Loading...
09-1132Council File # �1 Green Sheet # 3083036 RESOLUTION F SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA E.7 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the 2 September 22, 2009 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals to Letters of Certificate of 3 Occupancy Deficiency Lists and Correction Notice for the following addresses: 4 5 PropertV Appealed Appellant 6 7 668 Greenbrier Street Richard and Karin DuPaul 8 9 Decision: Grant the appeal. 10 11 2086 Marshall Avenue Lorri Steffen and Paul Zenner 12 13 Decision: Grant a 3-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows throughout the 14 building. 15 16 1075 Mackubin Street Jesse and Ann Maloney 17 18 Decision: Grant a 1-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the upper east and west 19 bedrooms; a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in first floor east bedroom; and a 20 6-inch variance for the ceiling height in the upper bedrooms. 21 22 1880 Grand Avenue Jackie Visnovec, Wolkowicz Propertie= 23 24 Decision: Grant a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows in Units A and 25 B. 26 27 1756 Grand Avenue Dauid Palmer, Grand Properties 28 29 Decision: Grant the following variances on the openable heights of the bedroom egress windows: Unit 19 30 — a 5-inch variance; Unit 20 — a 6-inch variance; Unit 21 — a 6-inch variance; Unit 22 — a 7-inch variance. 31 32 1160 Norton Street Raymond Voderbruggen 33 34 Decision: Grant a 7-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the north and east 35 bedrooms in Unit 2. 36 37 1415 Prosperity Avenue Bridget Ouimet, Prosperity Avenue Partners 38 39 Decision: Grant a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the east and west bedroom egress windows in 40 Unit 7. 09-1132 41 184 Summit Avenue Reginald Schroeder, Schroder Properties 42 43 Decision: Grant a 2-inch variance on the openable width of the bedroom egress windows in Unit 2. 44 45 344 Universitv Avenue West 7.A. Willwerscheid & Son, Twinco 46 47 Decision: Grant a variance on the door swing on the condition that prominent signage is placed on the 48 doors indicating the direction of the door swing. The doors will have to be brought into compliance if any 49 other work is done on the doors or entryway. Deny the appeal on the egress window and grant a 60-day 50 extension to bring the window into compliance. 51 52 164 Stevens Street West Daniel Haugen, WFM Properties 53 54 Decision: Grant a 3.5-inch variance on the openable height of the north right side egress window in the 55 second floor master bedroom. 56 57 1815 Ashland Avenue Josephine Daly 58 59 Decision: Grant a 3-inch variance on the openable height and a 1-inch variance on the openable width of 60 the bedroom egress windows in Unit 5. 61 62 1654 Ashland Avenue Nancy Elsola 63 64 Decision: grant a variance for the egress bedroom windows. 65 66 1890 Randolph Avenue Kevin Becker, o/b/o Sisters of St. Joseph 67 68 Decision: Grant a variance on the sleeping room egress windows provided appropriate signage is placed in 69 each room with the procedure for removing the window kits. 70 71 919 Randolph Avenue Pete Skinner, Skinner Properties 72 73 Decision: Deny the appeal and granting a 60-day extension to clean the window tracks and install sash 74 clips. 75 76 653 Davton Avenue Jeff Spencer, Charleston Condominium Assoc. 77 78 Decision: Deny the appeal and granting a 60-day extension to provide a wark plan; grant an extension to 79 Labor Day 2010 to come into full compliance. 80 09-1132 f:� Adopted by Council: Date ��->' ` �,� � Adoprio��rtified by o cil ecret� By: Appxoved by y � Date � �� � BY� � t,4.CV3�'+���� Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attomey By: Form Apprwed by Mayor for Submission to Council By: Approved by the Office of Financial Services � � 09-1132 � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet ' DepartmenU�ce/Council: , Date Initiated: , co-CoancO ; o�ocT2oos { Green Sheet NO: 3083036 j COnWGt P¢r50n & Phone' � � ueparwrcm aem i e reueu - Marcia Moermond ! y � o co�ocu �� I Council DeDartment D'vector � � 2 CityClerk C1NCIerk ; Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): , Number , 3 , , � For � , �' , Routing 4 � ' � Doa Type: RESOLUTION � Order 5 I I� r I E-Document Required: Y � I i DocumentConWct: i i ConWCtPhone: I I Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Lowtions for SignaWre) Resolution approving the decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters of Deficiency and Conection Notice for the following properties: 668 Greenbrier, 2086 Marshall, 1075 Mackubin, 1880 Grand, 1756 Grand, 1160 Norton, 1415 Prosperity, 184 Summit, 334 University W, 164 Stevens W, 1815 Ashland, 1654 Ashland, 1890 Randolph Ave, 919 Randolph, and 653 Dayton. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Planning Commission CIB Committee Civil Service Commission Personal Service Contrects Must Answer the Following Questions: 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? Yes No 2. Has this person�rm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current ciry employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): AdvantageslfApproved: DisadvantageslfApproved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of Trensaction: Funding Source: Financial Information: (Explain) CosVRevenue Budgeted: Activity Number: October 7, 2009 1:52 PM Page 1 09-1132 MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON APPEALS OF LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY AND CORRECTION NOTICES Tuesday, September 22, 2009 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 1:45 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Leanna Shaff, Deparhnent of Safety and Inspections (DSn - Fire; Joel Essling, DSI — Code Enforcement; Tom Ferrara, DSI — Zoning; and Mai Vang, City Council Offices Appeal of Richard and Karin DuPaul to a Correction Notice for property at 668 Greenbrier Street. Appellant Karin DuPaul (668 Greenbrier, St. Paul, MN 55106) appeared. Mr. Essling gave a staff report. He stated that a correction notice was written and mailed on August 31, with a compliance date of September 9 to obtain site plan approval far an approved parking surface. He said the property was a single-family home on the corner of Greenbrier and Margaret, with the parking surface in the backyard and the curb cut on Margaret. He provided photographs. Ms. Moermond and Mr. Essling reviewed the photographs. Mr. Essling also provided a copy of a site plan that had been submitted with an earlier application to construct a garage. He said the parking surface was gravel or rock and had been that way at least since 1987 when the city had put in the apron and curb cut. He added that the complaint had also been about the motor home in the driveway, but that that was now in compliance. Ms. DuPaul stated that they had owned the property for 32 yeazs, and the Class 5 parking surface had been acceptable when they installed it approximately 30 years ago. She said the city had put in the apron when the street was redone in 1987. She said they had wanted to build a garage far their vehicles but were in a historic district and were not able to get approval for the size they needed. She said they got an estimate of about $8,000 to cement the driveway but could not afford it and had other needs that were mare pressing. She said she was also appealing on behalf of others in the neighborhood who had installed Class 5 driveways when they were legal. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Mr. Essling that he was enforcing out of Chapter 34 of the code. She asked whether enforcement action was being taken on all Class 5 surfaces or only those installed after a certain date. Mr. Essling stated that there was a date when the interpretarion of the code changed and that enforcement also depended upon whether there was an approved site plan in place. He said a third variable was related to a zoning ordinance from 1974 addressing off-street parking. Mr. Ferrara clarified that up until December 2008, surfaces installed befare 1974, and those installed after 1974 with an approved site plan, were allowed to remain. He said that the code being enforced as of October 2006 (when he began enforcement) required the parking surface to match or exceed the street surface, per the zoning site plan approval process. He stated that issues related to proving when gravel was installed had led to the changes in 34.08, which now left no room for September 22, 2009 Property Code Minutes 09-1132 Page 2 "legal nonconfonning." He said the location of existing nonconfomung pazking azeas could be gandfathered, but not the surfacing materials. Mr. Essling clarified that 2006 was not the legal effective date of the code. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Mr. Ferrara that 1974 was the tune being applied to parking surface location. She said that aerial photographs taken in 2004 — 2006 had been referenced during the City CounciPs discussion of the garage permit appeal, and that aerial photos could be used as a guideline in determining whether the parking surface was newly installed. Mr. Ferrara responded that his current involvement with the property was to follow up on the setback violation complaint related to the RV parked there, and that he had been advised not to proceed with the legality of the driveway. He said the only thing he had established was that the driveway existed prior to 1987, but that aerial photographs had been too blurry to verify that it was present before 1974. Ms. Moermond asked whether DSI had a written policy. Mr. Essling said there had been a meeting to lay out enforcement but that he didn't think there was a written policy. Ms. Moermond laid the matter over to October 6 to obtain a written statement on the deparimenYs enforcement policy for residential parking on unapproved surfaces, addressing both location and surfacing materials. All enforcement action is stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. On September 30, 2009, Ms. Moermond talked to 7ohn Hardwick, DSI-Zoning, concerning the deparhnenYs policy on the ordinance change concerning residential parking on unapproved surfaces. It was Mr. Hazdwick's opinion that the department would allow Class 5 gravel for the parking surface. Given that clarification, Ms. Moermond recommended granting the appeal. 