Loading...
09-731Council File # �-/ -� 7(�J Green Sheet # 3071978 RESOLUTION a� CITY Of SAINT,PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented by 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the May 19, 2 2009 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals on Letters of Certificate of Occupancy 3 Deficiency Lists for the following addresses: 4 5 Propertv Apuealed 6 7 929 Burr Street 8 Appellant Loren Lang 9 Decision: Grant a 3-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the attic bedroom in 10 Unit 2. 11 12 2047 Saunders Avenue: 880 Cleveland Avenue; 689 Snelline Avenue South; 13 and 859, 869 and 877 St. Paul Avenue Jackie Visnovec 14 15 Decision: Grant 2 to 2.5-inch variances on the openable height of the sleeping room egress windows 16 throughout the building at 2047 Saunders Avenue. Grant 2 to 2.5-inch variances on the openable height of 17 the sleeping room egress windows throughout the buildings for the following addresses: 880 Cleveland 18 Avenue South, 859 St. Paul Avenue, 869 St. Paul Avenue, 877 St. Paul Avenue. Deny the appeal for 19 egress windows at 689 Snelling Avenue South and grant an extension for one year to bring the windows 20 into compliance. 21 22 2050 & 2056 Bavard Avenue & 656 Cleveland Avenue Kelly Dorow 23 24 Decision: Grant a 3.5-inch variance on the openable height of the sleeping room egress windows 25 ttuoughout the three buildings. 26 27 1000 Charles Avenue Brent Molitor 28 29 Decision: Grant a 3-inch variance on the openable height of the front bedroom egress window. 30 31 212 Montrose Place Jeffrey Nielson & Linda Wiley 32 33 Decision: Grant a 1.5-inch variance on the basement bedroom ceiling height. 34 35 231 Davton Avenue Steve Sauro 36 37 Decision: Grant 1 to 4-inch variances on the openable height of the sleeping room egress windows in a11 38 units. Any additional paint applied to the window frames is prohibited. oy-�3 �2 Yeas Nays Absent Bostrom / Cartex �- Harris � Helgen � Lanhy 1 / Stark ;/ Thune � Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attomey By: Adopted by Council: Date °rf/1�///�119 Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council Adoption Certif by BY� / � /ldAiw Secretary � Approved B 7 Approved by the Office of Financial Services By: 09-731 � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet ; Departmentl�celCouncil: Date Initiated: � CO-Council ; 2g_JUN-09 � Green Sheet NO: 3071978 - ConWGt Person & Phone: � � Marcia � � Assign ��� Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): �i Number � For i ; Routing I Doc. Type: RESOLUTION 'I Order E•DocumentRequired: Y Document Contact: Contact Phone: Total # oF Signature Pag _(Clip Aii L for S ig natu re) Action Requested: � Resolution approving the decision of the Legislative Heazing Officer on Appeals of Letters of Deficiency for properties at: 939 Burr; 2047 5aunders; 880 Cleveland; 689 Snelling S; 859, 869 & 877 St. Paul; 2050 & 2056 Bayazd; 656 Cleveland; 1000 Chazles; 212 Montrose; 231 Dayton; 1027 St. Anthony; 2047 & 2031 Yorkshire; 1751 Hawthome E; 1203 Woodbridge; 1533 Virginia; 60 Stevens W; 1316 Mazgaret. Recommendatlons: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Planning Commission C1B Committee Civil Service Commission Personal Service Contrects Must Answer the Foilowing Questions: 1. Has this person/firm everworked under a contract for this department? Yes No 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this persoNfirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Probiem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Appmved: DisadvantageslfApproved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of 7rensaction: Funding Source: Financial Information: (Explain) CostlRevenue Budgeted: Aclivity Number: June 29, 2009 11:13 AM Page 1 09-731 39 1027 St. Anthonv Avenue Kathryn Waller 40 41 Decisions: Grant a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the west side 42 bedroom. 43 44 2047 and 2031 Yorkshire Avenue Stuart Simek 45 46 Decision: Grant a 2.5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the studio apartments 47 and a 1.5-inch variance on the openable height of the sleeping room egress windows in the regular 48 aparhnents throughout the buildings at 2047 and 2031 Yorkshire Avenue. 49 50 1781 Hawthorne Avenue East Rafael Valle 51 52 Decision: Grant a 1-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in both bedrooms. 53 54 1203 Woodbridge Street Charles McCarty 55 56 Decision: Grant a 1-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the hallway/bedroom 57 and the bedroom units. 58 59 1533 Vir¢inia Street RT Harper 60 61 Decision: Deny the appeal with no additional time granted. 62 63 60 Stevens Street West Larry Cramer 64 65 Decision: Deny the appeal on the unpermitted work done on the deck in Unit 8 and grant an extension to 66 the close of business on June 5, 2009 for pulling a permit and having the work inspected. 