Loading...
09-746Council File # 09-746 Green Sheet# 3072018 RESOLUTION �� CITY OF SAINT PAUI, MINNESOTA Presented by 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the June 16, 2 2009 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals on Letters of Certificate of Occupancy 3 Deficiency Lasts for the following addresses: 4 5 Pronertv Appealed Appellant 6 7 2065 Niles Avenue Kevin Mulligan & Crystal Godschmitz 8 9 Decision: Grant a 1.05 vaziance on the openable height of the sleeping room egress windows on the upper 10 level. 11 12 2176 Dayton Avenue Michael Fedderson 13 14 Decision: Grant a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the front bedroom egress window in Unit 9, a 15 4-inch vaziance on the openable height of the center bedroom egress window in Unit 9, and a 3-inch 16 variance on the openable height of the egress windows in Unit 10. 17 18 370 Cook Avenue East Michael Butclilco 19 20 Decision: Grant a variance on the egress window for the second floar south bedroom. 21 22 275 Sucnmit Avenue Judith McLaughlin 23 24 Decision: Grant a variance on the door swing. 25 26 2186 Nortonia Avenue Reginald Meissner 27 28 Decision: Grant the appeal and that the building be removed from the Fire Certificate of Occupancy 29 Program. 30 31 1735 Rand�h Avenue Richard Distad 32 33 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant extension for 90 days for the exterior painting. The stucco repair 34 must be completed by the date stated in the re-inspection letter. 35 36 1201 Edgerton Street Xong Mouacheupao 37 38 Decision: Grant a 6.5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in Unit 2. Deny the 39 appeal on the other items except Item #1 and grant extension to July 2009. Deny the appeal for Item #1 40 and grant extension to September 30, 2009. 41 09-746 42 861 Snelling Avenue North Frank Melendez 43 44 Decision: Cnant a 4.5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the lower unit front 45 bedroom. 46 47 1754 Lafond Avenue Tong Nguyen 48 49 Decision: Grant a 3-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the first floor front and 50 second floor front east bedrooms; a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the 2" 51 floor rear west bedroom; and a 1 S-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the 2 52 floor east bedroom. 53 54 1707 CottaQe Avenue East John Mann 55 56 Decision: Grant a 6-inch vaziance on the openable height of the egress windows in all bedrooms. 57 58 1103-1177 Ed�cumbe Road & 1164-1208 St. Clair Avenue David Stafford 59 ° o/b/o Wilder Pazk Association 60 Decision: Grant the appeal for the egress windows. 61 62 63 64 65 Requested by Department of: � Adoption Certified by B Approved by BY: I Form Approved by City Attorney By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: Approved by the Office of Financial Services By: Adopted by Council: Date 7 //��i �> � Green Sheet Green Sheet 09-746 Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � Departrnentlpffice(Council: Date Initiated: �o-�°°^��� 30-JUN-09 Green Sheet NO: 3072018 Contact Person 8 Phone; DeoartmeM SeM To Person initia11Da1e Marcia Moermond y o 000c� 0 6$570 1 ounq7 De actment Di[¢ctOr �� 2 ' C1erk Ci Clerk Must Be on Councii Agenda by (Date): Number 3 0 Routing 4 � Doc. Order 5 0 E-DOCUment Required: Y DocumentConWCt: MaiVang Contact Phone: 6-8563 Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Resolution approving the June 16, 2009 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters of Certificate of Occupancy Deficiencies for properties at 2065 Niles Ave, 2176 Dayton Ave, 370 Cook Ave E, 275 Summit Ave, 2186 Nor[onia Ave, 1735 Randolph Ave, 1201 Edgedon St, 861 Snelling Ave N, 1754 Lafond Ave, 1707 Cottage Ave E, 1103-1177 Edgcumbe Rd and 1164-1208 St Clair Ave. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this depaAment? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this persoNfirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet. InRiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Whq What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of Trensaction: CostlRevenue Budgeted: Funding Source: Activity Number: Financial Information: (Explain) July 1, 2009 11:00 AM Page 1 �iz - , MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES AND CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, June 16, 2009 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West STAFF PRESENT: Mike Urmann, Department of Safety and Inspections (DSn - Fire Prevention; and Mai Vang, City Council Offices The hearing was called to order at 1:40 p.m. Appeal of David Stafford, on behalf of Wilder Park