05-794Council File # ��
Green Sheet # �a�g��
Presented by
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �S
Referred To � Committee Date
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Councii of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the August 16,
2005, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters, Correction Notices, and Correction
Orders far the foilowing addresses:
Pronertv Anpealed
Annellant
1491 Sherburne Avenue 7ayne Quinlan (LIEP)
Decision: Appeal for variance granted for the two (2) sleeping spaces that are less than 70 square feet with the
following conditions:
1) the establishment remains under the current ownership and the cunent use; and
2) awake staff will be on duty 24 hours per day, 7 days a week.
668 Fourth Street East Allen Woods, owner (Division of Fire Prevention)
Decision: no action necessary.
1591 Sloan Street Tong Ying Moua, owner (Division of Fire Prevention)
Decision: Appeal granted for extension of time (one month) to September 16, 2005 to move the washer but the
dryer needs to be disconnected immediately.
629 Hall Avenue Christopher J. Audette (NIIPI)
Decision: Appeal granted for extension of time to September 30, 2005 for painting the garage and re-
constructing the retaining wall. Appeal granted on the Orders on brush and sanitation, and the City will cancel
these Orders.
o�- 79�
Yeas Nays Absent
Benanav �
Bostrom �
Harris +�
Helgen ,i
Lantry �
Montgomery ✓
Thune '�
L� D 1
Requested by Department o£
�
Form Approved by Ciry Attorney
�
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
��e,vr� �-er 7 � pU�
Adopted by Council: Date �
�
L?�
os
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
DepartrnenUoffice/councii: Date Initiated:
co -���� 31-AUG45 Green Sheet NO: 3027868
Cor�ct Person 8 Phone: ���e�k Sent To Person Initial/Date
Marcia Moermond � 0 uncil
���� Assign 1 onncl De artment frector
Must Be on Couneil Agenda by (Date): Number y � Clerk
For
Routing 3
Order 4
5
Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Lowtions for Signature)
Action Requested:
Approving the 8-16-OS decision of the Legislarive Hearing Officer on appeals of Letters, Correcrion Notices,and Correction Orders for
the following addresses: 1491 Sherbume Avenue, 668 Fourth Street Fast, 1591 Sloan Street, and 629 Hall Avenue.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracis Must Answer the Pollowing Questions:
Planning Commission 1. Has this personffirm ever worked under a contract for this department?
CIB Committee Yes No
Civil Service Commission 2. Has this personffirm ever been a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this personffirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any
current city employee? -
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet
Initiating Problem, Issues, OppoRUnity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
AdvanWpes If Approved:
Council Research Center
DisadvanWqes If Approved:
� �` ,-r.e.._� �' - + `
, , � / es
DisadvanWges If Not Approved: .
Total Amount of CosURevenae Budgeted:
Transaction:
Fanding Source: Activitv Number:
Fi nancial 1 nformation:
(Explain)
os �9�}-
NOTES OF Tf� LEGISLATIVE HEARING
LETT`ERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES, AND CORRECTION ORDERS
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Room 330 City Hail, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard
Mazcia Moermond, Legislarive Hearing Officer
The hearing was called to order at 1:30 p.m.
STAFF PRESENT: Jack Reardon, Neighborhood Housing and Properry Improvement (NHPI);
David Weisberg, Environmental Health Inspector; Michael Urmann, Division of Fire Prevention;
Jean Birkholz, City Council Office.
Appeal of Inspection Report at 1491 Sherburne Avenue: appellant: Jayne Quinlan for Safe
Alternatives. (License, Inspections and Environmental Protection, LIEP)
The following appeared: Jayne Quinlan, Safe Alternatives, #160, 1919 University Avenue West,
Saint Paul 55104
Ms. Moermond asked staff to present the staff report.
David Weisberg, Environmental Health Inspector, stated that as he understands it, there are two
(2) Orders being appealed: 1) one is regazding the fact that two (2),of the units in this rooming
house are less than the required 70 square feet per occupant; and 2) an issue about dead- bolt
locks.
Ms. Moermond asked what precipitated the inspection at 1491 Sherburne. Mr. Weisberg replied
that it was a routine inspection.
Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Quinlan why she was appealing. Ms. Quinlan responded that
Hovander House is a program that provides shor[term crisis stabilization for persons who are
hospitalized at in-patient psychiatric. The program was the result of a committee that was started
by Attorney General Hatch to address the shortage of psychiatric beds in the East Metro. Safe
Alternatives purchased and rehabbed Marshall Residence, which was previously licensed as a
room and board residence. Ms. Quinlan stated that the two (2) units in question are used for
persons who aze leaving the hospital; they are short-term only. The average length of stay is
approximately four (4) days. Currentiy, Hovander House has a capacity of nine (9), and in 2004
Hovander House was at capacity for about ten (10) days. When not at capacity, people have a
choice to occupy the larger rooms. The residents feel that these rooms are perfectly adequate,
and during times of capacity, because there is an acute shortage of psychiatric beds, people are
transported to Brainerd, Willmar, etc., or are spending a lot of time at Emergency, so Safe
Alternatives is asking for the variance so at those times, which are few, those rooms could be
occupied.
Regarding the dead-bolt lock concern, Mr. Weisberg stated that frequently variances are granted
regazding the locks. He notices that at some faciliries that deal with mental illness issues, they
are very concerned about having access without the dead-bolt locks. At other facilities, it
doesn't seem to be a problem. Ms. Quinlan interjected that at instances where there is crisis
oS- 79�-
LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES of August 16, 2005
Page 2
stabilization and people are just leaving in-patient psychiatric, the best practice is that, first of
all, there is immediate access to rooms, there is over night staff and there are regular walk-
through checks. Safe Alternatives feels that the safety of the residents and their belongings is
well insured. IYs fairly standard for this type of facility not to have dead-bolts and key access
for people to have open door. Mr. Weisberg added that he thinks these dead-bolt variances
should be granted with the condirion that there be at all rimes an awake staff person monitoring
acrivities. Ms. Quinlan stated that it is part of their licensure that there is awake staff 24 hours
per day. Regarding the sleeping rooms, Mr. Weisberg thinks that variances should be granted
with the condition that the occupancy conrinues to be short-term, averaging four (4) days. And,
that both of these variances are under the condition that the establishxnent remains under the
same ownership for the same purpose.
Ms. Moermond stated that she will recommend that the variance be granted for the duration of
the current use and ownership of the building for the two (2) sleeping spaces that are less than 70
square feet. The second condition would be that there will be awake staff 24 hours per day, 7
days a week, which is also a condition on the license.
Mr. Weisburg added that there has been a request that Fire be copied on the resolution.
Appeal of Deficiency List at 668 4th Street East; owner, Allen Woods. (Division of Fire
Prevention)
The following appeared: Allen Woods, owner, 668 4`�' Street East, Saint Paul 55106.
Ms. Moermond stated that it is her understanding that this is for Orders written on August l,
2005, and that the inspector has signed-off indicating that the item in the Order has been
addressed and is no longer an issue. Mr. Woods aclrnowledged that was the case. Ms.
Moermond said she is curious as to why Mr. Woods paid $25 to appeal. Mr. Woods revealed
that he had an issue with the process. His counsel had advised him to begin appealing all the
Orders. This Order is a prime example of the process he is talking about. Mr. Woods continued
to say that at the end of the month people are moving out and there is an excess of garbage. In
this case, one of the tenants moved out and left two (2) mattresses, a couch and a chair near the
garbage bin.
Ms. Moermond asked how many units there were in this apartment building. Mr. Woods replied
that there were twelve (12) units in the building.
Mr. Woods said that the letter he received was dated August 1, 2005, and in the letter it states
that he is to comply by Sunday; however, he didn't receive the letter until Monday. He reported
that he went to the building, as he always does after people move, to clean-up. He stated that the
building in question is actually cleaned-up every day. He takes issue with the fact that he
received the letter after the compliance date. Normally, this would not be the type of item he'd
choose to appeal. This is just an example of the stuffhe gets from the City that doesn't make
sense to him. Receiving an Order after the compliance date just isn't fair. He doesn't
OS - 79�F
LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES of August 16, 2005 Page 3
understand why the letter was even sent out. He's been told that inspectors come out only on a
referral basis, but they seem to travel around his buildings and issue Orders when they just
happen to be going by, and its always ri�t after a move out, at the end or beginning of the
month, when the movers are getting rid of stuff that they leave at the dumpster. He said that he
always removes those items and takes them to his centra140-yard dumpster in White Bear Lake.
