Loading...
09-336Council File # �'�� Green Sheet# 3068929 1 2 , � 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 RESOLUTION CITY QF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented � BE TT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the February 17, 2009 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on the Appeals of Letters and Letters of Deficiency, for the following addresses: Propertv Appealed 429 Grand Avenue Appellant Barry Star Decision: Grant variances for the egress windows. 1498-1500 Reanev Avenue Bernice Knajdek Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension for 120 days to replace the windows. 140i Rice Street David Gores o/b/o Mary Gores Decision: Grant variances for the egress windows. 1195 Hancock Street Bruce Linroth Decision: Deny the appeal on the furnace service. Deny the appeal on the windows and grant a six-month extension to bring the egress windows into compliance. If the current tenants move out prior to the six- month extension, the windows will have to be replaced before new tenants can move in. 905 Sims Avenue Jason Frey o/b/o KBD Investments, LLC. Decision: Grant variances for the egress windows. 370 Summits Avenue, Unit 3 Robert Muschewskie & Leaetta Hough-Dunnette Decision: Grant variances for the egress windows. Dy-3�1� 35 807 St. Clair Avenue, Unit A Julie Bunn 36 37 Decision: Deny the appeal on the window well and grant an extension to November 30, 2009 to come into 38 compliance. Grant a variance on the window height with a six-week extension to repair the stuck window. 39 40 1318 Bazclay Street Thao Yang 41 42 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension for 90 days to replace the windows. 43 44 691 Marvland Avenue West Mazgaret Uriah 45 o/b/o High Point Property Management 46 47 Decision: Grant variances for the egress windows. 48 49 2092 Oranee Avenue East Howard Jones 50 51 Decision: Grant variances on the egress windows with dimensions of 21 inches in height by 34 inches in 52 width. Deny the appeal for egress windows and grant an extension for six months for the replacement of 53 the three windows with 17.5 and 15 inch openable heights. 54 Yeas Nays Absent Bostrom �/ Carter �/ Hanis ; i Helgen ,/ Lanhy ,� Stark r / Thune ,/ � � Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney By: Adopted by Council: Date ��/�/fGl Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council Adoption Certified by Counc'I Secretary By: � Approved May;r ate � J.fJ?� B � Approved by the Office of Finaucial Services sy: � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet n9-2zi„ � DepartmenU�celCOUncii: Da[e Initiated: � � � `� � �o-�°°°��� 24MAR-09 Green Sheet NO: 3068929 ConWCtPersonBPhone � Department SentToPerson InitiaVDate Marcia Moermond y o 000cu 0 s-8S7� 1 onncil De artment D"vector Assign Z 'ryClerk GSriClerk Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 3 0 For Routing 4 0 Doa Type: RESOLUTION - Ortler 5 - - 0 E-Document Required: Y Document Contact: Mai Vang ConWct Phone: 6-8563 _ � ToWI # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: � Resolution approving the February 17, 2009 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters of Deficiency for properties at 429 Grand Avenue, 1498-1500 Reaney Avenue, 1403 Rice S[reet, 1195 Hancock Street, 905 Sims Avenue, 370 Summits Avenue, Unit 3, 807 St. Clau Avenue, Unit A, 1318 Barclay Sfreet, 691 Maryland Avenue West, and 2092 Orange Avenue East, per LHO's recommendation. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service CoMraMS Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this person/frm ever worked under a contract for ihis department? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any wrrent ciry employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Nlho, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of Transaction: CosURevenue Budgeted: Funding Source: A�ti��ty Number: Financial Information: (Explain) March 24, 2009 2:20 PM Page 1 v' ��W MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES AND CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, February 17, 2009 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West The hearing was called to order at 1:40 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Leanna Shaff, Department of SafeTy and Inspections (DSI) — Fire Prevention; Richazd Singerhouse, DSI — Code Enforcement; and Mai Vang, City Council Offices Appeal of Barry Star to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 429 Grand Avenue. Appellant Barry Star (1784 Phalen Place, Maplewood) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that the inspector had found that the openable dimensions of the egress windows in all units were 21 inches high by 30 inches wide. Ms. Moermond stated that she would recommend that the council grant a three inch variance on the window height. Appeal of Bernice Knajdek a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1498- 1500 Reanev Avenue. Appellant Bernice Knajdek (1526 Reaney Avenue) appeared and provided photographs of the windows. Ms. Shaff stated that the building had been inspected on January 28, 2009. The inspector found that the egress windows in all bedrooms of both units had openable dimensions that were short of the minimum