Loading...
05-1141Council File # �_� � RESOLUTION Presented Referred To Committee Date BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the October 25, 2005, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters of Deficiency, Correction Notices, and Correction Orders for the following addresses: Propert�p�ealed Ap av llant 1598 Sloan Street Naokao Yang and Mai Jhoua Yang Decision: Appeal denied on Deficiency List dated October 3, 2005. 699 Arcade Street Albert M.Johnson,owner Decision: Extension granted to Mazch 3, 2006, to bring the south side windows into compliance; extension granted to November 30, 2005, to bring the north side windows and the guazdrail into compliance. 2029 Grand Avenue Biil and Susan Clasen Decision: Extension granted to April l, 2006, to complete the back porch. The other items will have a compliance date of November 30, 2005. 440 University Avenue West Sheng Thao Decision: Laid over to the Legislative Hearing of April 18, 2006. Benanav Bostrom Harris Helgen Lantry Montgomery Yeas Nays ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ v ✓ OF Absent Thune ` 7 � d Adopted by Council: Date� /�/�y�.�. /��dO.S � APF By: PAUL, MINNESOTA �Z Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � Crreen Sheet # 3029005 � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � � �� r15-1l�.1 Deparfineirt/officelcouncii: Date Initiated: � co -��� 07-DEC-05 Green Sheet NO: 3029005 Contad Person ffi Phone• DenaAment Se�rt To Person Initia Wate Marcia Moermond I � 0 o ncii 266$560 p��y 1 ouncil D e tDi ect r Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 2 erk For Routing 3 Order 4 5 Total # of Signature Pages _(C�ip AII Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Approving the decisions of the Legisladve Hearing Officer on Appeals of I,etters of Deficiency, Conecrion Norices, and Correction Orders for the following addresses: 1598 Sloan Street, 699 Arcade Street, 2029 Grand Avenue, and 440 University Avenue West. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Rejed (R): Personal Service Contrecis Must Answer the Foliowing Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firtn ever worked under a contract for this departmenY? CIB Commtttee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this personffirm ever been a city employee? Yas Ne 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not nortnally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and aHach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, Whak �en, Where, Why): Advantaaes IfApproved: DiSadvaMapes If Approved: , - Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of CpsURevenue Budgeted: Transaction: � Fundina Source: Activiiv Number: Financial Information: (E�cplain) - ��ern \Z. NOTES OF Tf� LEGISLATIVE HEEIRING O S�� �� ` LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES, AND CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, October 25, 2005 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Boulevard West Mazcia Moermond, Legislarive Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 130 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Phillap Owens and Michael Urmann, Fire Prevention Appeal of De�ciency List at 1598 Sioan Street; owner: Naokao Yang and Mai Jhoua Yang. Naokao Yang, 4998 Helmo Avenue, Oakdale, appeazed. Mr. Urmann reported that from the front of the washer and dryer to the front of the furnaces is 15 inches. From the side of the dryer to the first water heater is six inches. There is no way to give the 30 inches of clear access to the mechanicals. Marcia Moermond asked does he plan to rearrange the situation. Mr. Yang responded there is not much he can do in that space. This is for the residents only. He didn't notice tius before. Ms. Moermond stated the building should not have been built this way to begin with. Mr. Urmann responded he does not believe the appliances were originally installed there. There is no trap on the drain, no fire sepazation, and the gas piping is not supported. There is no way that either appliance could exist in that room. The room is 10 by 15 and most of the 15 is taken up by the appliances. Ms. Moermond asked does he haue a good understanding of the code and the separation requirements. Mr. Yang responded it should be 30 inches from each other. He is asking for a waiver untii he finds space. Ms. Moermond asked is this a four unit building. Mr. Yang responded this is utiliry room with a separate entrance. Ms. Moermond asked is there another common space. Mr. Urmann responded they all have independent entrances. It is basicaily a quad home. The installafion does not meet code. Also, they have to deal with gas piping and plumbing that are not installed to code. There are other issues with appliances, but since they cannot be there anyway, there is only one order to remove them. Ms. Moermond read the item: "provide 30 inches clearance around all mechanical equipment. Remove or move dryer and washer 30 inches from fixrnace. Mr. Urmann responded there is no way to move them 30 inches. The order should have said "remove" and not give the option to move. 0�-ll�l LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES OF OCTOBER 25, 2005 Page 2 Ms. Moermond denied the appeal on the Deficiency List dated October 3, 2005. The owner will have to stop allowing the use of the washer and dryer. There was a similar situation with a fourplex a little while ago. She is sorry that this is a hazdship, but it is also a fire hazard and that has to take precedence. This is effecfive immediately. The appliances can be there a little longer if they are disconnected. Mr. Urmann added that the owner will have to cap off the sewer line and gas