Loading...
08-869Council File #� Green Sheet# 3057606 Presented RESOLUTtON AlNTJ? --�- --- ------ 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the June 17, 2 2008 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters, Correction Notices and Correction 3 Orders for the following addresses: 4 5 Proaertv Anpealed Aunellant(s) 6 7 1706 Palace Avenue Shirley & Joseph Ferraro 8 4 Decision: Grant the appeal for a six inch variance for the ceiling height. 10 11 750 Blair Avenue Douglas King 12 13 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant a 37 day extension to complete the painting. 14 15 746-748 Smith Avenue South Natasha Siemon 16 17 Decision: Deny the appeal with the condition that a permit must be pulled signed off for the wall by July 18 7. If there is no compliance, the C of O is revoked. 19 20 1645 Dale Street North Jeffrey Martinson 21 22 Decision: Deny the appeal. 23 24 242 Goodrich Avenue Richard Miller 25 26 Decision: Grrant the appeal; with the exception that Items 1 and 2 on the deficiency list will need follow- 27 up. 28 29 2040 Ashland Avenue Peter Lehner, o/b/o Jonathan Lindsay 30 31 Decision: Grant a variance for the window egress. 08-�L2°/ - -_32_ 993MarionS3=eEY _._----._.____.._ ._. _ --.-- - -------- -----�>a��-D -- ---- 34 Decision: Grant a variance for the window egress. Bostrom Carter Yeas Requested by Department of: Stazk Thune Adopted by Council: Date ✓ Adoprion Certified by Council Secretary BY� A'J/Ge /Jsl/ %J Approve b ay '. ate B �� � �` � Form Approved by City Attorney By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: Appxoved by the Office of Financial Services BY ' - — � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � n.Q� ai_ � co ���� CoMad Person & Phone: Marcia Mcemwnd on Doc.Type: RESOLUTION ��1� E-DOCUment Required: Y Document Contact: Mai Vang Contact Phone: G8563 K���,�,�:3 � Assign Number Por Routing Order 7oWl # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Green Sheet NO: 3057606 o nanca I 1 �omcil I Deos�entDirec[or 2 ' Clerk Ci Clerk 3 4 5 Resolution appioving the decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letteis of Deficiency for properties at 1706 Palace Avenue, 750 Blair Avenue, 746-748 Smith Avenue South, 1645 Dale Slreet North, 242 Goodrich Avenue, 2040 Ashland Aveuue, and 993 Mazion Street. Planning Commission CIB Committee Civil Service Commission 1. Has this person/firtn ever worked under a contrad for this departmenY� Yes Na 2 Has this persoNfirm ever 6een a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separeM sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: DisadvanWges IfApproved: DisadvanWges If Not Approved: CostlRevenue Budgeted: Funtling Source: Financial Information: (Explain) AMivity Number: July 31, 2008 9:40 AM Page 1 lii=l•i • lOJ' ���1 ON LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES CORRECTION ORDERS AND LETTERS Tuesday, June 17, 2008 Room 330 City Ha11, 15 Kellogg B1vd. West Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The heazing was called to order at 130 p.m. Staff Present: Department of Safety and Inspection (DSI) - Licensing; Mike Urmann, DSI - Fire; Leanna Shaff, DSI — Fire, Mai Vang, City Council Offices; and Nhia Vang, City Council Offices Appeal of Shirley and Joseph Ferraro to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1706 Palace Avenue. Shirley Fenaro, appellant, appeared. Ms. Moermond requested a staff report. Mr. Urmann stated that this is an issue of an occupied basement and the basement ceiling height. The drop ceiling and the framing maaces out at about six feet eight inches and was less than the required seven foot ceiling height requirement for over 50 percent of occupiable space. Staff felt that it met the intent of the code; however, it is being heard because it does not meet the Legislative Code. Ms. Moermond asked how much it wouid take if she were to add the tiles. Mr. Urmann stated it would be three inches. If iYs at 6 feet 8 inches and the ceiling tiles are put in, the height would be six feet, six inches or six feet, five inches. Ms. Ferraro stated that it was mote like six feet, eight inches ar six feet, nine inches without the tiles. Mr. Urmann stated that it was six feet, eight inches without the tiles to the joist and when the framing is put in and with the zero clearance, it will probably make it six feet, seven inches or six feet, six inches so iYs still six inches shorter than what the Code required. Ms. Fe�raro stated that they were using the type of tiles that attach right up nexf to the joist so it would really just take a small amount away and cosmetically it would look better than no ceiling. Ms. Moermond asked them to describe how the basement was being used. Ms. Fenaro stated that there were two bedrooms on the main floor, one bedroom on top and then there is a bedroom in the basement, a family room and a laundry room. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a six inch variance far the ceiling height. June 17, 2008 Properiy Code Minutes �� ��� � Page 2 2. A eal of Dou las Ki t9 a.Geilificate-of axo De ' -L -_...�__ _ _ PP ..___.----�__ �i�- OcEii� }� �eierie� rPi���7"aY-��U-� � __ — - ------ _-=-- -- -----B�a� t�vene�e: ---------- ------_- No one appeared. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 37 day extension to complete the painting. 