67 68 1316 Margaret Street Daryl and Nancy Olson 69 70 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension for one year to come into compliance for the bedroom 71 egress windows. 09-731 MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES AND CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, May 19, 2009 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West The hearing was called to order at 135 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Leanna Shaff, Department of Safety and Inspections (DSn — Fire Prevention; Joel Essling, DSI — Code Enforcement; and Mai Vang, City Council Offices 2. Appeal of Loren Lang to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 929 Burr Street. Appellant Loren Lang (1142 Arkwright Street, St. Paul, MN 55130) appeared. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She said that Inspector Thomas had conducted an inspection for the Fire of C of O and reported that the openable dimensions of the egress window in the attic bedroom in Unit 2 were 19 inches high by 22 inches wide. She said that Mr. Lang was also appealing the order calling for 36 inch clearance in front of the electrical panel. Ms. Moermond asked for clarification of Mr. Lang's appeal of the clearance requirement. Mr. Lang stated that he questioned the definition of "clearance." He said that the panel was behind the washer and dryer but was accessible and had always passed inspections in the past. He provided photographs. Ms. Moermond asked for the dimensions of the room. Mr. Lang said that it was the basement and that he wasn't sure of the dimensions. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Mr. Lang that the electrical panel and washer and dryer were in a corner of the basement. She asked whether there was anyplace else to put the washer and dryer. Mr. Lang stated that the washer and dryer could not be moved without moving the gas and electric supply to the units. Ms. Mnermond and Ms. Shaff reviewed the photographs provided by Mr. Lang. Ms. Moermond asked whether Ms. Shaff had a recommendation. Ms. Shaff stated that the code was specific that nothing should be in front of the panel. Ms. Moermond referred to the photographs and stated that the dryer was directly in front of the electrical panel. Mr. Lang stated that access was not restricted. Ms. Moermond said that that was arguable. She said that the code was pretty clear about the required access. Ms. Moermond stated that she was "leer}�' about granting a variance for the window size. She said she looked for a shortfall in height to be made up in extra width. Mr. Lang asked whether the total opening size was considered. He said that the windows popped right out. 09-731 May 19, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes Page 2 Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Shaff to address the code with regards to removable windows. Ms. Shaff stated that the code specified that egress windows could not require special knowledge to open, and that her own replacement windows required eight movements to remove. Ms. Moermond referred to the photograph and asked whether the porch roof was outside the window. Mr. Lang said it was. Ms. Shaff asked whether the windows were vinyl inserts. Mr. Lang said they were. Ms. Shaff asked whether there were stops at the top. Mr. Lang said that he wasn't sure. Ms. Moermond stated that it could not be determined from the photograph. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal of the requirement for 36 inch clearance in front of the electrical panel. She asked the appellant to check to see if there were stops at the top of the Unit 2 attic bedroom window and to provide new measurements if there were stops that could be removed to inerease the openable height by at least 2 inches. Her decision on the ap�peal of egress window size requirement was forthcoming. � On May 20, Ms. Moermond reviewed the records and recommended granting a 3-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the attic bedroom in Unit 2. Appeal of Jackie Visnovec to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List far property at 2047 Saunders Avenue and 689 Snelline Avenue South. Appellant Jackie Visnovec (885 St. Paul Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55116) appeared. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report on 2047 Saunders Avenue. She said that Inspector Isabel had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O and reported that the openable dimensions of the sleeping room egress windows throughout the building were 22 inches high by 23 inches wide, 21.5 inches high by 31 inches wide, and 21.5 inches high by 35 inches wide. Ms. Moermond asked whether the windows were the only issue. Ms. Visnovec responded that they were. Ms. Moermond recommended granting 2 to 2.5 inch variances on the openable height of the sleeping room egress windows throughout the building. Ms. Visnovec stated that the building was part of a complex and that other buildings that were exactly the same had inspections scheduled. She asked whether the variance could be applied to the other buildings in the complex. Ms. Moermond stated that she would recommend variances for the egress windows in the other buildings in the complex if she received a letter from DSI with the measurements and if the windows were the only item for which orders were written. Ms. Visnovec stated that she did have orders for the building at 859 St. Paul Avenue. She said that the openable heights of the sleeping room egress windows throughout the building were 22 inches high by 31 inches wide. Ms. Moermond recommended granting 2-inch variances on the openable height of the sleeping room egress windows throughout tY�e building. Ms. Moermond referred to the inspector's report for 689 Snelling Avenue S. which stated that the openable dimensions of the sleeping room egress windows throughout the building were 42 inches 09-731 May 19, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes Page 3 high by 15 inches wide. Ms. Visnovec asked whether she could haue a year to bring those windows into compliance. She said that she'd just replaced windows in another building. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal on the windows at 689 Snelling Avenue S. and �anting an extension for one year to bring the windows into compliance. On June 25, 2009, Ms. Shaff contacted the Legislative Hearing Officer conceming the other buildings in the complex which had orders concerning egress windows: 880 Cleveland Avenue South, 22 inches high by 35 inches wide; 869 St. Paul Avenue, 21.5 inches high by 35.5 inches wide; 859 St. Paul Avenue, 22 inches high by 31 inches wide; and 877 St. Paul Avenue, 22 inches high by 31 inches wide. Ms. Moermond recommended granting 2 to 2.5 inch variances on the openable height of the sleeping room egress windows throughout all of the buildings. 4. Appeal of Kelly Dorow to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 2050 & 2056 Ba�rd Avenue and 656 Cleveland Avenue. Appellant Kelly Dorow (6715 Penn Avenue S., Richfield, MN 55423), and attorney Joseph Kippers appeazed. Ms. Shaff gaue a staff report. She said that Inspector Isabel had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O and reported that the openable dimensions of the sleeping room egress windows at 2050 Bayard Avenue were 20.5 inches high by 31 inches wide. Ms. Moermond asked whether the windows were the only item being appealed Mr. Kippers stated that it was the same issue at all three buildings. Ms. Moermond asked whether all of the buildings were the same. Ms. Shaff stated that the openable d'unensions of the sleeping room egress windows at 2056 Bayard Avenue were 20.5 inches high by 31 inches wide and at 656 Cleveland were 20.5 inches high by 31 inches wide Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 3.5-inch variance on the openable height of the sleeping room egress windows throughout the three buildings. 5. Appeal of Brent Molitor to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1000 Charles Avenue. Appellant Brent Molitor (1000 Lyn Way, Hastings, MN 55033) appeared. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She said that Inspector Urmann had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O and reported that the openable dimensions for the front bedroom egress windows were 21 inches high by 25 inches wide. Ms. Moermond stated that the shortfall in height was more than compensated for by the additional width and recommended granting a 3-inch variance on the openable height of the front bedroom egress window. 09-731 May 19, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes Page 4 Appeal of Jeffrey Nielson and Linda Wiley to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 212 Montrose Place. John Walsh (5004 Woodlawn Boulevard) appeared on behalf of the appellant. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She said that Inspector Imbertson had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O. She said she was not clear on what was being appealed. Mr. Walsh stated that the basement ceiling height requirement was being appealed. Ms. Shaff referred to the inspector's report which stated that the height of the flat finished ceiling in the basement was 6 feet, 10.5 inches. She asked whether the second floor windows were also being appealed. Mr. Walsh stated that they planned to replace the windows. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 1.5 inch variance on the basement bedroom ceiling eight. 