Association, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List. Appellant David Stafford (1164 St. Clair, St. Pau155105) appeared. Ms. Moemiond confirmed with Mr. Stafford that the egress windows were the only item being appealed. She recommended granting a 1.5-inch variance on the openable width of the sleeping room egress windows. On June 29, 2009, Mr. Stafford called to state that the appeal was for the following properties: 1103, ll05, 1107, 1109, 1113, 1113, 1117, 1ll9, 1123, 1125, 1127, ll29, 1133, 1135, 1137, 1139, ll43, 1145, 1147, ll49, 1157, 1159, 1161, 1163, 1169, 1171, 1173, 1175 and 117'7 Edgcumbe Road and 1164, 1166, 1168, 1170, 1172, 1174, 1176, 1178, 1180, 1182, 1184, 1186, 1188, 1190, 1192, 1194, 1196, 1198, 1200, 1202, 1204, 1206, and 1208 St. Clair Avenue. Ms. Moermond recommended granting variances for all of the aforementioned property addresses. 2. Appeal of Kevin Mulligan and Crystal Goldschmitz to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 2065 Niles Avenue. Appellant Kevin Mulligan (1000 W. 22" Street, Minneapolis 55405) appeared. Ms. Moermond stated that Item 1 in the inspector's orders referred to windows throughout the building but the photographs showed a lower level window that appeared to have dimensions much smaller than those given in the orders. She asked whether the lower level window was a bedroom window. Mr. Mulligan stated that he was only contesting the upper level windows. Ms. Moermond stated that for the other windows listed in the orders the shortfall in height was more than made up for in width. She recommended granting a 5.5-inch variance on the openable height of the sleeping room egress windows on the upper level. She said she would not grant a variance on the lower level windows. 09-746 June 16, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes Page 2 3. Appeal of Michael Fedderson to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for properiy at 2176 Davton Avenue. Michael Fedderson (45 Lexington Pazkway North, St Paul) appeared. Ms. Moermond confirmed that the egress windows were the only item being appealed. She asked whether the window well issue had been addressed. The appellant stated that the room with the window well was no longer being used as a sleeping room. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the front bedroom egress window in Unit 9, a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the center bedroom egress window in Unit 9, and a 3-inch variance on the openable height of egress windows in Unit 10. 5. Appeal of Michael Butct�ko to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 370 Cook Avenue East. Appellant Michael Butchko (1138 Burns Avenue, St. Pau155106) appeared. Ms. Moermond said that the window dimensions listed in Item 1 of the orders included two width measurements. Inspector Urmann stated that the first measurement was height. He clarified that the windows that had been measured were in a porch adjoining the bedroom and the issue was not window size but that there was not an acceptable egress window in the bedroom. Ms. Moermond asked whether there was a diagram showing the layout of the area. Inspector Urmann provided a diagram and Mr. Butchko provided photographs. Ms. Moermond and Mr. Butchko reviewed the diagram and photographs. Ms. Moenmond asked Mr. Butchko to draw a floor plan. Ms. Moermond and Mr. Butchko reviewed the floor plan and the locations of doors with and without locks. Ms. Moermond asked Inspector Urmann for the departmenYs position. Inspector Urmann said that the deparhnent supported the appeal because exit through one adjoining room was allowed. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a variance on the egress window requirement for the second floor south bedroom. 6. Appeal of Judith McLaughlin to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 275 Summit Avenue Appellant Judy McLaughlin (275 Summit Avenue, St. Pau155102) appeared. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a variance on the door swing. �l� ' � June 16, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes Page 3 Appeal of Reginald Meissner to a Ceztificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for properiy at 2186 Nortonia Avenue Appellant Reginald Meissner (1956 Price Avenue, St. Paul 55109) appeared. Ms. Moermond stated that she was puzzled about the appeal and requested a staff report. Inspector Urmann stated that the report indicated that it was a vacant unoccupied building, and that the vacant status was being appealed. He said that the inspector had found it to be unoccupied and that it had been refened over to vacant buildings as