3. Appeal of Soliving Kong to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List, which includes Revocation, for property at 650 Van Buren Avenue. Mr. Urmann stated that all of the outstanding issues on the building had been approved. The outlet approval is a Certificate of Occupancy issue. He added that, "We were told not to push it," and that they have withdrawn their order pending the outcome of the City Attorney's opinion. Mr. Urmann further added that if the City Attorney comes back with an opinion that it is enforceable, Fire will enforce this. He stated, "We have not issued orders for this. We stopped until we hear back from the City Attorney." 4. Appeal of Natasha Siemon to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List, which includes Revocation, for property at 746-748 Smith Avenue South. Muk and Natasha Siemon, tenants, appeared. Laurie Aonnigford, property owner, also appeared. Ms. Moermond requested a staff report. Ms. Shaff stated that this is the third time that this matter has been heard since November, 2007. The first time that it was heard in Legislative Hearing in November, Ms. Moermond had asked the owners to obtain estimates far repair on a retaining wall that is failing. At that time, it was represented by Supervisar Owens in which she received an email from him that the full compliance date was May 30, 2008; if the wall would to collapse prior to that date, all issues would be denied. She went to the property on May 30, 200$ and revoked the Certificate of Occupancy for non-compliance. She presented photos of the retaining wall. Mr. Siemon stated that they would like the City to work with them. They like where they are staying and iYs a good place for the family. He said they were told by Ms. Shaff to get a permit to do the wall. He doesn't think that was correct because the wall is under 48 inches. They were trying to get through the permit process starting off with the State of Minnesota to give him a building exemption due to the fact that he didn't make $15,000. The State of Minnesota held up the process. They started working on the wall and were waiting for guidance from Ms. Shaff as how to go about it and to be in compliance. They did not want to pay and estimated $12,000 to repair the wall which the Honnigfords do not have. He believed he could do the work far approximately $250.00 and be in compliance. Ms. Moermond asked when the process of pulling the permit was. Mr. Siemon responded that he started with the State of Minnesota in March. Ms. Moermond asked if he went to the City's Deparhnent of Safety and Inspecrions to talk to them. Ms. Siemon responded that he did not because he was told by Ms. Shaff that he would need to have a permit to do the work. Ms. Shaff had said that she needed to hold the owners accountable. ___ _.._ __ _.. .- __ _. _�-3une -T'1 r�^�' �Iinute� — — -- -- ---- - -- O� �� f� � Page 3 — _ ---- �- Ms. Honningford stated that she did not tlunk that the City was not being flexible with them. From looking back at the records, Ms. Shaff was requesting estimates even though they don't have a lot of money. On December 4, they provided some esrimates and indicated that they may have some significant financial difficulties and time was ganted until May 30, 2008. She was told that if the issue was not taken caze of, the C of O cauld be revoked, the property could be condemned or a criminal tag could be issued. Fire staff decided to revoke the C of Q. Ms. Moermond requested more information Ms. Shaff stated that on May 30` she drove by the front of the house and saw that someone was probably home. She did speak with the tenant and explained what was going on as she didn't want to placard the house and leave without telling them. At that time, she explained to the tenant about the wall and that she believed it would need a permit to do the work. She suggested to the tenant that she call the local building inspector for the area which is David Kenyon. She said she received a call from Building Inspector David Kenyon and was toid ihat they would not need a permit because it was under 30 inches. In looking at the Building Code, she disagreed. The Building Code indicated that if it was under 48 inches, measuring from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, it would need one. This wall does not meet that because of the iree. Ms. Moermond asked if she or Mr. Kenyon looked at the grading and excavating. She thought it should be part of a sit�plan review which she believed should be required. Ms. Shaff stated that the biggest issue was the tree. If the tree were to go down, it would be a big problem. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Simeon when she had the conversarion with the inspector. Ms. Simeon said that she did not have any conversation with regard to the permit. She wanted to note that the wall had never failed and had been there for 56 years, according to the neighbors. They made it fail by digging and pushing the wall. Ms. Moermond stated that she wanted to know of any conversataons that Ms. Simeon had with the inspector. Ms. Simeon stated that she did not have any conversation with Inspector Shaff. She said that they were waiting until after w9nter befare doing the work. Mr. Simeon stated that it was his opinion that this was a landscaping issue and doing the work during winter would be too difficult. He said that the permit they thought they had to have didn't come through until June 6. Ms. Shaff stated that the permit he was referring to is not a permit. IYs a limited contractor's license which does not have any requirements. The permit she was requiring to do the work was not the tenants' responsibility and was entirely on the owners. Ms. Moermond stated that the original orders were issued on October 2, 2007 and this problem still had not been resolved. Mr. Simeon said that he believed he could have the work done in a week; however, he did not get it done because he thought he needed a pernut. Ms. Moermond stated that she needed to hear from the owner. Ms. Honnigfard stated that she thought she could work with the Simeons to get this done because Mr. Simeon had worked with landscaping. Given her financial situafion, she had been able to get the wail repaired. June 17, 2008 Properiy Code Minutes �g �� (Q '�J Page 4 Ms. Moermond asked whether she was in danger of foreclosure or in the rocess of having a sheriff ____ - • ---..... ------ Y_ .