8. Appeal of Steve Sauro to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 231 Dayton Avenue. Appellant Steve Sauro (636 Grospoint Lane N., Oakdale, MN 55128) appeared. Ms. Shaff gaue a staff report. She said that Inspector Neis had inspected for the Fire C of O and reported that the openable height of the sleeping room egress windows ranged from 20 inches to 23 inches due to paint accumulation, and that the windows were 33 inches wide. Ms. Shaff asked Mr. Sauro whether the sill height issue in Units A and B was also being appealed. Mr. Sauro asked far a clarification of the requirements for a step to address sill height. Ms. Shaff clarified the requirements for the step unit. Mr. Sauro stated that he would install the steps. Ms. Moermond recommended granting 1 to 4 inch variances on the openable height of the sleeping room egress windows in all units. She asked the appellant not to apply any additional layers of paint to the window frames. 9. Appeal of Kathryn Waller to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1027 St. Anthonv Avenue. Appellant Kathryn Waller appeared. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She said that Inspector Neis had inspected for the Fire C of O and reported that the openable dimensions of the sleeping room egress window in the west side bedroom were 19 inches high by 27 inches wide. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the west side bedroom. 09-731 May 19, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes Page 5 10. Appeal of Stuart Simek to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 2047 Yorkshire Avenue Appellant Stuart Sunek (332 Minnesota Street W1080, St. Paul, M1V 55101) appeared. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She said that Inspector Isabel had inspected for the Fire C of O and reported that the openable dimensions of the sleeping room egress windows throughout the building were 21.5 inches high by 37 inches wide for the studio aparhnents, and 22.5 inches high by 37.5 inches high for the regular apariments. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 2.5 inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the studio apariments and a 1.5 inch variance on the openable height of the sleeping room egress windows in the regular aparhnents throughout the building. Mr. Simek stated that he had a total of nine buildings and had scheduled an appeal for 2031 Yorkshire. He read the inspector's orders for that building which stated that the openable dimensions foe the sleeping room egress windows throughout the building were identical to those at 2047 Yorkshire. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 2.5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the studio apartments and a 1.5-inch variance on the openable height of the sleeping room egress windows in the regular apartments throughout 2031 Yorkshire. Ms. Moermond recommended variances for the egress windows in the other buildings in the complex if she received a letter from DSI with the measurements and if the windows were the only item for which orders were written. 11. Appeal of Rafael Valle to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1781 Hawthome Avenue East. Appellant Rafael Valle (2076 Suburban Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55119) appeared. Ms. Shaff gaue a staff report. She said that Inspector Girling had inspected for the Fire C of O and reported that the openable dimensions of the egress windows in both bedrooms were 23 inches high by 23 inches wide. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 1-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in both bedrooms. 12. Appeal of Charles McCarty to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1203 Woodbrid eg Street. Charles McCarty (617 6 th Street N., Hudson, WI 54016) appeared. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She said that Inspector Martin had inspected for the Fire C of O and reported that the openable dimensions of the egress windows in hallway/bedroom and bedroom were 23 inches high by 27 inches wide. May 19, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes 09-731 Page 6 Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 1-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the hallway/bedroom and fhe bedroom. 13. Appeal of RT Harper to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for properiy at 1533 Virginia Street. Appellant R.T. Harper (P.O. Box 75562, St. Paul, M1V 55112) and tenant Chanel Scarver appeared. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She said that reinspection of a referral had been conducted and that she was confused about what was being appealed. She said that there were egress window issues in the orders but that she wasn't sure whether they were being appealed, and that the appellant was asking for more time for sheetrock, taping, and painting and that the deadline for those items was June 18. Ms. Moermond asked what Mr. Harper was looking for. Mr. Harper stated that the garage and the windows were done and that the only things remaining were the basement and upstairs and he had run out of money and needed mare time. He said he was on a fixed income and only receiving a little money from Social Security. He said he'd received an estimate of $5000 for completion of the upstairs work. Ms. Moermond asked Mai Vang to get a copy of the minutes from