Loading...
07-1012Coancil File # �f — Green Sheet # '�, 3�5 RESOLUTION OF $AINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented by l �v 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Pau1 hereby certifies and approves the 2 September 18, 2007, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters of Deficiency for 3 the following addresses: 4 5 Propertv Appealed Appellant 6 7 1069 Ross Avenue George and Janice Tyus 8 9 Decision: Reduce the Certificate of Occupancy Inspection Fee Invoice from a total of $536 to a total of 10 $492. 11 12 1108 Wilson Avenue 13 14 Decision: Appeal denied. 15 16 1517 Grand Avenue 17 Josh Sterling Richard Wimmers 18 Decision: Appeal denied and extension granted to November 16, 2007 to address lighting and ventilation 19 requirements. 20 21 1307 Thomas Avenue 22 23 Decision: Appeal withdrawn. 24 25 1208 Kent Street 26 27 Decision: Appeal withdrawn. 28 Ken Haider Reith Pederson Requested by Department of: Bostrom Harris Adopted by Council: Date ✓ ✓ Adoption Certified by Counc' Secretary By: Approve y M o Date f� L-8�� By: � Form Approved by City Attomey By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � d� �d�� co -� Cor�tact Person & Phone: Marcia Mcermond 6-8570 Must Be on Council Aqen Doc. Type: RESOLUTION E-Document Required: N DocumeMCoMad: Vicki Contact Phone: 6-8561 Total # of Signature Pages ,�-�T-0� I Green Sheet NO: 3045315 � Assign Number Por Routing Order (Clip All Lowtions for Signature) 0 ouncil 1 K;omcil i Deparm�eotDlrector 2 S� Clerk CSty Clerk 3 4 I s Resolurion approving the decision of the Legislarive Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters of Deficiency for properties at 1517 Grand Avenue, 1208 Kent Street, 1069 Ross Avenue, 1307 Thomas Avenue, and 1108 W ilson Avenue. laations: Approve (A) or Ke�eCt (K): PerSOnal Semce Gontracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firm everworked under a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firtn possess a swll not normally possessed by any curzent city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet lnitiating Probiem, lssues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approvetl: Trensaction: Funding Saurce: Financial Infortnation: (Explain) Activity Number. CosURevenue BudgMed: October 17, 2007 11:5$ AM Page 1 MINTJTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING v� ON LETTERS OF AEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES AND CORRECTION ORDER5 Tuesday, September 18, 2007 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West Marcia Moermond, I,egislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 130 p.m. Staff Present: Mike Urmann, Leann Shaff, 7ames Thomas, DSI-Fire Prevention; and Donna Sanders, Council Reseazch. Appeal of George and Janice Tyus to a Certificate of Occupancy Tnspection Fee Invoice for property at 1069 Ross Avenue. James Thomas, ASI-Fire Prevention, provided a staff report. This inspection came in as a referral complaint originating as a result of an electrical problem at the property. Mr. Thomas said that he inspected the property on Apri14, but was unable to gain access to where the electrical problem was. After placing three phone calls to the owner following this inspection he returned on Apri19 to gain access to where the elech problem was and determined that the electrical problem was an extension cord plugged into the refrigerator that had a 3-pronged extension cord plugged into a 2-prong outiet and was wet. Every time the tenant stood in that area, ar washed dishes the extension cord got wet. Mr. Thomas unplugged it as it was a safety issue. Two inspections followed this one, that were missed, and Mr. Tyus was not charged a fee for. Mr. Thomas sent Mr. Tyus several inspecrion letters that provided detailed information regarding canceling and rescheduling inspection appoinhnents. As Insp. Thomas did not receive any response &om the property owner or representative the C of O was revoked on May 17. Ms. Moermond asked whether both units of the two-unit building were vacant. Mr. Thomas responded that both units were vacant at the time the C of O was revoked. In addition, Insp. Thomas noted that there was electrical work done in the basement and in the upstairs unit without a permit having been pulled. After several attempts at trying to get Mr. Tyus to comply with the required permits the work was completed without a perm9t. He discussed this issue with his supervisor, Ms. Shaff, on a weekly basis. Insp. Thomas returned to do a re-inspection on July 24 following his having received several telephone calls informing him that the unit was now occupied. Mr. Thomas said several phone calls were made to Mr. Tyus, in addifion to the two occasions that he met with Mr. Tyus after his C of O was revoked, where he explained to him that he could not occupy this building because the C of O had been revoked and that until the building had been inspected and all the needed permits were signed-off on that it must remain vacant. Mr. Thomas said that Mr. Tyus had indicated that he understood this. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Tyus what he was looking for in this appeal. September 18, 2007 Properry Code Minutes �� ��Q��-- Page 2 George Tyus, the appellant spoke. Ae referenced the detailed letter included with the staff report, outlining he and his wife's complaints. He stated that they have hied very hard to comply and have made the necessary unprovements. In terms of the additional electrical work that Mr. Thomas has reported that was completed without a permit prior to his initial inspection, Mr. Tyus said that he had been unaware that any work had been done without a pennit. Mr. Tyus said that a dis� Section 8 tenant was creating a constant barrage of phone calls and complaints, not only with City and Fire, but internally for him as well. During this process she contacted Mr. Thomas. Mr. Tyus disagreed with Mr. Thomas, and said that of all the phone calls that Mr. Thomas is indicating that he made, that there was not one phone call that he did not return. Mr. Tyus spoke to the issue of Mr. Thomas' paperwork where he indicated very boldly and clearly that every aspect of work that needed to be done needed to be done under permit, a licensed contractor, etc. Mr. Tyus claimed that they met that demand. He said that he made sure the people he hired were licensed and bonded and that the fees (had a copy of those, but it was unavailable at this meeting) that were charged of him also had a permit fee included in that, as everybody that he hired wanted a copy of Mr. Thomas' paperwork, and they were faxed copies. He trusted contractors to do the right thing, to get perxnits to do the required work, that Mr. Thomas asked for. In response to Mr. Thomas' inquiries he was calling his contractors who were responding that they pulled the permits. And then Mr. Thomas said that they did not. He also asked his contractors to call Mr. Thomas directly, and Mr. Thomas said they did not call him, yet the contractors claim that they did call him. Mr. Tyus reviewed that Mr. Thomas had informed him that it is the homeowners' responsibility to ensure that the permits aze pulled. Mr. Tyus said he went to the Pernuts Office to check the records to see that the permits were pulled, and they pulled him up on the system, realized that he had a principal property at 43 Totem Road, and said that his rental property is not homesteaded, and said that he could not pull permits for that address. He then called Mr. Thomas and told him that, and he said that it was still his responsibility to make sure that the pernrits are pulled and the pernuts must be displayed in the windows prior to the work starting, etc. Mr. Tyus said that he believes the additional charges of $536.00 are completely outlandish. He noted that Insp. Thomas wrote him a citation which he has to deai with in court, relative to people in the property and having no Certificate of Occupancy, and that it was his maintenance guy. He said that there were a number of instances where Mr. Thomas scheduled re-inspection appointments where he couldn't make it but that his building superintendent was there, and that Mr. Thomas told him that his building superintendent couldn't represent him, and he couldn't inspect. He noted that his building superintendent called him on one occasion and said that NIr. Thomas was there, and Mr. Tyus told him to tell Insp. Thomas that he was on his way, but that Mr. Thomas took off. Mr. Tyus said that these are the circumstances that brought hun to this appeaL Finally, he said that Mr. Thomas vacated his building of the family on September 10, however his notice was for September 11. He showed up, along with the St. Paul Police on September 10 and evicted his tenants. At that point the work had been completed, except for perhaps a small plumbing issue, but everything far the most part was in order and he believes that Mr. Thomas saw that the pernuts were pulled but that they weren't final, and that it the reason he had to evict them. Mr. Tyus said he feels that he's getting the raw end of the stick and believes it would be a different situation if he hadn't attempted to comply, but he said he has all along and been in constant contact with Mr. Thomas. Mr. Tyus said that what he's asking for is that the charges for missed appointments, etc. should be forgiven, except for the $128.00 cost of the Certificate or Occupancy. September 18, 2007 Property CodeMinutes ���/��� Page 3 Ms. Moermond reviewed that this issue dates back to April, that it has been going on £or a long while. She asked Mr. Tyus if he is appealing the work that needs to be done or whether the appeal is related to whether or not there was a