------ _'_ "_' ��A M a ---_�ale_I��Hoi�n�gford-statec��trat�he�ad-t�u-e�-}>rroger�ies-�d#I�s-u=as-t�e onl�goe�'ai�e����«r�= --- - they were trying to save. Mr. Simeon said that he had experience in landscaping work and works at the Capitol in ground services and would lrnow how to resolve this issue. He was requesting that he be given a week to work on it. Ms. Moermond recommended that a pernut be pulled and signed off on for the wall by July 7, with the expectation that this will include a footing. If there was no compliance, the C of O wili be revoked. 5. Appeal of Jeffrey Martinson to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1645 Dale Street North. Ms. Moermond stated since the property owner failed to appear, she recommended denying the appeal. 6. Appeal of Richard Miller to a Certification of Occupancy Deficiency List far property at 242 Goodrich Avenue Richard Miller, appellant, appeared. Ms. Moermond requested a staff report. Ms. Shaff stated that Inspector Stevens, who is no longer with the Department, issued the C of O on May 16. Since that time, the appellant sent a letter stating that he plans to do wark on the property and was in the process of homesteading the properiy and will be living in it. She believed the appeal was that he plans to make this his resident and should not be part of the C of O program. Mr. Milier stated that he complied with all of the physical requirements, mainly the porch railing. He said he was appealing for the need of the interior inspection. He lived at this property until 1987 when his mother passed away and he moved into her condo. He had tenants living there since that time and when he received the notice, he informed his tenant of the inspection and he leamed that that the tenant was no longer living there. It had always been his intent to move back into the property once the tenant had moved out. He wanted to rehab the property before he moved in. Ms. Moermond recommended granting the appeal; however, Items 1 and 2 will need to be followed up on. 7. Appeal of Peter L,ehner, on behalf of Jonathan Lindsay, to a Certification of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 2040 Ashland Avenue. Peter Lehner, on behalf of appellant, appeared. Ms. Moermond requested a staff report. Mr. Urmann stated that from a Code Enforcement standpoint, 5.7 square feet of open area or glazed area in an exisring building is what the staff is looking for. In this case, there are two sets of windows; one is 40 inches by 19 which was 5.2 Iune 17, 2008 Property Code Minutes square feet; the other was 62 inches by 17 inches which was (Jg �g �P G l Page 5 because iYs 7.5 square feet �P,..,:.�...a„r -_ - � — _� � _ —_ Ms. Moermond asked what the shortfall on the windows were. Mr. Urmann responded that this is an egress window and what firefighters would look at is that they are able to use the window for ingress as well as a person being able to egress in the case of a fire. Ms. Moermond asked what the dimension shortfall was. Mr. Urmann responded that it was the width on both windows. They were lower than the required width because one has 19 inches and the other was 17 inches. The minimuxn width requirement is 20 inches as indicated in his handout. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Lehner what he wanted in the appeal process. Mr. Lehner responded that he was appealing because he believed there was only a one inch short. The windows had a lot of glazed squaze footage and he believed it was reasonable given the inside of the rooms each had individual carbon monoxide and on the outside of each room was a smoke detectors. If there were to be a fire, this would alert them. It would cost $1,200.00 or more to replace the windows over one inch size. Ms. Moermond recommended granting the variances for the windows. Appeal of Paul Dotty to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 993 Marion Street Paul Dotty, appellant, appeared. Mr. Dotty stated that he asked the City to shut off his water, which they did, and then the house was condexnned. His house had always passed inspections when he had been issued order to correct something. He was told by Inspector Lisa Martin that he had a window that was not big enough. The glass size of the window is 19 inches by 24 inches. Ms. Moermond asked if the window was a double hung window. Mr. Dotty corrected that it is 48 and that the openable space is 24. Mr. Urmann stated that the window of 19 inches by 24 inches. The 19 inches would be short of the width requirement. Ms. Moermond asked if there are any flaws with the window. Mr. Urmann stated that he is not aware of any. From looking at the inspector's notes, the Certificate of Occupancy had already been issued and told him to file an appeal for a variance. Ms. Moermond recommended granting the variance.