A4SIGN NUMBERFOR QIYATiOR1EV ❑ fJIYQFRK ROUTING �� w1aNCWLaE0.V�CEaoR ❑ RLMC111LaErtV/AGtiC ❑ WYd[IWtAfSSGIi1) ❑ � � TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) CTION REQUES7ED Approving the January 28, 2003, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Letters of Deficiency for the following addresses: 550 Summit Avenue and 1775 Grand Avenue, Apartment 306. RECOMMENDATION Approve (A) or RejeM (R) PERSONqLSERVICE CONiRAGfS MUSTANSWER7HE FOLLOWING QIIESTSONS: 1. Fias Uis personJfiim e�er vrorked undM a cant2M torttire depaRmeM? PLANNING COMMISSION VES NO CIB COMMITTEE 2. Has this peraonfirm ever been a cfly employee? CIViL SERVICE COMMISSION VES No 3. Does Mis persoMfim� possess a sldl� not nwmallypossessatl by any curtent city employeel YES NO 4. Is this peiwNfirtn a 18rpeted vendoft YES NO F�lain a11 Yes amwers an seParate sheH aM attach to Oreen sheet � INITIATMG PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNIN (Wtw, What, When, Wl�ere, Why) ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED �. Va�nCi01 t'i�e�le��CiRS 1d8�tQ` Ffi� 05 2Il03 DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED DISADVAMAGES IF NOTAPPROVED � 'il TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S COST/REVENUE BUDGEfED (CIRCLE ONE7 YES - NO FUNDIN6 SOURCE ACTNITY NUMBER FlIJANCIpL INFORMAlIOIi (E%PWI� 03 ��a - r�e.n. �� NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES, CORRECTION ORDERS, AND SiJMMARY ABATEMENT ORDERS Tuesday, January 28, 2003 Room 330 City HalUCourthouse Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Michael Urmann, Fire Prevention 550 Summit Avenue Ann E. Kenefick, representing Siumnit Condo Associarion, appeared and stated the building is 105 years old. She talked to Michael Urmann who is willing to waive this issue on the basis that the rule regarding railings was made after the railing was installed. HI'C (Historic Preservation Commission) says that the railing has to match. Iron workers say they cannot copy it. Michael Urmann reported the building code requires two handrails on each side of stairs that serve the public. In this case, the stairwell is over 88 inches in width. The building code states that this is retroactive. He and the Fire Marshall looked at the building yesterday. They made a determination that the building was in compliance under the building code under which it was built, and recommend the two railings not be required. Marcia Moermond granted a variance on the existing handrail far the front walk on condition that the building will otherwise be maintained in compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances. 1775 Grand Avenue. Apartment 306 Marcia Moermond stated the appeal has to do with whether or not there is a violation of the code. Kathryn Berryxnan, tenant, appeared and stated the first issue about the combustibles was delved into at a previous Legislative Hearing. This time, she took photographs of the aparhnent and brought them with her, as well as a copy of the code that was cited. She showed these pictures to three people, rivo of whom haue held state fire marshal posirions. None of them had a problem with the photographs. Ms. Berryman has people waiting to come forward as expert witnesses, and she was waiting for a call today from one of those people. It is possible that she can get their opinion as to whether they think this is a fire hazard under that code. Ms. Benyman stated the next issue is about a small can of rubber cement and thinner solvent. Both are about 1/4 full, the thinner solvent is pint size, and the rubber cement is quart size. These are standard materials used in art, graphic design, and home crafts. Michael Urmann said they had to be removed, and she did remove them, but she is appealing it. She looked up the code, which she has copies of, and it seems they were citing greater amounts. She wrote a letter to Patrick Sheehan, Chief of Inspections of the State Fire Marshall Division, and asked his opinion to several items. He answered it, and he sent a copy to Fire and Safety Services. He 03 ��� NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF JANUARY 28, 2003 Page 2 does not believe she is in violarion of that code, and the amount is not large enough to cite. He said he would not have ordered their removal. He said these codes can apply to residences and businesses, but the amount cited by Saint Paul Fire Prevention was way below. Michael Urmann responded it is five gallons, not thirty gallons, per use throughout the building. Mr. Sheehan was probably given some incorrect information. The building owner is allowed five gallon of use in the total building. It was ordered out of Ms. Berryman's unit because she is not allowed to have storage of combusfibles and flauunable liquids under the City ordinance and state fire codes. He and the City's Fire Marshall disagree with the interpretation from the State Fire Marshal's Office. Ms. Berryman stated she contacted a man who had twenty years of experience with tlus product, and he has never heazd of anyone cited for keeping any amount. Every home of an art student would have these products. Rubber cement would be destroyed in freezing temperatures. She was not told that photographs would be taken, stated Ms. Berryman. It started in the bacla�oom without giving her a chance to object. Michael Urmann responded that is incorrect. As he walked through the door, he asked her permission to bring the camera in. She allowed it or he would have put it back in his vehicle. It is against the 4"' amendment for him to take evidence without her permission. Ms. Berryman responded that she has a tape of the entire inspection and a transcript. She has a receipt from an independent company. She has nothing to do with the people who made the transcript. She was never asked if he could take evidence nor photographs, and she would have denied that request. She also has a note from her mother who witnessed the inspection, the inspectors showing up hvo weeks eazly, and Kevin Chapdelaine (Fire Prevention) hying to