line feeding those appliances. Appeal of Deficiency List at 699 Arcade Street; owner: Albert M. Johnson. Michael Urmann reported that there were three items on the appeal. The first item is a requirement for an escape window outside the bedroom. The appellant says there are exits available. There are two doors in the bedroom: one goes into the kitchen and the other goes back into a bedroom. They do not meet the light and ventilation requirements of the code, nor the egress window requirement. They have discussed with the appellant how to bring it into compliance or to use it as a living room right now. Albert M. Johnson, owner, appeazed and stated there is no way to comply with the code. The only place to put a window opens into a hall. The code says it has fo open to the outside of the building. That is impossible. This building was built in 1950 when the present code was not there. He was given an option of tearing down half the wall and hang a curtain across it. That is the worst thing in the warld, as he would be taking a fire proof wa11 and hanging up a burning death trap of a curtain. He would like a shuctural person to come in, see if this is a bearing wall, and see what he can do to take out part of that wall and situate it. Mr. Johnson feels a reasonable amount of time would be to give him a conditional approval on it and give him six months to get all of this stuff together. In answer to several questions, Mr. Johnson responded he lives downstairs in an apartment. There are two upstairs apartments. It is a commercial building in front, and he lives in back. The second sketch (in the appeal materials) shows the blacktop roof. Ms. Moermond responded she only has one sketch. Mr. Urmann stated he discussed this with Mr. Johnson. They would be willing to work with him on time if he is willing to discontinue use of that room as a sleeping room, and move the sleeping room into the one with a proper egress window. The wall he is talking about is not a load bearing wall. It could be removed. They aze looking at opening the wall azea to make the two rooms into one room. That would meet the intents of the code. Ms. Moermond asked is it a sprinklered room. Mr. Urmann responded no. Mr. Jol�nson stated it is rental properiy. He can tell the tenants that it is no longer a sleeping room, but that wili not make much difference. He cannot be personally responsible for what they do. Ms. Moermond asked does he own the building and does he have a lease arrangement. Mr. Johnson responded he owns the building, but there is no lease agreement. p5-!l�l LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES OF OCTOBER 25, 2005 Page 3 Ms. Moermond stated he will be held responsible for this and responsible for holding his tenants responsible. He needs to notify them in writing that this cannot be used as a sleeping space anymore. If there is a wall there, they will be enclosed in a room with fire ali around. The fire code in this matter is very old and predates this building. The building was changed in a way that is not consistent with the fire code. Mr. Johnson stated the building was built that way because he has seen the original plans. Ms. Moermond responded it was built illegally. This could be used as a den. Mr. Johnson stated he is willing to do that, but he needs six months. Although Mr. Urmann said it is not a load bearing wall, Mr. Johnson's experience is that the inspectors are not qualified to tell him that. He would like someone qualified. Ms. Moermond stated this is about a room that has no egress in case of a fire situation and cannot be used as a sleeping room effective immediately. If this is not brought into compliance in two months, Fire is empowered to write a criminal citation for being in violarion of the code. Violation of properiy code and fire codes is a reason to evict someone. Families have died in these situations. Mr. Johnson responded that this has been ignored for 30 years, and now it is up to him to take care of it within 60 days. That is unreasonable. He is reasonably saying he needs six months. Ms. Moermond responded his next place to argue this is with the Councilmember that represents this azea. That wiil not be an easy task. Ms. Moermond said she is sorry it has not been called before, but that is not a reason to allow a hazardous situation to continue. (Second appealed item) Mr. Urmann stated the next issue is the lack of screens on the exterior. Screens on the north side of the building go into the units. Those needs to be handled immediately. Those on the south side aze on the hallway, and they could be extended until spring. Ms. Moermond asked what kind of time line. Mr. Johnson responded they are custom windows, and it will take 60 to 90 days for the order to go into the factory and to get it back to him. Mr. Urmann stated when he talked to Mr. Johnson this morning, he said that the screens were inside the unit and the tenants would not keep them in the windows. The windows there are standazd and are easily replaced on the north side. The south side may take a custom window. Mr. Jotuison responded some of the screens may be inside the unit. He redid the windows on the north side two or three yeazs ago, and he had to have every one of them custom, They are not standazd in this day and age. He was told they can attach them from the outside instead of the inside. Ms. Moermond asked how many windows aze on the north side. Mr. Johnson responded there aze four all together. There are one or two he can just replace. There are two or three he needs to order. 