permit in place. Mr. Tyus responded that the pemut is the issue. He reviewed that the biggest issue wasn't the refrigerator but rather, that in the basement there's a washer and dryer for the tenants and that an extension cord was n,nn;ng to the dryer because the cord didn't reach the outlet, and fhat outlet had to be moved closer to the dryer and that was done. He had a pluxubing issue relative to drainage from the lower unit, the kitchen sink n,nning into the basement, above the basement ceiling that had a small leak to it, that had a sag to it, and there was also a venting issue and those items were taken care of. A test of the fiunace was also requested and completed. He said he had no issue with the work that was identified to be completed. Mr. Tyus concluded that it was ultimately an issue of a disgruntied tenant. Ms. Moermond asked if the Certificate of Occupancy Fee has been paid. Mr. Thomas responded that no fees have yet been paid. Mr. Tyus said he has no problem with paying the C of O fee, due September 28, 2007. There was some discussion about when the fees would be due, and it was determined that Fire Inspections does not biil unril the work has been completed. Ms. Moermond explained to Mr. Tyus that why an inspectar shows up at your place is not of much significance, but that when a complaint is received that it needs to be investigated and needs to be founded or unfounded, which has to be done. It appears that there were some problems, and accese issues to the whole building, which there needed to be. Ms. Moermond indicated that she would like to take some further time to review the chronology of events, and clarify whether there were any permits that have been pulled. Mr. Thomas said that the permits were pulled after the tenants had vacated the building. The permits were not pulled until August 22, despite the fact that the first letter of deficiencies sent to NSr. Tyus stated very plainly that all work must be done under permit. He reiterated that when a property owner hires a contractor, the contractor is to go over the details with the property owner and give them instructions, and that their contractar may tell them that he is going to go and pull a permit but that ultimately it is the property owner's responsibility to make sure that the person that they are hiring to do the work on their property follows the guidelines and the policy of the City, and that is to pull the required permits. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Tyus once again what he understood needed to happen. Mr. Tyus responded that as he understands it, just as Mr. Thomas has indicated, that it is ulrimately the homeowner's responsibility to ensure a permit is pulled. He noted one item by the plumbing inspector, that when he came to inspect the plumbing work for a hot water heater put in the year before, and it looked fairly new, which showed no record of a pernut. He called this contractor up who said that they did pull the permit and faxed it over, however Mr. Thomas indicated that there was no record of it. But again, his receipt of the work he paid far included a pernut charge. This documentation was presented to Ms. Moermond far her information. September 18, 2007 Property Code IvTinutes Q��/��a- Page 4 Mr. Thomas reviewed the issue of missed appointments and fees. He explained that he saved Mr. Tyus $58 for a no-show fee, saved him $250.00 on a vacant building fee, and saved him $78 on another reinspection fee that would have been chazged. Computer notes indicate that the no show fee was lapsed for two days giving Mr. Tyus or his representative an opportuniTy to call him before the no- show fee was chazged. There were also 3 no-enhy fees that he did not chazae to the properiy. So in all there were seven fees that were avoided being charged to the property. The no-entry fee is a fee that is shown when there is nobody that meets the inspector at the properiy. Mr. Thomas noted that on August 4 his supervisor gave him a note that said that 3ames Bames was the caretaker for Mr. Tyus, and that is the only time that anyone was identified to him as anyone responsible for the property other than Mr. Tyus. Before he made the last inspection, he made notes of the two phone calls that he made to Mr. Bames in the morning, and rivo phone calls at the property and that is the last no-show fee that was indicated on the bill. Mr. Tyus challenged the comments that Mr. Thomas provided above, stating that Mr. Thomas had an inspection scheduled with him, but he was cutting the grass, and Mr. Barnes was present, and that he had introduced Mr. Barnes to Mr. Thomas personally. He was on his riding lawinnower when Mr. Thomas came to inspect the property and he had instructed Mr. Barnes to take Mr. Thomas wherever he wished to go. Mr. Tyus informed Ms. Moermond that he will be taking all of the contractors to conciliation court because they have all lied regazding the building permits, except for the plumbing contractor. He began this process right after he received the Legislative Hearing Notice. Ms. Moermond reiterated that she wished to review the paperwork one last time, as well as the testimony that she's heard at this meeting, and that she would be sending Mr. Tyus a letter indicating her decision. On October 1'I, 2007 Ms. Moermond recommended reducing the Certificate of Occupancy Inspection Fee Invoice from a total of $536.00 to a total of $492.00. 