06-1059Council File # Q /O
Green Sheet # �,��j , �S
RESOLUTION �
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA t
Presented by
1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the October
2 3, 2006 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters, Correction Notices and
3 Correction Orders for the following address:
4
5 Propertv Appealed
6
7 729 Tuscarora Avenue
Appellant
Callan Crawford
9 Decision: Grant the variance request to install an inter-connected smoke detector system, with battery
10 back up, and deny the variance request concerning third floor egress access with a compliance date of
11 December 1, 2006.
Requested by Depazhnent of:
Adopted by Council: Date /��q?��/��
T
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
By: C - r<.(�S /o'
Approved by � te � 2- g O�i
By:
�
Form Approved by City Attorney
By:
Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
�
O� - �o s�
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
�.�.�
,�o�� I Green Sheet NO: 3034525
� ueoarunenc aenc�orerson
0 un '
A55ign 1 ouncil De ardoeotDirec[or
Number Z - �eryz i lerk
For
Routing 3
Order 4
5
InifiallDate
Contact Person & Phone:
Marcia Mcertnond
G8570
Must Be on Council Anen
Dx. Type: RESOLUTION
E-0ocumentRequired: Y
DocumentContact Vcki
Contact Phone: 6556'I
Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip NI Locations for Signature)
Action Requested:
Resolution approving the October 3, 2006 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters, Cosecrion Notices and
Coaecrion Orders for property at 729 Tuscazora Avenue.
Recommendations: Appro�e (A) or Reject
Planning Commission
CIB Committee
CiHI Senice Commission
QUestions:
1. Has this persoNfirtn e�er worked under a contract for this department?
Yes No
2. Has this persoNfirtn e�er been a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this person/firtn possess a skill not nortnally possessed by any
current city employee?
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and aHach to green sheet
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
AdvanWges HApproved:
Disadvantages HApproved:
Disadvanqqes If Not Approved:
Transacfion:
Funding Source:
Financial Information:
(Explain)
CosNRevenue Budgeted:
Activity Number:
November 14, 20061:50 PM Page 1
October 3, 2006 Properry Code Minutes
06 -�o�
Page
2. Appeal of Callan Crawford to a Certificate of Occupancy w/De£ciencies for property at
729 Tuscarora Avenue.
Mr. Urmann stated the building was a single-family dwelling that was being rented as a rooming
house or what is termed a"silver house" for people recovering from addiction. An appeal had
been filed previously and through discussion, there were attempts to get the Fire Mazshal to grant
a variance under the Fire Code to either provide for emergency egress for the upper floors or a
fire alann system. After reviewing the Code, the Fire Marshal determined that he could not grant
a variance because there was no allowance other than to install a sprinkling system in the enrire
building. If the third story was occupied, emergency egress and a fire alarm system would be
required. The owner determined that a full alarm system for the second exit could not be done.
Mr. Crawford, property owner, stated that this was more than a two-dwelling unit but was still
considered a single-family home and not a duplex. In the Building Code, it stated every
building except one and two-family dwellings were required to have a certificate of occupancy
and this was a single-family dwelling which he did not believe required a certificate of
occupancy.
Mr. Urmann stated this property does not fall under the definirions of a single family dwelling.
There are individual units which are the dwelling units with individual locks on doors to each
imit.
Ms. Moermond asked how many people were living there. Mr. Crawford stated there were beds
for 10 people with a mixture of single beds and two triple units.
Ms. Moermond asked whether his business, Stepping Stones, was a non-profit organization. Mr.
Crawford replied that it was an LLC.
Ms. Moermond questioned i£ the people who lived there signed an individual lease. Mr.
Crawford stated that each tenant signed a"lodger's agreemenP' which was different &om a
regular lease as he did not have to give a tenant a 30-day notice to vacate if there were valid
reasons such as relapse from sobriety.
Mr. Crawford stated that his original proposal was to install a high voltage inter-connected
smoke alarm system, which would be hard wired, with smoke alarms in every bedroom, hallway
and in the basement. This has been allowed in other sober houses and he was unsure when this
had been changed.
Ms. Moermond questioned the second means of egress from the third floor.
Mr. Crawford replied that he believed this would be a financial hardship to him. He currently
had rope ladders for third floor egress for the tenants who occupied the upper units. He had
estimated the cost to replace windows to be approximately $15,000 which was cost prohibitive to
him. He was willing to put metal ladders on the side of the building for egress.
October 3, 2006 Properry Code Minutes
C�G�
Page 4
Mr. Urmann explained that unril three years ago, the inter-connected smoke detectors were
allowed under the old Code. The current Code requires existing buildings to have a fire alarm
system.
Ms. Moermond asked if this was the first inspection since the new Code applied.
Mr. Urmann explained the Code actually changed almost a year before they were aware these
properties existed and that they were being used as a"silver house." They may or may not have
been in use before that but 8�ey aze not considered existing unless they were certified prior to the
Code change.
Ms. Moermond stated it was her recommendation to deny the appeal. This was with respect to
the second egress from the third floor and for the inter-connected smoke detectors. One option
would be to stop renting the third floor as a unit. She suggested it could be converted to other
uses such as office space, library space or whatever is shared. It should be a space where people
are not sleeping.
Mr. Crawfard questioned whether he would have to put in a fixll exit and a fire alarm system.
Ms, Moermond stated the alarm system pertained to the entire house. If the third floor was not
occupied, he wouldn't have to worry about installing egress access.
Mr. Crawford stated he would have to sell the building since the fire alarm panel would cost
approximately $6,500 and the egress to the third floor he believed would be cost prohibitive.
Mr. Urmann stated that under the Fire Code, there were allowances due to financial hardship.
The Fire Marshal indicated that he would accept an inter-connected smoke detector with battery
back-up if there was a financial hardship to the properry owner.
Ms. Moermond stated there was still the issue of egress for the upper units. Mr. Urmann stated
that the second exit off the third floor was still required. He believed a design professional could
find a way to provide an acceptable second means of egress for the third floor unit.
Ms. Moermond recommended granting a variance for the fire alarm system for an inter-
connected smoke detector system with battery back up. With respect to the third floor egress
there was no variance that could be granted. If egress access was not provided for the third floor
unit, this unit would need to be condemned.
Mr. Urmann suggested the timeline of December 1 falls into winter.
Ms. Moermond stated that this means temporarily not using the third floor during winter because
of construcrion. If the egress and the alarm system was not done by December 1, 2006, the City
will require that the third floor be vacated for residenrial use.
Mr. Crawford asked where he could find information on proper egresses.
October 3, 2006 Property Code Minutes
od -�os�
Page 5
Mr. Urmann stated that under the Code, the only thing that would be acceptable would be a walk
out stairway exit. Using ladders for a means of fire escape that were attached to the side of the
building were no longer allowed because of the issues of winters in Minnesota.
Meeting adjourned at 2:15 p.m.