the March 17, 2009 appeal for the same property. Ms. Scarver stated that the work that had been ordered at that appeal had been done. Ms. Moermond reviewed the minutes from the March 17 appeal. Mr. Harper asked about permit requirements for some of the work required on the second floor. Ms. Moermond reviewed her recommendations from the March 17 hearing. She said that carbon monoxide detectors and illegal locks were to haue been addressed by March 2Q access to all areas granted by March 27, and egress window and all other exterior items addressed by June 17. Ms. Scarver and Mr. Harper stated that everything had been done. Ms. Moermond requested a copy of the old arders. Mai Vang left the hearing to get a copy. Ms. Moermond and Ms. Shaff confirmed that egress window orders had been written at both the February and April inspections. Ms. Scarver stated that she had been present at the time of the second inspection. She said that the orders for the upstairs windows had come after the March 17 hearing, and that the egress window in the rear room downstairs had been repaired. She said that the garage had been removed and was going to be replaced, and the exterior work had been done. She said that there were no holes outside and that the stairway was not broken. She said that Mr. Harper was asking for more time for Items 8 through 11 but that everything else was done. Ms. Moermond stated that she would recommend that the appeal be denied. She said that access to the second floor should have been granted at the initial inspection. Ms. Scarver stated that she would have to move out. Ms. Moermond responded that she understood the financial hardships Mr. Harper faced but that he was srill collecting rent and the unit needed to be habitable. 09-731 May 19, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes Page 7 Ms. Scarver stated that Mr. Harper was only collecting a small amount of rent and couldn't collect the full rent until all of the corrections were made. She said that they had not been given enough tune to complete all of the work. Ms. Moermond read from the orders dated March 30 which indicated that the second floar had been condemned at that time, and said that the issues in the inspector's report were old issues that should have been corrected. Ms. Moerxnond recommended denying the appeal with no additional time granted. 16. Appeal of Larry Cramer to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 60 Stevens Street West. (owner missed the May 12 hearing) Appellant Larry Cramer (1928 Warbler Lane, St. Paul, MN 55119) appeared. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She said that Inspector Westenhofer had inspected for the Fire C of O and that there were a lot of issues. She referred to a fas that had been sent to the inspector by Mr. Cramer and stated that she wasn't sure of the status of the issues addressed in the faac. She said that she had consulted the building inspector who said he had informed Mr. Cramer of the permit requirement. Ms. Shaff read the applicable criteria and stated that the deck work should have been done under permit. Mr. Cramer stated that things had apparently changed because he'd made repairs to the deck at his own home and hadn't needed a permit. Ms. Shaff stated that the inspector's photographs showed that substantial work had been done on the deck at the property being appealed and that the building inspector had informed Mr. Cramer that a permit had been required. Mr. Cramer stated that was not what the inspector had said, and that was why he had sent the faac outIining his communications with Inspector Westenhofer. Mr. Cramer said the issue of the permit was the only item that had not been taken care o£ He said he had owned the property for 30 years and it had been inspected every two years during that time. He said he appreciated the inspections because they gaue him a chance to access the apartments when he wasn't always able to at other times. He said he had worked with a number of inspectors over the years but had found Inspector Westenhofer to be combative and difficult to work with. He said all of the orders except the one involving the permit had been discussed with Inspector Westenhofer but because of the trust issue, he had come to the appeal to make sure there were no questions later about what had been agreed upon in these discussions. He said he had missed the May 12 appeal because he was told by Building Inspector Dave Kenyon that the permit was not needed and he thought the issue had been resolved. Mr. Cramer read the list of items that had been completed. Ms. Shaff asked whether the reinspection had been done. Mr. Cramer responded that it was scheduled for that day. Ms. Shaff stated that enforcement actions would be stayed and the reinspection would not take place while there was an appeal pending. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Cramer to continue listing the corrected items. Mr. Cramer stated everything had been taken care of and discussed with Inspector Westenhofer and he hoped to be able to confirm the verbal agreements he had made with Inspector Westenhofer. He 09-731 May 19, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes Page 8 said he would be installing a step to address sill height and didn't understand why it had never been an issue before and that it seemed arbitrary. Ms. Moermond responded that the fact that the issue had been addressed in previous appeals that day was evidence that the orders had not been arbitrary. Ms. Moermond asked to review the color photogaphs that were a part of the inspector's report. Mr. Cramer stated that the pernut was the only outstanding issue and that he was told different things by different people. Ms. Shaff reviewed permit requirements for deck work and said she had Inspector Westenhofer confinn the permit requirements with a building inspector. NIr. Cramer stated that Mr. Kenyon had told him that a permit was not required. Ms. Shaff stated that Mr. Kenyon said he had not told Mr. Cramer that a permit was not needed. Mr. Cramer stated that he would not have gone to the trouble of appealing a small permit fee if he had not received the information from Mr. Kenyon. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Shaff to suminarize the document dealing with permit requirements. Ms. Shaff stated that it was a building department handout and specified that any work in the value of $500 or more, parts and labor, required a permit; and that all deck work required a permit. She said that Mr. Cramer had presented material receipts for approximately $289 and that the deparhnent used standard industry charges to estimate labor costs. She said that it was obviously more than a $500 repair. Ms. Moermond asked whether the building was full. Mr. Cramer responded that it was. He said they had spent several thousand dollars getting the building back up to code and that they were happy to do that, but that the issue was that they had been given conflicting information and had also had trouble getting a hold of Mr. Kenyon. Ms. Moermond and Ms. Shaff reviewed and discussed the photographs with Mr. Cramer. Ms. Moermond commented on photographs that indicated corrosion on electrical ouflets and significant water damage. Mr. Cramer stated that a tenant had spilled water and not informed them and they had not been awase of it until the inspection. He said they were always happy to make necessary repairs. He said that as long as the agreements had been made during the phone conversation with the inspector did not change, the only issue remaining was the permit. He said they would need time to obtain the permit and have the work inspected. Ms. Moermond stated that she was singularly unimpressed with the level of maintenance at the property and appalled by the fact that the apartrnents were accessed only every two years. She recommended denying the appeal on the unpermitted work done on the deck in Unit #9 and granting an extension to the close of business on June 5, 2009 for pulling a permit and having the work inspected. 14. Appeal of Daryl and Nancy Olson to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1316 Margaret Street. Appellant Nancy Olson (W8296 Highway 10, Ellsworth, WI 54011) appeazed. Ms. Shaff ga�e a staff report. She said that Inspector Fish had inspected for the Fire C of O and reported that the openable dimensions of the upstairs bedroom windows were 20 inches high by 20 inches wide and 20 inches high by 19 inches wide. 09-731 May 19, 2009 Properry Code Aearing Minutes Page 9 Ms. Olson stated that the windows had the removable stops at the top and that they might be able to get more openable height. Mr. Moermond stated that she was not comfortable with the shortfall in height without accommodating width. She asked Ms. Olson to check to see if there were stops at the top of the bedroom windows and to provide new measurements if there were stops that could be removed to increase the openable height. Her decision was forthcoming. Ms. Olson stated that they had purchased the home as an investment property and weren't aware of the window regulations. She said that they had planned to have the house sold by now and that it was vacant. She said they might be entering into a contract for deed with potential renters and that the house would then be owner-occupied. Ms. Moermond stated that the existing orders would have to be complied with either way. On June 26, 2009, Ms. Moerxnond reviewed the information Ms. Olson provided on the measurement of the windows after the stop at the top were removed. By removing the stop, Ms. Olson indicated that the height measured approxitnately 1'/4 inches more. Ms. Moermond indicated that this was still too much of a shortfall for the height given the width of the windows. She recommended denying the appeal and granting one year to come into compliance on the egress windows in the sleeping rooms.