2. Appeal of 7osh Sterling to a Certificate of Occupancy inspection for property at 1108 Wilson Avenue. Appellant was not present. Ms. Moermond denied the appeal. Appeal of Richard Wimmer to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1517 Grand Avenue. Leanna Shaff, DSI-Fire Prevention, provided a brief staff report. Ms. Shaff inspected Mr. Wimmer's property on two occasions, most recently with Ms. Girling. In the basement of the building each individual apartment or townhouse enters into an exit hallway and from that hallway exits outside. Many of the units in the basement of the building aze being used as bedrooms and the egress meets all of the requirements and is not an issue. However, these units do not meet the light and venrilation requirements. Shaff said that a few years ago she mistakenly approved this Certificate of Occupancy. Ms. Girling's call of inadequate light and ventilation is correct. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Wimmer, the appellant, what he was looking for. September 18, 2007 Property Code Minutes �„(� f�.., Page 5 Mr. Wimmer responded that he is looking to keep this space used as bedrooms, as the egress is not a problem and he doesn't believe that the ventilation is that bad in those rooms, if at all. He provided Ms. Moermond with a diagram of the layout of the rooms and reviewed it. Mr. Wimmer reported that he's owned the building for nine years and there have been two previous inspections, with the inspectors finding the rooms to be legal. He submitted that if he has to vacate these as sleeping rooms that it will present a definite hardship to his tenants, who are all students at Macalester College, who are &om out-of-state and have no where to go. This is the reason for his appeal. Everything else on the deficiency letter has already been taken care of and he noted that he's scheduled for a re-inspection on Thursday, September 20th. Ms. Moermond asked the inspector to chazacterize the shortfall. Ms. Shaff responded that the Legislarive Code requires X amount of light and ventilation, and this property is a far cry from meeting that. Ms. Moermond asked whether there is a means that the ventilation goal could be achieved. Ms. Shaff replied that it is possible and said that it would be necessary to consult with a contractor in order to see what it would take in order to mechanically ventilate the areas. She noted that because of the configurarion of the building, it would be quite difficult to meet the light requirements. Ms. Moermond asked whether all of the units were currently being used as sleeping rooms. Mr. Wimmer responded that when the inspection was done that they all were not, but now that school is in session, they all will be used as sleeping rooms. He noted that he does have lighting in each of the rooms, but that it is not direct sunlight because of the limitation of the small windows. Mr. Urmann noted that the Code is pretty specific that it must be natural light and ventilation in habitable spaces. They could get natural ventilation into the room mechanically but it is difficult to get natural light into spaces that don't have adequate window size. Currently, iYs not mechanical, it's not set up for mechanical, it's set up for natural light and ventilation and that is the issue. Mr. Wimmer said that according to the ordinance it states "or artificial light" in accordance to State Building Code, under Section 34.14 Light and V entilatfon. It states fhat "light and ventilation shall be provided by means of an open window as specified and/or artificial light in accordance with State Building Code. Ms. Moermond recessed to consult the State Building Code. Ms. Moermond requested that Ms. Shaff provide a staff report relative to the findings in the State Building Code. Ms. Shaff said she spoke with the Senior Plan Examiner who said that the State Code says that if we can get ten foot candles, 30 inches above the level of the floor, for artificial light, it would be acceptable. More research is necessary as it relates to artificial ventilation. The current ventilation will likely not meet building code requirements for the applicable code, as fresh air is needed. Ms. Moermond reported that the State code references for these requirements states: "sha11 provide." She indicated that oftentimes