unoccupied and not being used. Ms. Moerxnond asked Mr. Meissner what he was looking for in the appeal. Mr. Meissner stated that he felt the code applied to vacant rental properties and that his property was not a rental. He said that his mother had passed away, he had inherited the house and was getting it ready to sell. He said the house was not vacant; he was there every day; the house had a security system; all of the utilities were on; and the house was furnished. He said he was confused. Ms. Moermond stated that the building was no longer owner-occupied, and the City had assumed that the building had gone from being owner-occupied to being a rental and had sent an invoice for a provisional Fire Certificate of Occupancy (C of O). She said that the city would treat any empty building the same way whether it had been owner-occupied or a rental. Ms. Moermond asked Jnspector Urmann whether there was any notation about the types of violations. Inspector Urmann responded that there were no violations noted. He said the C of O status was `Yenewal due" and that there was no vacant building status. Ms. Moermond reviewed the City's definition of a vacant building and stated that none applied at this time. She recommended granting the appeal and that the building be removed from the Fire C of O program. Inspector Urmann said he would close the file. 8. Appeal of Richard Distad to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1735 Randolph Avenue. Appellant Richazd Distad (1301 Aspen Way, Mendota Heights 55118) appeared. Ms. Moermond noted that the appeal was about painring. Mr. Distad stated that the inspector had told him the painting would be a half-day job, but he had been told by painters that the whole buiiding would have to be done so the paint and stucco could be matched. He said some of the wood trim might need painting but the building looked great. He said the reason far the flaking around the windows was he was ordered to replace the windows two years ago. Inspector Urmann stated that he was willing to work with Mr. Distad on the timing of the painting but the original orders had been written on March 30, 2009 and the department was concerned about the timeliness of the appeal. Ms. Moermond stated that the current orders were re-issued on May 15 and did not give the date of the initial inspection or clearly state that it was a re-issuance. 09-746 June 16, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes Page 4 Ms. Moerxnond asked Mr. Distad bow much tune he would like to complete the painting. Mr. Distad said he didn't feel it needed to be repainted but it would be nice to have a year. He said he didn't have a lot of money right now. Ms. Moermond asked whether anything other than the opinion of the painter had led Mr. Distad to think that the whole building needed to be painted. Mr. Distad responded that it was not a half-day job. He said there were 20 to 25 windows that would have to be scraped and painted, and he might as well paint the whole building since it would be difficult to match the old paint. Ms. Moermond asked whether there were photos showing the condition of the paint and stucco. Inspector Urmann said that there were none. Ms. Moermond asked whether the inspection had been a scheduled C of O inspection or done in response to a complaint Inspector Llrmann stated that the original orders had been issued off of a C of O inspecrion. Ms. Moermond asked how much time would be needed to complete the painting if she determined that it had to be done. Mr. Distad asked for six months. Ms. Moermond stated that she would make her decision after seeing photographs of the building, and that if she determined the painring did have to be done she would reconunend that the council grant 90 days. Inspector Urmann said he would visit the property and take photographs. On June 17, Inspector Urmann took photographs and deterxnined the painting was necessary. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeai and granting 90 days for painting the exterior. She recommended the stucco repair must be completed by the date stated in the re-inspection letter. 9. Appeal of Xong Mouacheupao to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1201 EdQerton Street. Appellant Xong Mouacheupao (16797 Elmcrest Avenue N., Hugo 55038) appeared. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Mouacheupao whether the appeal was just for the egress windows or for the whole order. Ms. Mouacheupao said that she was appealing the whole order. She said she would make the corrections but would like to have her faznily do the work because it would be less expensive than hiring an outside contractor. Ms. Moermond reviewed the orders. She asked whether Ms. Mouacheupao was asking to have family be able to complete all of the items or just some. Ms. Mouacheupao said she was just asking for some of the items. Ms. Moermond stated that only Item 1 relating to the damaged structural member needed to be done under permit, and that the servicing of the heating facllity was the only other item that needed to be done by an outside contractor. Inspector Urmann stated that a city engineer had been to the property and determined the building was structurally unsound and unsafe. The department was requiring, at the very minimum, a structural review and a plan for making the repairs. 09-746 June 16, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes Page 5 Ms. Mouacheupao stated that she had gotten contractor estimates for having addirional support members added in the basement. Inspector Urmann reiterated that he was looking for that work to be done by a licensed contractor under pernut, or a structural review saying that the building was sound. Ms. Moermond asked what the cost estimate had been. Ms. Mouacheupao responded that it was close to $10,000. Ms. Moermond asked whether Ms. Mouacheupao's family could do the work more cheaply. Ms. Mouacheupao said that they could. Ms. Moermond asked about the building's use. Inspector Urmann stated that it was mixed use. Ms. Mouacheupao said that it was a commercial building with two units upstairs and a convenience store downstairs. Ms. Moermond noted that Ms. Mouacheupao had originally been given one month to complete the whole list. She said she would recommend an extension to 7uly. She said that with respect to the egress windows in Unit 2, the shortfall in height was more than made up in width and she recommended granting a 6.5-inch variance on the openable height of the window. Ms. Moermond asked whether the structural member had been cited in the past or represented and imminent danger. Inspectar Urmann said it had not been cited and did not present an imminent danger. Ms. Moermond said that for Item 1, she recommended an extension until September 30 to either have the repairs completed under permit by a licensed conh�actor or to obtain a report from a sh engineer stating that the building was sound. 10. Appeal of Frank Melendez to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 861 Snelline Avenue North. Appellant P. Frank Melendez (P.O. Box 18653, St. Pau155118) appeared and provided photographs of the windows. Mr. Moermond and Mr. Melendez reviewed the photographs. Ms. Moermond confirmed that the windows were the only item being appealed Inspector Urmann confirmed with Mr. Melendez that all of the other work had been done. Ms. Moermond read from the inspector's report that the openable dimensions of the egress window in the lower unit front bedroom were 19.5 inches high by 39.5 inches wide. She said the shortfall in height was more than accommodated by at least a doubling in width. She recommended granring a 4.5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window. 11. Appeal of Tong Nguyen to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1754 Lafond Avenue. Appellant Tong Nguyen (8915 Highland Bay) appeared. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Mr. Nguyen that the windows were the only item being appealed. She asked whether it was a four-bedroom house. Mr. Nguyen responded that it was. 09-746 June 16, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes Page 6 Ms. Moezmond reviewed the window measurements given in the inspector's report. She recommended granting a 3-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the first floor front and second floor front east bedrooms; a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the 2 °d floor reaz west bedroom; and a 1.5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the 2 floor rear east bedroom. 13. Appeal of John Mann to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1707 Cottaee Avenue East. Appellant John Mann (893 Deer Oak Run, Mahtomedi 55115) appeared and provided photographs. Mr. Mann stated that he had installed steps in units a few years ago to comply with PHA regulations and that PHA had cited the window size this year. He said that replacing the windows would be a financial hardship. Ms. Moermond confirmed that the windows were the only item being appealed. Ms. Moermond read from the inspector's report that the openable dimensions of the egess windows in all bedrooms were 18 inches high by 23 inches wide. She recommended granting a 6-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in all bedrooms.