bully and intimidate her. At the previous Legislative Hearing, Mr. Chapdelaine said that he would abide by Ms. Moermond's decision, and whether he would visit her aparhnent on December 16 would be determined by her decision. He lrnocked on her door twice on the 16"' Ms. Moermond stated that what is in front of her is the application for appeal on the January 3 Deficiency List. The conduct of that inspector is not in trris appeal and it will not be dealt with here. Going back to the appeal, after the removal of 50% of the combustible materials which Ms. Moermond decided needed to go at the previous Legislative Hearing, there was a follow-up inspection. Ms. Berryman responded the primary problem is they came back early. That is why she thought it was appropriate in this venue because Ms. Moermond had given an alternate date. Ms. Moermond asked far a staff report and a briefmg on the calendar. Mr. Urmann responded he provided Ms. Moerxnond with photographs to support what happened within the unit. At the previous Legislative Hearing, Ms. Moermond ordered that half of the combustibles be removed by January 1, 2003. They reinspected the unit on January 3. Referring to the minutes from the November 26 Legislative Hearing, the inspector did say there would be an inspection at the other units on the 16�', and he would make himself available to answer any questions that Ms. Berryman had. That is why he was at the unit: to assist her in making a determination for the meeting on January 3. He was told she was in the building. He said he laiocked on the door several times. He opened the door to announce his presence, but he did not enter the unit. She U3 1�0 NOTES OF TIIE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF JANLJARY 28, 2003 Page 3 told him not to come in, and he didn't come in. He was hying to avail her of the services that they could provide which was to help her be ready for the inspection of her unit on the 3r Ms. Berryman stated that he was making comments about her lawyer and about her. At the previous L,egislafive Hearing, Mr. Chapdelaine said whether he visits her apartment that day basically would be determined by Ms. Moermond's decision. He did not abide by that decision. Ms. Moermond responded her recollection was that the inspector specified he would be in the building to conduct the remainder of the reinspection. The issues pertaining to her unit had a 7anuary 1 deadline. Ms. Beiryinan responded correct. Ms. Moermond asked how the December 16 visit connects to the January 3 Deficiency List. Ms. Berryman responded he made it cleaz that he wanted it done and that it should have been done before the holidays. She repeatedly asked him why he was confronting her and that she had not received a scheduling of the new date. He finally said that Mr. Urmann was in the hospital with an ulcer. He tapped his finger on her chain and said that she was creating a confrontation with him by calling her attorney and by using the chain. She did not let kum in. His tone was that of a yell. He said he was a nice guy, everybody likes him, there ue no complaints against him, and he is comfortable with himself. Ms. Moermond stated they aze here about the January 3 Deficiency Letter. She heazs the personality issues and what may have been a poor interaction on the part of City staff. This is not the venue for dealing with that and those concerns were not included in the appeal. That should go to the Mayor, Fire Chief, and Fire Marshal. She would like to get back to the subject of the combustibles and the cans of spray paint. Ms. Berryman responded there are no cans of spray paint. Those are cans of pressurized air that are used for air brushing. It says specifically on it that it is non flauimable. With respect to reducing the material in the apartment by the additiona150%, stated Ms. Moermond, the goal at the last Legislative Hearing was to have half of the combustibles removed by January 1 viewing that as a midpoint benchmark between that hearing and what Ms. Berryman had indicated was the day she would be moving out of tliat building. At that time, they understood it to be in March. Ms. Beiryman responded that was a proposed date, that she was planning to move, and she is in a dispute with the owner. In such a dispute, the tenant does not have the upper hand. There has been no settlement of a date. She had been told that she has to prepare to move based on whether this matter goes to court. Ms. Moermond responded that is a separate matter and will have no bearing on what occurs here. Ms. Moermond asked for a staff report on the liquids and combustible materials stored here. From the photographs, Mr. Urmann responded, every room has combustible storage. The spray cans within the storage are flaxmuable or combustible. By looking at the photographs, there are two spray cans with air and the rest of the cans are flauimable. It is not the liquid themselves that are the problem, but the accelerant used to propel the stuff inside of it. The two cans in the front are accelerants, and they are clearly air sprayers that people use in their office on their computers. 0�3- ��O NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF 7ANi.JARY 28, 2003 Page 4 Mr. Urmann went on to say that the fieid inspector joined him on the inspection, and there was no reduction from the original inspection on the combustible materials storage. She said she had 25 boxes of storage throughout the unit. She has not reduced it by 50%. It exceeds her testimony. Ms. Benyinan responded she said 24 boxes and not 25. He did not say that nothing had been removed. It is on her tape and on the iranscript. He said perhaps 20% reduction. Then he said at the most. When Mr. Urmann asked her, she said 50% is what she had removed. She removed a five foot long dresser from the bedroom that he apparently did not notice. Mr. Urmann came in and said he does not have a problem with the boxes, they aze more compact, and now the problem is paper and plastic. Mr. Urmann responded he does not haue a problem with the