we can work with residents at the 1oca1 level with ways that we can Septembet 18, 2007 Property Code Minutes �����1�,,, Page 6 proximate that, however, in this case, it is a matter of a"have to." Ms. Moermond spoke to the issue of inspectors having in the past approved these conditions, stating that now that these deficiencies have been idenrified the state code must be complied with. She indicated that the question now becomes how can Mr. Wimmer do it at tYris point, and what is an acceptable mechanism for dealiug with the natural light and the ventilation issue. Ms. Shaff said that one of the ways in which Mr. Wimmer may wish to achieve the goal is to contact his mechanical provider who does his burn test and see if he can make up air. Mr. Wimmer responded that he is confident that will work with the air handling system. He's already spoken to a couple of people on that and it is possible, but he wanted to first deternune if it is absolutely necessary, and it appears to be necessary, per state code. Ms. Shaff said that yes, according to the Minnesota State Building Code it is necessary. Ms. Wimmer questioned that since he has tenants currently living there, whether he could be given a reasonable time to get these things accomplished? Ms. Moermond asked how much time he would need. Mr. Wimmer said that one thing he will weigh is whether at the end of the leases does he not rent the units at a117 The leases are not due until June 1. If a June timeline is not a possibility then he requested at least 3 months to accomplish the work needed. If Ms. Moermond does allow the units to remain as is until the leases end, and he decides that yes, he wishes to renew their leases or begin new leases and rent as sleeping area, he will have to have that area ventilated and inspected before the leases would be signed on that property. It was determined that the units have a hot water heating system, so the heating system was not an option to address some considerations for ventilation. Mr. Wimmer said that he has not received any complaints $om the tenants relative to the lack of ventilation. He noted that the door leading to the upstairs acts as a ehimney of sorts, and they do receive some air movement from the use of the stairway. Ms. Moermond made the decision that she would allow Mr. Wimmer two months to remedy the air ventilation and lighting de�ciencies. Mr. Wimmer acknowledged that tYris wiil be an expense and said that if he chooses not to do the improvements that another option is for him to vacate the sleeping rooms. Ms. Moermond agreed. Mr. Urmann pointed out that when Mr. Wimmer installs the venfilation system that meets code compliance that that work will be done under permit, and Mr. Wimmer will be signed off of by the City's mechanical inspector and it will not require a City Inspector visit for that issue, as long as the City is provided with permits that are signed-off and approved. DSI's mechanical inspector will be informed of the requirements by the C of O Tnspectars. September 18, 2007 Property Code Minutes b'1.���1� Page 7 4. Appeal of Ken Haider to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1307 Thomas Avenue. Mike Urmann, DSI-Fire Prevention, provided a brief staff report. He reviewed that the issue is that we have a batUroom for a lower unit in a common azea. Mr. Urmann aclaiowledged that a remedy is available as the coxnmon azea can be made private with the addition of a lock on the door. Mr. Haider reviewed drawings of the unit with Mr. L3rmann. Mr. Urmann reviewed that the doorway at the top of the stairs makes the space part of a common area because they can access that bathroom without entering through the unit. As faz as he is concerned this is not an exit because there is another exit from this floor that meets the requirement. Mr. Urmann recommended that the stairwell be closed off making the door openable for occupants from downstairs but not to the occupants from upstairs. It then becomes in the downstairs occupants' control, and not of the people in the upper unit. He spoke w/ Mike Ricketson in DSI and they aze all in agreement. The door can be secured with a deadbolt lock with a thumb latch and a key and only accessible to the lower unit, and now this is only accessible to the lower unit, making it no longer a common azea. Clarification was made that the deadbolt lock be thumb latched from the inside (downstairs) and keyed from the outside (which is the upper unit). It will now be listed as a legal non-conforming unit because the bathroom isn't physically part of the unit. The deadbolt lock makes it legal non-confornung. A letter will be sent by Fire Inspections notifying Mr. Haider of the date and time of the reinspection appointment. Appeal withdrawn. 5. Appeal of Keith Pederson to a Vacant Building Registration for property at 1208 Kent Street. Appeal withdrawn.