He's up over $30,000 in cost compiying with these inspections because of this neighborhood
improvement thing with Randy Kelly. He's under advisement to begin appealing every Order he
receives because he's just getting too many.
Ms. Moermond informed Mr. Woods that for future"reference, he wiil have ten (10} days to file
an appeal, which would be retroactive if given a short time period, as in this case. She noted that
she does not have any thing to act on. Mr. Woods stated that he appealed because he wanted to
go on record about the process. Ms. Moermond suggested that he write a letter to the Mayor and
City Councilmembers, copying the department heads, i.e., Andy Dawkins and Chief Holton, to
put those kinds of concerns on the record. Mr. Woods stated that he is really not appealing the
content of the Order, but the process. Ms. Moermond responded that she can deal only with the
content. The Code deals with the process itself, and if he files an appeal within ten (10) days of
the issuance of the Order, she will accept it.
Ms. Moermond's recommendation: no action necessary.
Appeal of Deficiency List at 1591 Sloan Street; owner: Tong Ying Moua. (Division of Fire
Prevention)
The following appeared: Tong Ying Moua, owner, 1591 Sloan Street, Saint Paul 55101 and
his cousin/son (spokesperson), Wa Tou Te Moua.
Michael Urmann reported that this is an issue about washers and dryers that are placed directly
in front of a forced-air furnace. There are two (2) concerns here with regard to access to the
equipment in an emergency status, i.e., gas leak, emergency maintenance, shut down, eta That
is why the Mechanical Code requires: 1) no less than 30 inches of clear access to the heafing
equipment; and 2) combustibles cannot be near heating equipment. In this case, the washers and
dryers are an obshuction to the heating equipment and there is a dryer that's producing lint in
front of a forced-air furnace. The lint is ending up in the ignition source of the hearing
appliance. Fire Prevenrion's recommendation is that the washers and dryers be moved.
This building was purchased in 1997; it was built in 198 L The appellant's spokesperson stated
that the plumbing was set for the washer and dryer when his cousin purchased the properiy. He
asked, since the washer and dryer are not in compliance today, wouid they not also ha�e been
not in compliance in 1981. Why did it pass inspecrion in 1981, and why hasn't it been caught
until now, 2005? Ms. Moermond responded that the Code requires a 30 inch separation. She
asked if this urility room was in the basement. The appellanYs spokesperson replied that it was
in the lower level of a split level building, so the room is actualiy half in the ground and half
above ground. Ms. Moermond asked if there were other urility rooms in the basement. The
os- �9�-
LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES of August 16, 2005 Page 4
appellanYs spokesperson responded that there were not. The other area in the basement is made
up of two (2) two-bedroom units. The building is a 4-unit apartment building. Remodeling the
utility room to meet Code would require moving everything: the furnace, the pipeline, the water
heater, plumbing, etc. That is why the applicant is appealing.
Mr. Umiami explained that 30 inches of clear access was always a requirement of the
Mechanical Code; it hasn't been changed or updated. Appazently, what was done initially was
done incorrectly and there is no grandfathering clause of any type in the Mechanical Code, so the
only choice is to have the appliances moved. As far as he sees it, this has never been approved,
never should have been approved and still does not meet Code.
Ms. Moermond stated that this is an important Code, the separation of these pieces of equipment;
this is a fire hazard. The solution that she sees may not be one that Mr. Moua wants to pursue,
but she sees it possible to bump out the wall behind the washer and dryer into the unit next door,
a closet space indentation into the unit. That way the plumbing does not need to be changed.
Mz. Urmann commented that solution would not entirely work. It's required to be a one-hour
fire separation around the boiler and around the residential unit. It would be pretty major
construction to move the interior wall. Ms. Moermond asked how old the furnaces were. Mr.
Moua did not know; they came with the building. All equipment and appliances were already
there when the building was purchased in 1997. Mr. Moua added that even if it were possible to
move the interior wall back into the unit, the uniYs living room would be reduced to only seven
(7)feet wide.
Ms. Moermond said that the options available in order to keep laundry in the building are: 1) to
find another place in the building to put a shared laundry facility; or 2) to put a washer & dryer
on a smaller scale into each of the units.