required 24 inches high by 20 inches wide. The dimensions of all of the windows were 19 inches high by 26 inches wide. Ms. Moermond reviewed the photographs. She asked whether the blind obstnxcted the window opening. Ms. Shaff said that that was not noted on the inspection report. Ms. Moermond asked how many windows there were. Ms. Knajdek stated that there was one window per bedroom, and that there were two two-bedroom units. Ms. Moermond stated that there was a five inch shortfall in the height and six inches extra in width, and that that was on the borderline of what she was comfortable with. She said her decision would be for[hcoming. Ms. Moermond reviewed the records on February 20, 2009 and recommended denying the appeal and granting an extension for 120 days to replace the windows. February 17, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes ��3� Page 3 4. Appeal of David Gores, on behalf of Mary Gores, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1403 Rice Street. Appellant David Gores (1475 E. 3` Stteet, At. Pau155106) appeazed. He provided a diagram with measurements. Ms. Shaff stated that the openable dimensions of the egress windows being appealed were 20 inches high by 28 inches wide. Ms. Moermond stated that she would recommend that the council grant a four inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows. 5. Appeal of Bruce Linroth to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1195 Hancock Street. Appellant Bruce Linroth (1727 Geneva Avenue N., Oakdale, MN 55106) appeared. He provided a drawing with measurements. Ms. Shaff stated that Mr. Linroth was appealing the egress windows and the furnace service requirement. She stated that the inspector's notes did not give the actual window measurements but that the property owner had reported that the windows measured 14 inches by 62 inches. Mr. Linroth stated that they were brand new vinyl windows that could be completely removed from the openings, and that the opening was 18 to 20 inches wide. Ms. Shaff stated that the code requirement was for the window azea and not for the size of tl�e opening. Ms. Moermond reviewed the window drawing. Ms. Shaff stated that inspector's report indicated that the window in the north sleeping room measured 15 inches high by 21 inches wide. Mr. Linroth said that it was a child's bedroom. Ms. Moermond asked about the fixrnace situarion. Mr. Linroth stated that the furnace was cleaned every year and that the tenant replaced the furnace filter every two months. He said that he had a friend who was "furnace man" and who came over every year and looked at the flame. Ms. Moermond stated that the cost for the required biannual service began at about $125 and had a wide range. She asked what the test looked for that would not be covered in a standard cleaning. Ms. Shaff stated that the required service included testing for safe and efficient burning and for cazbon monoxide issues. Mr. Linroth stated that those things could be determined by looking at the flame and that there was a carbon monoxide detector in the house. Ms. Shaff stated that the service was still required. Ms. Moermond stated that there was a six inch shortfall on the window width and that in an emergency situation the tenant might not be able to remove the window. She said that the fact that the bedroom with the small window was a child's room would not affect her decision because she February 17, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes �'��� Page 4 had to be concerned about the long term. She asked how long the current tenants had been renting the property. Mr. Linroth stated that they had been there for eight years. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal on the furnace service. She said she would recommend denying the appeal on the windows and granting a six month extension for the windows to be replaced. She said that if the current tenants moved out before the six months were over, the windows would have to be replaced before a new tenant could move in. 6. Appeal of Jason Frey, on behalf of KBD Investments LLC, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 905 Sims Avenue. Appellant Jason Frey (978 Aurora Avenue, #2, St. Pau155104) appeared. He submitted a letter from the current tenant stating that she felt the windows were adequate for safety. Ms. Moermond read from the inspector's report which gave egress window dimensions of 20 inches high by 37 inches wide in the first bedroom (downstairs), 20 inches high by 43 inches wide in the second bedroom (upstairs), and 21 inches high by 32 inches wide in the third bedroom (upstairs). Ms. Moermond stated that the letter from the tenant did not work in the appellanYs favor but that the window dimensions did, and that she would recommend granting variances on the window heights. Appeal of Robert Muschewskie and Leaetta Hough-Dunnette to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 370 Summit Avenue, Unit 3. Appellants Robert Muschewskie and Leaetta Hough-Dunnette appeared and provided photographs. Ms. Hough-Dunnette staYed that the building was a 100-year-old structure and that they were requesting a variance on the dormer windows on the third floor. She said that they had remodeled the unit and had pulled all of the