2. Appeal of Lorri Steffen and Paul Zenner to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 2086 Marshall Avenue. Ms. Moermond reviewed the inspector's report prior to the hearing and recommended granting a 3- inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows throughout the building. The appellant was notified and did not appear. 3. Appeal of Jesse and Ann Maloney to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for pxoperty at 1Q75 Mackubin Street. Ms. Moermond reviewed the inspector's report prior to the hearing and recommended granting a 1- inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the upper east and west bedrooms; a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in first floor east bedroom; and a 6- inch variance for the ceiling height in the upper bedrooms. The appellant was notified and did not appear. 4. Appeal of to Jackie Visnovec, on behalf of Wolkowicz Properties, a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1880 Grand Avenue. Ms. Moermond reviewed the inspector's report prior to the hearing and recommended granting a 4- inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows in Units A and B. The appellant was notified and did not appear. 09-1132 September 22, 2009 Property Code Minutes Page 3 5. Appeal of David Palmer, on behalf of Grand Properties, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1756 Grand Avenue. Appellant David Palmer (P. O. Box 7028, Minneapolis, MN 55407) appeazed. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She stated that Inspector Booker had conducted an inspection for the Fire Certificate of Occupancy on August 27 and reported that the openable dimensions of the sleeping room egress window in Unit 19 were 19 inches high by 31 inches wide, in Unit 20 were 18 inches high by 34 inches wide, in Unit 21 were 18 inches high by 26 inches wide, and in Unit 22 were 17 inches high by 33 inches wide. Ms. Moermond asked about Item 1 on the deficiency list ordering that closets not be used as sleeping azeas. Mr. Palmer stated that the closets in that building were large and a couple of tenants had their beds in the closets. He said the tenants had been instructed to move the beds out of the closets. Ms. Moermond asked how many bedrooms were in the units. Mr. Palmer said they were all efficiencies except Unit 19. Ms. Moermond asked whether there was a limit on the number of people allowed to rent each unit. Mr. Palmer said all units but Unit 19 had one occupant; Unit 19 had two. Ms. Moernnond recommended granting the following variances on the openable heights of the sleeping room egress windows: Unit 19 — a 5-inch variance; Unit 20 — a 6-inch variance; Unit 21 — a 6-inch variance; Unit 22 — a 7-inch variance. 6. Appeal of Raymond Voderbnxggen to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1160 Norton Street. Ms. Moermond reviewed the inspector's report prior to the hearing and recommended granting a 7- inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the north and east bedrooms in Unit 2. The appellant was notified and did not appear. Appeal of Bridget Ouimet, on behalf of Prosperity Avenue Partners LLC, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1415 Prosperitv Avenue. Ms. Moermond reviewed the inspector's report prior to the hearing and recommended granting a 4- inch variance on the openable height of the east and west bedtoom egress windows in Unit 7. The appellant was notified and did not appear. 8. Appeal of Reginald Schroeder, on behalf of Schroder Properties, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 184 Summit Avenue. Ms. Moermond reviewed the inspector's report prior to the hearing and recommended granting a 2- inch variance on the openable width of the bedroom egress windows in Unit 2. The appellant was notified and did not appear. September 22, 2009 Property Code Minutes 09-1132 Page 4 Appeal of J.A. Willwerscheid & Son, on behalf of Twinco, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 344 University Avenue West. (Cont. from Sept. 8) (Appellant will provide photographs of the doors and window being appealed.) Appellant Steve Willwerscheid (1167 Grand Avenue, St. Paul, NIN 55105) appeared. Ms Moermond, Ms. Shaff, and Mr. Willwerscheid reviewed the photographs provided by Mr. Willwerscheid. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a variance on the door swing on the condition that prominent signage is placed on the doors indicating the direction of the door swing. She said the doors would have to be brought into compliance if any other work was done on the doors or entryway. She recommended denying the appeal on the egress window and granting a 60-day extension to bring the window into compliance. 10. Appeal of Daniel Haugen, WFM Properties, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 164 Stevens Street West. Appellant Daniel Haugen (1048B Payne Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55130) appeared. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She stated that Inspector Westenhofer had inspected for the Fire C of O on September 1 and reported that the openable dimensions of the north right side window in the master bedroom were 20.5 inches high by 25.5 inches wide. The north left side window was missing an interior pane. Mr. Haugen said the interior window had been taken care of. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 3.5-inch variance on the openable height of the north right side egress window in the second floor master bedroom. 