solid boxes, cold storage. But it does add to combustible loading within the unit. The combustible load in the unit is excessive and dangerous. His office is the code official within the City of Saint Paul, not the state fire marshal. To go back to the photographs, stated Ms. Berryxnan, Mr. Urmann started taking photographs in the back room. She never would have consented to photographs. There was no explanarion up front. That is why she was calling Fire Prevention and City Council Offices to find out what her rights are. Mr. Urmann responded the tape cannot be admitted into evidence because he was not aware it was being used, he is not aware if it was changed or edited, and he was not awaze she was taping when he started conversarion with her and introduced the fact that he was going to take photographs. Ms. Berryman stated she was told by her lawyer that it was not illegal to tape. Mr. Urmann responded she did not refuse him to take photographs. Ms. Moermond stated her ozder at the previous Legislative Hearing was to remove 50% of the combustibles by January 1. She asked his fmdings. Mr. Urmann responded the field inspector felt she may have removed 20%, but he felt no change had occurred since his first inspection. However, since they did not have photographic evidence from the first inspection, they allowed her more time to comply because of the combustible and flatrunable liquids. That is why they extended the compliance date. Ms. Moermond stated Mr. Urmann would have been within his rights as an inspector to write a citation for not having complied with the Legislative Hearing directive. He issued another letter of deficiency instead of engaging in a dispute of whether or not the 50% was met. Also, the attorney indicated at the Legislative Hearing that Ms. Berryinan would be willing to have it done by March 1. It appeazs that Ms. Berryman was vague on when in March they were talking about, but her attomey was specific. In that case, Ms. Moermond said, if 100% had to be removed by March 1, then she would like to see a good faith effort by January 1. Ms. Berryinan responded that was not a move out date. Her attorney was offering compliance by March 1 of 50%. Ms Moermond asked does the location of the of the flatnmable liquids play a role in the deficiency. Mr. Urmann responded flainmable and combustible liquids would have to be stored in safety containers. This is not a safety can. A safety can would have a tight fitting spring C��3-�`-I�U NOTES OF TI3E LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF JANUARY 28, 2003 Page 5 loaded lid that would be sealed automatically. The flammable part is not the liquid, but the fiunes. It would need to be a fixme-tight container. They would have to be stored in a location that was safe, and the City ordinances determine that is outside a residential structure. Ms. Benyinan asked about a one hour fire safe room. One of the fire marshals told her it was defined as a one hour sepazated room, which would be anything that the door closed and latched behind you. Her aparhnent fits that. About aerosols, it was not pointed out to her. Liquids were pointed out. Again, she will offer up her tape. Ms. Moermond stated a reinspection is scheduled for February 18, and the order reads that the combustibles should be reduced by 50%. Ms. Urmann responded it should be reduced from what he saw on January 3. Plus, the flaimnable and combustible liquids removed. Ms. Moermond stated she will leave the question of aerosols open. The question of flanunables seems quite clear. Without the permission of the landlord, the flammables should be removed from the unit. This falls within the five gallon allowable storage on the premises. An additional 50% of the combustible materials should be taken care of. Ms. Berryuian may wish to litigate whether the photos should have been taken, but it is Ms. Moermond's belief they were taken appropriately during the reinspection, especially based on the findings of the previous Legislative Hearing at which rime they talked about what needed to be removed. Ms. Beiryman should remove 50% of the combustibles and all the combustible liquids. If she wouid like to pursue this matter furtlier, the next step is writing to Councilmember Pat Harris. This issue will go on the City Council's Consent Agenda. As for the behauioral issues, Ms. Moermond urged the owner to write to the Mayor and the Fire Chief. Ms. Beiryinan stated she is willing to go to an expert to show the tape was not doctored. She does not understand why Ms. Moermond is saying it is appropriate if they were gained with an inappropriatz means. Ms. Moermond responded there are two people and two perspectives on that same situation. She agrees with the staff that they did achieve her permission to get those things done; however, Ms. Moermond would like to see her information. Ms. Berryman stated she was told by her attorney that she had a right to tape this. Ms. Moermond responded that she needs to pursue that at another venue. This is a Legislative Hearing on the appeal to the letter of deficiency. The letter of deficiency was appropriate based on the report of the inspectors and the photographs. Mr. Urmann asked did she see the camera in her hand and did she see him taking the photographs. Ms. Berryman responded it started in the bacl�oom. The photographs were illegally obtained. Ms. Moermond stated this is an order for the enforcement of a code. It is not a due process hearing, but Ms. Berryman can invoke that by appealing a City Council decision to the court level. That is unusual, but it is not unheard of. The deficiency list is simply an order to come into compliance with the codes. It is reasonable, based on what occurred at the last Legislative Hearing, that photographs were taken. 0 �+O NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OF JANUARY 28, 2003 Page 6 Ms. Moermond denied the appeal on the Deficiency list dated January 3, 2003. The meeting was adjoumed at 2:13 p.m. El�3 (2252 Falcon Avenue has been rescheduled to February 11.)