required permits, and that the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) had been involved. She said that the building inspector had been there several times and that the property had passed the final building inspection on January 12, 2009. Ms. Shaff stated that the egress windows being appealed had been measured at 16.5 inches high by 28.5 inches wide. Ms. Moermond asked about the building permit that had been issued for the windows. Greg Johnson, DSI, stated that the window sashes that were installed complied with the building code and nearly complied with Minnesota State Building Conservation Code requirements, which were more liberai than the St. Paul Legislative Code. He stated that when he inspected a building, he had no way of knowing whether it was going to be used as a rentai. Ms. Shaff stated that Chapter 34 requirements applied to all buildings. Christine Boulwaze, HPC, stated that the windows faced Summit Avenue and were the same size and style as what had been there before. She said that at the time staff had signed off on the windows, it had been the understanding that the third floor would be owner-occupied, and that normally when the situation came up with egress and rental, HPC staff worked with building February 17, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes ��7j?J-(� Page 5 inspectors and plan review to discuss options. She said that this was the first time she had been in a situation in which orders had been issued for egress windows. Ms. Moermond asked whether the appellants had additional comments. Ms. Hough-Dunnette stated that there were two balconies close to the windows, and that there was a very high-quality, centrally-monitored smoke and fire detection system and ten smoke detectors in the building. Mr. Muschewskie stated that the safety of the building had been a consideration in choosing features and materials for the remodel. He said that changing the windows would require substantial changes to the construction of the building. Ms. Moermond noted the other codes referenced but stated that the Legislative Code was the one being cited, and that if there were inconsistencies in interpretation the differences should be resolved within DSI. She stated that since the building permit had been issued and HPC had been consulted, the appellants had been validly under the impression that they'd done everything conectly. She said that because the property was within a historic preservation district, the appellants' ability to comply with the orders was compromised. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a vaziance on the egress window height. 8. Appeal of Julie Bunn to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 807 St. Clair Avenue, Unit A. Marlon Gunderson (2486 Lake Elmo Avenue N., Lake Elmo, MN 55042) appeared in behalf of the appellant. Ms. Shaff stated that the egress window in the basement bedroom measured 14 inches high by 23 inches wide, and that the size of the window well was also an egress issue. She said the egress window well measured 24 inches by 33 inches and that the code required 36 inches by 36 inches. Mr. Gunderson stated that the inspector had measured a window that did not open fully and that the window that did not stick was 20 inches high by 23 inches wide. Ms. Shaff asked why the inspector had not measured the other window. Mr. Gunderson stated that the window was above a bed. Ms. Shaff stated that a bed could not be directly below the egress window. Mr. Gunderson stated that the tenant had said he'd prefer that the egress window be the one above the bed. Mr. Gunderson said that he'd taken care of the grate outside the window so that it could be removed from the inside. He said that he was concerned about aesthetic issues with altering just one of the building's window wells. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Gunderson whether he'd brought photographs. Mr. Gunderson said that he had not. He said he'd been able to get into and out of the window well to remove the grate, and that most of his tenants were women. Ms. Moermond reviewed the window dimensions. Mr. Gunderson said that he could fix the sticking window to open to the full height but that for security reasons he would prefer to have only one of the windows have removable bars. February 17, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes �� Page 6 ✓ W Ms. Shaff stated that the window would have to be fixed so that it could be opened to the full height. Ms. Moermond stated that she was not comfortable with the egress window size and would like to take some time to think about her decision. She asked about the window well issue. Ms. Shaff stated that the issue was with 24 inch depth (well wall to window) and the ability of a firefighter in full geaz to gain access. Ms. Moermond asked for a diagram of the window well. The hearing was recessed from 2:35 to 2:45. Ms. Moermond, Ms. Shaff and Mr. Gunderson reviewed the diagram prepared by Ms. Shaff. Mr. Gunderson stated that there was a door neazby that could be used for egress. Ms. Moermond stated that fires in underground spaces behaved badly. Mr. Gunderson said that a firefighter would break the full window to gain access, so egress was the primary issue. Ms. Shaff stated that the fully opened 20 inch by 23 inch window had not been measured by an inspector. Ms. Moermond asked whether paint was causing the window to stick. Mr. Gunderson said that it was. He said that he'd prefer to leave the bars on that window. Ms. Shaff stated that only one egress window was required in each sleeping room but that the window still needed to be repaired. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal on the window well and granting an extension to November 30, 2009 to come into compliance. She said that the 33 inch width was fine if the depth was increased to the required 36 inches. Ms. Moermond also recommended granting a variance on the window height with a six-week extension to the repair the stuck window. 9. Appeal of Thao Yang to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1318 Bazclay Street. Appellant Thao Yang appeared. Mai Vang provided Hmong translation services. Ms. Shaff stated that the egress windows in all three bedrooms were measured at 18 inches in openable height by 33 inches in openable width. Ms. Moermond stated that six inches was a significant shor�fall and asked whether there were photographs or diagrams. Mr. Yang said that there were not. Ms. Moermond asked how old the building was. Mr. Yang stated that it was 50-plus years old. Ms. Moermond asked about the type of exterior. Mr. Yang stated that it was a rambler with siding. Mr. Yang stated that an inspector had recently approved everything. He said that a licensed contractor had done work on the house and that all of the work had been approved. February 17, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes b�°?j�jjjJ Page 7 Ms. Moermond asked whether the work had included any changes to the windows. Mr. Yang stated that all of the windows had been replaced witt� windows that were the same size as the original ones. Ms. Moermond said that it didn't appear that a building permit had been pulled for the windows. Ms. Moermond stated that she would continue the hearing for two weeks. She asked Mr. Yang to provide further documentation indicating that he had been told that the windows were approved. She said that any persuasive documentation would be considered and that if no additional documentation was provided, she would recommend denial of the appeal. Ms. Moermond reviewed the file on February 24 and recommended denying the appeal and granting an extension for 90 days to replace the windows. 10. Appeal of Margazet Uriah, on behalf of High Point Property Management, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 691 Marvland Avenue West. Appellant Mazgaret Uriah appeared. She said that a Public Housing Agency (PHA) inspector had measured the egress windows in the three bedrooms at 21.5 inches openable height by 28 inches openable width, 21.75 inches by 28 inches, and 20.5 inches by 28 inches. She said that a follow-up inspection was scheduled with Fire Prevention. Ms. Moermond stated that the Fire inspector would verify the measurements and that if they were the same as the PHA measurements, she would recommend that the council grant a vaziance on the egress window heights. Ms. Uriah stated that she could not collect rent in the meantime and asked whether the inspection appoinhnent could be moved up. Ms. Moermond stated that she would recommend that the orders be withdrawn until the measwements were verified on site. Ms. Uriah stated PHA would not pay the rent. Ms. Moermond asked whether half of the months rent would be taken care of if the issue were resolved by mid February. Ms. Uriah stated that PHA would back-pay the full month if the windows were taken caze of before the end of the month. Ms. Moermond asked the amount of the rent. Ms. Uriah stated that it was $1,081 per month. She said that the estimate for window replacement was $1,900. Ms. Moermond said that she would recommend that the council grant a variance on height for the affected windows. She said that it the Fire inspector found different dimensions for the windows, the issue would be revisited. She stated that the orders were not withdrawn. 11. Appeal of Howard Jones to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 2092 Oranee Avenue East. Appellant Howard Jones (1337 Winchell Street, St. Pau155106) appeared. He provided photographs of the windows. Ms. Moermond referred to the photographs and the inspectar's report. She stated that the only windows she was comfortable granting a variance for were the ones with dimensions of 21 inches in openable height by 34 inches in openable width. She said that the windows in the other three bedrooms fell significantly short of the 24 inch height requirement. February 17, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes D � � Page 8 Mr. Jones stated that the basement was not a sleeping area and was not rented as a sleeping room, but that the tenants had a bed there. Ms. Shaff stated that the bed would have to be removed if the basement wasn't going to be used as a sleeping azea. Ms. Moermond stated that the egress window requirements only applied to rooms being used as sleeping rooms. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the request for a variance and granting an extension for six months for the replacement of the three windows with 17.5 and 15 inch openable heights.