11. Appeal of Josephine Daly to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List For property at 1815 Ashland Avenue. Appellant Josephine Macey Daly (38467 Riverview Hills, St. Peter, MN 56082) appeared. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She stated that Inspector Booker had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O on September 3 and reported that the openable dimensions of the sleeping room egress windows in Unit 5 were 21 inches high by 19 inches wide. Bedroom egress windows in Units 2 and 5 were also obstructed by air conditioning units. Ms. Moerxnond asked Ms. Daly about the air conditioners. Ms. Daly stated that the tenants had been told to remove them. Ms. Moermond asked whether there was only one window in the Unit 5 bedroom. Ms. Daly stated that there were two bedrooms and each had one window. She said Unit 5 was on the third floor and she didn't think it was likely that the window would be used for egress. Ms. Shaff reviewed the requirement for two means of egress from each sleeping room below the fourth floor. 09-1132 September 22, 2009 Property Code Minutes Page 5 Ms. Moermond noted that there was a shortfall in both the openable height and width of the Unit 5 egress window. Ms. Daly stated that the building tizd been built in the 1930s and she'd purchased it last year. She said it had passed inspections in the past. Ms. Moermond asked whether it was a double-hung window. Ms. Daly responded that it was. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Ms. Shaff that the property was otherwise well-maintained. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 3-inch variance on the openable height and a 1-inch variance on the openable width of the bedroom egress windows in Unit 5. 12. Appeal of Nancy Elsola to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List far property at 1654 Ashland Avenue. Ms. Elsola stated that she had replaced the original double-hung window following an inspection two years before. She said there had initially been two double-hung windows and the tenant usually put an air conditioner in one of them. She said the inspector had ordered that one of the windows be replaced and had suggested a crank-out window. She stated that the tenant had measured the window to be 36 inches high by 22.5 inches wide. Ms. Shaff gaue a staff report. She stated that Inspector Booker had conducted an inspection and reported that the openable dimensions of the sleeping room egress window in Unit 2 were 33 inches high by 15 inches wide. She said there was no record of a permit for window replacement. Ms. Elsola said she had replaced the window but hadn't been aware that a permit was required, and that the window had passed at re-inspection. She stated that she had measured the screen size at 24.25 inches wide by 36 inches high, which was different from the inspector's measurements. Ms. Shaff and Ms. Moermond clarified the way crank-out windows were measured. Ms. Shaff stated that if the openable height of the crank-out window was 33 inches, a double-hung window of the same size would not have an adequate openable height. Ms. Moermond asked whether installing different hardware on the crank-out window could bring it into compliance. Ms. Shaff responded that it was possible but depended upon the window manufacturer and availability of the specific hardware. Ms. Moermond stated that she would like to continue the hearing to October 6 to allow time far Ms. Elsola to look into hardware options. On October 2, 2009, Ms. Moermond reviewed the photographs provided by the property owner showing the dimensions of the window openings. Based on the documentation, Ms. Moermond recommended granting a variance for the egress bedroom windows. 13. Appeal of Kevin Becker, on behalf of Sisters of St. Joseph, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List far property at 1890 Randolnh Avenue. Appellant Kevin Becker, Pat Croke, Sister Margaret Belanga (all Sisters of St. Joseph, 1884 Randolph Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55105) appeared and provided photographs. 09-1132 September 22, 2009 Property Code Minutes Page 6 Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She stated that she and Inspector McCabe had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O on August 14 and found that there were air conditioners in the egress windows and the openable dimensions of the windows were 12 inches high by 30 inches wide. Mr. Becker stated that they were appealing because the window air conditioners were temporary and only in 7une, July and August. He said the rooms were on the third floor and it was hard to imagine anyone jumping from a third floor window. He refezred to the photographs and said the air conditioners sat in a window kit that could be easily removed along with the window in the case of an emergency. Ms. Moermond asked whether the building was sprinkled. Ms. Shaff said it was not. Mr. Becker said the building was built in 1912. Mr. Croke stated that not many people slept in the building. He said the upper floors would be uninhabitable in the surmner without air conditioning and installing a central air conditioning system would be cost prohibitive. He stated that the building had hard-wired smoke detectors and a central monitoring system. Ms. Shaff asked about the training that had been proposed for staff to learn to remove the window and air conditioner units. Mr. Becker stated that a policy had been developed and training conducted. Mr. Croke noted that there were safety issues associated with air-conditioners units being removed and pushed put of the building; Ms. Moermond confirmed with Mr. Becker that people were being trained to pull the windows and air conditioner units in. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a variance on the sleeping room egress windows provided appropriate signage is placed in each room with the procedure for removing the window kits. 14. Appeal of Pete Skinner, Skinner Properties, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 919 Randolph Avenue. Appellant Peter Skinner (919 Randolph, St. Paul, MN 55102) appeared. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She stated that Inspector Skow-Fiske had inspected for the Fire C of O and reported that the residence windows were difficult to open and did not stay in the open position on their own. She said the property owner had told her that the long-term plan was to replace the windows but they were looking for some time to gather the resources. She said scraping some paint and installing sash clips would suffice in the meantime. Ms. Moermond asked how much time was needed. Mr. Skinner said they'd like to wait until afrer the winter to replace the windows. They were getting bids for the window replacement and didn't lrnow yet how involved the process would be. Ms. Shaff said there were electrical issues with the building as well and that she had suggested to the building owners that they get bids for everything at once. Mr. Skinner asked far an extension until November for making repairs to the windows. 09-1132 September 22, 2009 Property Code Minutes Page 7 Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting a 60-day extension to clean the window tracks and install sash clips. She stated that the conditions could continue for 24 months at which point the inspector could write new orders. 15. Appeal of Jeff Spencer, on behalf of Charleston Condominium Association, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 653 Davton Avenue . Appellant Jeff Spencer (653 Dayton Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55104) appeared. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She stated that Inspector Neis had inspected for the Fire C of O and had ordered that the exterior of the structure be scraped and painted, and rotted wood be replaced. She provided photographs from the inspector's report. Ms. Moermond asked how many units were in the building. Mr. Spencer said there were five; he said one unit was a two-story unit. Ms. Moermond and Ms. Shaff reviewed color versions of the photographs on the computer. Mr Spencer noted that the building was 140 yeazs old. He said he purchased it in 1990 and sold the condos in 1997. It hadn't been painted in twelve years and he knew it needed to be done. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Spencer whether he had a plan for painting the building before the city had written orders. Mr. Spencer said he had. He said they received an estimate for $65,000 two years before but the association hadn't been able to afford it. He his proposal now was that he would start doing the painring himself and the association would hire someone to do the upper portions of the building. Ms. Moermond asked what the deparhnent would typically expect in a case like this. Ms. Shaff stated that they would typically expect full compliance within 90 days, but since 90 days would extend into a cold season, they would ask for a spring compliance date. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Spencer whether the association set money aside for building maintenance. Mr. Spencer stated that the association members paid $300 a month in maintenance fees but that it wasn't enough to cover the regular bills and hire a contractor. He said that one condominium member was 40 years behind in his maintenance fees and that he was trying to recover it. Ms. Moermond stated that from a practical standpoint she felt it was most important to take care of the rotted wood. She asked Mr. Spencer what his capacity was to handle the rotted wood. Mr. Spencer said he'd have to hire someone. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Shaff for her input. Ms. Shaff said the problems were only going to get worse and she'd like to see it done as soon as possible. Ms. Moermond said she would aliow 90 days for taking care of half of the rotted wood. Mr. Spencer stated that there was no money to do the work in that time. Ms. Moermond and Mr. Spencer reviewed the photographs showing the location of the rotted wood. Mr. Spencer stated that the rotted wood was along the second floor and would not be simple to repair. They agreed that some work could be completed by Mr. Spencer this fall. September 22, 2009 Property Code Minutes 09-1132 Page 8 Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting a 60-day extension to provide a work plan and an extension to Labor Day 2010 to come into full compliance.