05- /��f/ LEGISLATiVE HEARiNG NOTES OF OCTOBER 25, 2005 Page 4 Ms. Moermond asked about the south side. Mr. Urmann responded there aze two side by side windows. He wouidn't have an issue with that being extended to spring. Ms. Moermond read the Deficiency List dated 8-31-05: "Provide or repair and maintain the window screen. Repairheplace torn and missing screens on north and south sides of bldg. on second floor. She will grant November 30 on the north side and Mazch 30 on the south side. Mr. Johnson requested another month so that he could make sure it is warm enough for the cement that he will use to install the windows. Ms. Moermond responded she is okay with Apri130. (Third appealed item) Mr. Urmann stated there was an addendum to the appeal that mentions the outside guardrail. There is a flat roof in this location with a deck going up to it. There is also a doorway that goes out to it. The flat roof drops about 6 to 8 feet with no guardrail or safety rail. He is asking for a guardrail to be put up around the perimeter or in some way make that unattainable to drop off. He is looking for that to be done as quickly as possible. Ms. Moertnond stated he will have until November 30 for that rail. Mr. Johnson stated one place along there is a run off area. He needs someone to look at that because he needs to know how he can attach it and not screw up the integrity of that roof. That could be almost in the winter. He cannot work on a flat roof in the winter or he will be soaked. He wants to do things right, and nailing a two by four on the roof is not a sensible approach. He does not believe it is hazardous as all of that. Flat roofs are horrible to do anything with because they are delicate and can leak so easily. He would like an April extension. Ms. Moermond granted an extension to March 3, 2006, to bring the south side windows into compliance; extension granted to November 30, 2005, to bring it the north side windows and the guardrail into compliance. On exiting the room, Mr. Johnson stated it's no wonder inspectors get shot in this town. (A recess was taken at 2:17 for about 10 minutes.} Appeal of Correction Notice at 2029 Grand Avenue; owner: Bill and Susan Clasen. (NHPI) Mr. Clasen stated they got an extended time to do this, and they would like it in writing. Ms. Moermond stated that the inspector gave an extension to November 30 for the reinspection. Mr. Clasen stated they haue already settled the broken gutter issue. That should be done by November 30. The inspector told them verbally that they have until spring for the back porch. They plan to tear the stoop off and put in a nice porch. Ms. Moermond asked was there anything wrong with the stairs there. Mrs. Clasen responded no. p�- ��y i LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES OF OCTOBER 25, 2005 Page 5 Ms. Moermond gave them untii April 1, 2006 to complete the back porch. The other items will have a compliance date ofNovember 30, 2005. Appeal of Deficiency List at 440 Universitv Avenue West; appellant Sheng Thao. (Division of Fire Prevention) (Laid over from 9-27-OS) Ms. Moermond stated that they were looking at the squaze feet involved in the space required to exit, and it sounds like a really clear yes. They need two exits. IYs about the types of locks that aze in place. Commander Smith stopped by to talk to her pazents. Phillip Owens reported that he had the opportunity to stop this morning at 440 University, and spoke with the proprietors. He understands what they are talking about in regards to neighborhood intrusions and activities on their property. It is a difficult place to do business. There is the bus stop, transient traffic, activities out back. It does not leave Fire Prevention with a lot of latitude in regazds to the fire code. After looking at the property and discussing the issue with the proprietors, the square footage does exceed the amount of area and it would be required to have two exits. In deference to the situarion there that revolves around that neighbarhood, they would be willing to allow them to keep the gate locked for six months while they work on coaning to a resolution. They do have two noncompliant locks on the building itself. One is on the back door with a panic release device and at the top of the door is a flush bolt, which would have to be removed. They have installed a lock box that has the key to the gate in it. The proprietor assures that everyone knows the combination to that lock box. That combination should be posted in a private office. The other issue is in the front door where they have the key lock, said Mr. Owens. They have posted a sigi ttiat says the doar must remain unlocked during business hours, but that is not their practice because they lock the door with a key. They would like a thumb latch to replace that interior lock cylinder. The father indicated that was the way the door was previously figured, although someone broke out his thumb latch, reached in, and unlocked the door. That could be taken caze of by putting a screen mesh on the interior of the door. Mr. Owens is asking that they remove the flush bolt from the reaz of the door and replace the front key lock. Mr. Owens will allow a continuance of six months far Fue to work with the police to come to some accommodation with regard to locking the gate. Ms. Thao stated it is only her mom and dad in the store. When they are downstairs, they will be locking it. Ms. Thao stated she will not do anything to violate the code. Anybody could come in and lock the door and they could not get out. They are doing all of this to protect themselves and not to violate anything. Ms. Moemrond stated Fire is looking for a way to manage getting anyone out of the building and that a child or elderly person can figure out a way to opexate it if they had tq and Ms. Thao is