Ms. Moermond reminded the appellant that a past mistake on someone else's part does not
justify maintaining a fire hazard into the future. The problem is that an inspector missed it back
in 1981. Mr. Urmann added that actually the washer would not need to be moved out of the
room, but the dryer must be moved because it produces 19nt (combustible).
The appellant argued that all of the immediately adjacent properties are built in the same way.
They all have the same layout. The utility room is the same as his, so why is only he being
called on it. Mr. Urnnann responded that he has not yet been in the other buildings. If there are
violations with them, Fire Prevention will deal with them as they get to them. He will talk with
the field inspector about possible similar violations within the immediate properties. Ms.
Moermond assured Mr. Moua that the others in the neighborhood would be experiencing the
same thing. Mr. Moua stated that when everyone else is required to remove theirs, then he will
remove his.
Ms. Moermond reminded the appellant that if he chooses not to follow the recommendation, the
Fire Deparhnent also has the choice then to issue a Criminal Citation. He could end up in court
on this. Mr. Urmann added that if the appellant fails to comply, if this appeal is denied today,
the Fire Department will take enforcement action.
os- ?9�
LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES of August 16, 2005
Page 5
Ms. Moermond added that the field inspector for this azea will be notified, and ali the other
buildings like this one will be inspected, so, they wiil get called on it.
The appellant stated again that he will comply when all of his neighbors have been ordered to
compiy. Ms. Moermond reminded Mr: Moua that this is not a negotiarion.
Ms. Moermond will recommend to the City Council that the appeai be denied. The dryer needs
to be disconnected immediately. An extension of one (1) month time will be granted to move
the washer. If Mr. Moua wants to give the Fire Department a list of all the other building's
addresses, it would be a valid citizen call. The Fire Department wili then check them out soon;
otherwise, they will be checked sometime within the next two (2) years.
Appeal of Correction Notice at 629 Hall Avenue; owner: Christopher J. Audette. (NHPI)
The following appeared: Christopher J. Audette, owner, 629 Hall Avenue, Saint Paul 55107.
Staff Report: Jack Reardon, Code Enforcement Officer, NHPI, reported that on 8-11-04, he was
in the area and noticed the deterioration of the garage. At a later date, he happened to be driving
by with Andy Dawkins, head of NHPI, and his supervisor, Harold Robbins, and they suggested
that he issue an Order on the retaining wall. Retaining walls are very expensive, so he hesitates
to issue Orders on them unless for a health and safety reason. Because this wall was along the
sidewalk, he issued an Order for repair. At a later date on a re-check, he saw overgrown brush
that was blocking a public sidewalk and some trash in the front area. The wall was not repaired
by the compliance date, hence the $50 Excessive Consumption charge. He was out there today
and the trash was still out there.
Ms. Moermond asked to see the other Orders. She had in front of her only the July 19, 2005
Correction Notice which lists the sanitation, the exterior walls of the garage and overgrown
brush; there is nothing on the retaining wall or the unsound shucture part.
Mr. Reardon added that on one of the Orders, he wrote that if Mr. Audette was having a problem
meering the compliance deadline, he should contact Nfr. Reardon, and he would work with him
on the retaining wall (December 6, 2004 Notice, repeat of the August 12, 2004 Correction
Order).
Mr. Audette said that the garage exterior structure and the roof have been worked on. However,
they recently received another Notice, saying that the walls and trim of the garage are defective.
That also has been worked on, but they didn't realize that it needed to be painted, so they will
also take care of that. They will be replacing the whole door, as well.
Regarding the overgrown brush, there are many streets with overgrown brush. There are even
sidewalks in the neighborhood where the sidewalks are impassable because of the overgrown
brush.
oS- �79y�
LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES of August 16, 2005
Page 6
Mr. Audette stated that the sanitation problem is not on their properry; iYs on the neighbor's
property of 633 Hall. Mr. Audette provided pictures that showed a meshed fenced azea which is
the neighbor's property. The fence abuts the retaining wall, which is their property. Mr.
Reardon apologized for his mistake on this matter.
Mr. Audette explained that they already have a bid for repairing the retaining wall and will be
taking caze of that.
Ms. Moermond stated that the City is canceling the Orders on the overgrown brush and the
sanitation, and she wiil recommend to the City Council an extension of time to September 30,
2005 for painting the garage and reconstructing the retaining wall.
The hearing was adjourned at 2:41 p.m.
jab