07-552Council File # /1�—,l�j�
Green Sheet # 3041018
RESOLUTION
SAINl' PAUL, MINNESOTA �/
Presen[ed by
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the May ] 5,
2007, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of a Deficiency List for the following
address:
Propertv Appealed
Apoellant
6
7 1753 Marshall Avenue Ron Robinson, owner
8 Decision: Appeal is denied on the Deficiency List dated April 20, 2007, and the compliance date is
9 changed to August 31, 2007.
10
Benanav
✓
Thune
Adopted by Council: Date
Absent �equested by Department of:
✓�
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
BY / / /fJ!//i�%(%f�v�
� v�
Approved by May : Date �2 d6�
B _
_ �' �
�
Form Approved by CiTy Attorney
By:
Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Counci]
By:
�� ssa,
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
co �o��;�
Contact Person & Phone:
Marcia Moertnond
266-8560
Must Be on Council Agen
Doc. Type: RESOLUTION
E-Dowment Required: N
Document Contact: Racquel Naylor
. Contact Phone: 266-8573
79-JUN-07
y
Assign
Number
For
Routing
Order
7oWl # of Signature Pages _(Ciip Ali Locations for Signature)
Green Sheet NO: 3041018
0 ooncil
7 ouncil De artment Director
2 ' Clerk
3
d
5
Approving the decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on an apgeal of a Deficiency List at 1753 Marshall Avenue_
oanons: Hpprove (a) or Ke�ect (ht): rersonai sernce contracts must nnswer tne ronowmg ctuesnons:
Planning Commission 1. Has this personlfirm ever worked untler 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 persoNfirm possess a skill not normaAy possessed by any
curcent city employee?
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
Advantages If Approved:
Disadvantages If Approved:
Disadvantages If Not Approved:
Transaction:
Funding Source:
Financial Information:
(Explain)
Activity Number:
CosURevenue Budgeted:
June 19, 2007 4:37 PM Page 1
��-�s�
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF MAY 15, 2007 Page 6
Appeal of Ron Robinson to a Certificate of Occupancy with Deficiencies for property at
1753 Marshall Avenue
Leanne Shaff reported that she spoke to Mr. Robinson. He is appealing Item 5. On Apri120,
Inspector Neis inspected the property for the Certificate of Occupancy Inspection. He found that
the basement unit easement well is substandard. Mr. Robinson is to provide and maintain an
egress window well. The m;n;mum size requirement for this window well is nine squaze feet.
The one there now is less than half that size. In an emergency situation, it would be difficult to
get out. Also, it is not large enough for the firefighters.
Ms. Moermond stated this is for a sleeping room.
Ron Robinson, owner, 3100 Penn Avenue South #114, Bloomington, appeared and stated that
the code he received for the fire inspector refers to sleeping rooms under the four story. This
particulaz building was renovated maybe 3 to 4 years ago, and he bought it. There aze five units
in this building. It was turned into a condo. His unit is under the condominium status. This is a
garden unit. It has three entrances and has windows in every room. This particulaz bedroom has
a window. This refers to all new windows. This window has been here since 1912. It is part of
the foundation.
(Mr. Robinson showed a photograph of the unit. A copy of the photographs was made.)
Mr. Robinson continued: he understands the intent of the law. This is almost 100 years old.
This has passed all previous inspections. There is no doubt a person can get in and out of the
window. To tear that foundation out that has been there since 1912 and put something in plastic
to say that they can now get in and out, is not fair to the historic value of the property and to him
as the homeowner. The intent is to be able to get in and out of the property without being injured
or trapped. That is his appeal.
(Mr. Robinson showed a copy of the code.)
Ms. Shaff stated that if the window was at grade, the requirement would change. The openable
area would only be five square feet. That wall does inhibit people, especially with a double hung
window. When it is open, the expectation is that the person is hying to leave.
Mr. Robinson stated part of the inspector's problem was that the firefighters can't get into that
window. Mr. Robinson thought they have to be kidding because they break them out and there
are three others doors into the place. In existing buildings, responded Ms. Shaff, if it is a double
hung window, they let it slide. If it was a new building at 5.7 square feet, it is open, clear area.
The state law is specific about egress. It requires two exits in every sleeping area: one being the
door back into the unit and one being the window going outside or into an azea of lesser hazard.
Ms. Moermond stated this building was constnxcted in 1912. Her understanding of the code is
that they aze looking at cunent code and not 1912 code. Any historic structure would need to
come into compliance with this. Mr. Robinson responded that it says "on new window" within
the code. Ms. Shaff added that the property maintenance code clearly reads the size requirement.
Mr. Robinson stated the square footage is there. Mr. Shaff responded they are discussing the
well and not the window.
d�-�s�
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF MAY 15, 2007 Page 7
Mr. Robinson stated that it is his understanding that this has been appealed before and that Kevin
Chapdelaine has previously inspected the property and passed it. It was supposedly appealed by
Heidi Browriley some years back, but she does not have any documentarion. Ms. Shaff
responded that she has nothing on that. They have buildings all the time that need a lazger
window well.
Mr. Robinson stated that he is not disputing the law at all, but he is disputing the intent, which is
the safety of the occupants. There is no doubt he can get out of that window, but she wants to
keep referring to the well built in 1912. That shows a great disrespect to the building to take it
down and put it back in to accommodate six more inches. The intent of the law is to get out
unharxned to save a life. Ms. Moermond responded that it is also about getting in to save a life.
Ms. Moermond asked who sieeps in this room. Mr. Robinson responded that there are two
tenants who currently rent the unit. The lease is up the end of the month. He does not lrnow if
this room will be occupied by tenants or becomes an office.
Ms. Moermond asked what is being cited here. Ms. Shaff responded it is state building code and
state fire code. It is Chapter 34 of the Fire Code and she did not bring a copy with her. The state
building code is the 2000 version of the international building code.
Ms. Moermond asked how the 2000 building code read in respect to egress windows. Ms. Shaff
responded that they read verbatim to the fire code. The only difference is in regards to window
wells. (Ms. Shaff read the code.) The minimum is three feet forwards or sidewalks. What is
here is not quite two forward. Mr. Robinson responded that is the edge of the building and not
the window. Technically, they could add six inches to that. Ms. Shaff stated that they could add
a few more inches, but it is srill short 36 inches.
Ms. Moerxnond asked the fire code that she is referring to. Ms. Shaff responded 1009.5.1.
Ms. Moermond stated the shortfall is significant enough that she does not feel comfortable
making a recommendation for a variance. It is a depth issue and she does not know who will
need to navigate that.
Ms. Moermond denied the appeal on the Deficiency List dated Apri120, 2007, and the
compliance date is changed to August 31, 2007.
The hearing was adjourned at 2:38 p.m.
rrn