Loading...
09-747Council File # 09-747 Green Sheet # 3072025 RESOLUTION CITY O� SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA /7 Presented by 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that tl�e Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the June 9, 2 2009 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals on Letters of Certificate of Occupancy 3 Deficiency Lists for ihe following addresses: 4 5 Propertv Appealed Anpellaat 6 7 567 Pelham Blvd Michael and Sandra Sherrill 8 9 Decision: Crrant a 3-inch variance on the second floor ceiling height for the current occupancy and 10 ownership. The current owner is responsible for disclosing the conditions of the variance at the time of 11 sale. 12 13 1847 Randolph Avenue Lorri Steffen 14 15 Decision: Grant a 3-inch variance on the openable height of the sleeping room egress window. 16 17 900 Desoto Street Pang Mang & Doua Thao 18 19 Decision: Grant a 3-inch variance on the openable height of the sleeping room egress window. 20 21 1059 Davton Avenue Lawrence Walker 22 23 Decision: Grant a 3.25-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows in both units. 24 25 1530 Snellina Avenue North Randall Young 26 27 Decision: Grant a 3-inch vuiance on the ceiling height in the basement bedrooms and a 12-inch variance 28 on the ceiling height in the basement hallway. The property owner must apply reflective markings to the 29 low ceiling outside each bedroom door. 30 31 1621 St. Anthonv Avenue Ken and Annette Hanson 32 33 Decision: Grant a 3-inch variance on the openable height of the master bedroom egress windows in all 34 units except 9, 10 and 11; and a 4-inch vaziance on the openable height of the second bedroom egress 35 windows in all units except Units 9, 10 and 11. Grant a variance far the existing heating facility. 36 37 254 Cmegs Street Thomas Conway 38 39 Decision: Grant an 8-inch variance on the openable height of the sleeping room egress windows 40 throughout the building. 41 09-747 42 1991 Grand Avenue Jerome and Carrie Kelley 43 44 Decision: Grant a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the windows. 45 46 807 Hollv Avenue Thomas Zahn 47 48 Decision: Grant a 6-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window; approve the exterior 49 painting schedule proposed by the owner. 50 51 1006 Fremont Avenue Leng Vang 52 53 Decision: Grant a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows. 54 55 1891 Seventh Street East Pat Conlin o/b/o 56 Twin Empire Investments LLC 57 58 Decision: Grant the appeal on all windows with the exception of Unit 5 which will need to be re- 59 measured. 60 61 1034 Jackson Street Annette Sobczynski 62 63 Decision: Grant the appeal of the vacant building registration notice and fee. 64 65 518 Van Buren Avenue James Swartwood 66 67 Decision: Grant the appeal. Requested by Depariment of: � Form Approved by City Attomey By: Adopted by Council: Date !�,/,j /�/Gf Form Appmved by Mayor foi Submission to Council Adoprion Certified by Council S cretary g BY� / / //oni�i> i.�iU'� Approved Ma orl e Z L 0 Approved by the Office of Financial Services i/1. B Y' i� �¢ BY� 09-747 � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � DepartmentlOffice/Councii: Date initiated: ; co-������� � 30}lUN-09 Green Sheet NO: 3072025 ' Confact Person & Phone: � I Deoartment Sent To Person InitiailDate '� i Marcia Moermond � i o 000cu I ---- � i i I omcil I DeDartment Director ! '��9° 2 CYry Clerk C7ty Clerk � � � Must Be on CounciV Agenda by (Date): Number 3 � 0 i For 4 � --� Routing f Doc. Type; RESOLUTION Order 5 � -- —� I E-0ocument Required: Y Document Gontact: CoMact Phone: � Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Resolurion approving the decisions of the I.egislarive Hearuig Officer on Appeals of I,etters of Certificate of Occupancy Deficiencies and Vacant Building Registrarion and Fee for the following: 567 Pelham BIvd,1847 Randolph, 900 Desoto,1059 Dayton,1530 Snelling N, 1621 St. Anthony, 254 Griggs, 1991 Grand, 807 Holly, 1006 Fremont, 1891 Seventh E, 1034 Jackson, and 518 Van Buren. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contrects Must Answer lhe Following Questions: Ptanning Commission 1. Has this persoNfirrn ever worked under a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this persoNfircn possess a skili not normalfy possessed by any I current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): AdvanWges If Approved: Disadvantages If Approved: DisadvaMages If Not Approved: Total Amount of Trensaction: CostlRevenue Budgeted: Funding Source: Activity Number. Financial lnformation: (F�cplain) July 9, 2009 1128 AM Page 1 09-747 MINUTES OF TAE LEC3ISLATNE HEARIl�TG ON LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES AND CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, June 9, 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 (DSn — Fire Prevention; Matt Dornfeld, DSI — Code Enforcement Appeal of Michael and Sandra Sherrill to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 567 Pelham Blvd. (rescheduled from 6/2) Appellant Michael Sherrill (P.O. Box 10758, White Beaz Lake, MN 55110) appeaxed. Ms. Shaff asked Mr. Sherrill whether he was appealing the egress window size as well as the ceiling height. Mr. Sherrill stated that they would replace the window if the second floor was approved as a sleeping room. Ms. Moermond drew a diagram of the second floor based on a photograph submitted by Mr.Shemll. She stated that the 6' 9" ceiling appeazed to cover one quarter to one third of the total area, well short of the required minimum of 7' over at least one half of the area. Mr. Sherrill confirmed with Ms. Shaff that the floor space where the ceiling height was less than 5' should not be included. He stated that if the area where the ceiling height was less than 5' was not included, the area covered by the 6'9" ceiling was more than half. He said he'd assumed that if the area of the 6'9" ceiling was less than half of the total area there would have been a separate arder written. Ms. Shaff stated that that was not necessarily the case and that there was an order addressing the ceiling height. Ms. Moermond asked how low the ceiling went. Mr. Sherill stated that the ceiling sloped down rapidly to 4' or less at the wall. Ms. Shaff asked what the ceiling height was at the top of the stairway. Mr. Sherrill stated that it was 6'9". Ms. Shaff asked about the ceiling height along the path that someone would use for egress. Mr. Sherrill stated that a portion of that azea would be under the sioped ceiling. Ms. Moermond, Ms. Shaff and Mr. Sherrill reviewed the photographs of the second floor showing the configuration of the room and stairway. Ms. Moermond stated that the orders did not specify whether the stairway was considered as part of the habitable area. Ms. Shaff stated that the requirement applied to the whole room. Mr. Merriil stated that the deficiencies were for ceiling height and the egress window. Ms. Moermond stated that the applicable code called for a ceiling height of 7' over half of the habitable area. 09-747 June 9, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes Page 2 Ms. Shaff stated that the situation was made worse by the fact that the more significant ceiling height shortfall was along the egress path. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Shaff whether there was another area of the code that the ceiling could be called under that would clarify the situarion with the stairway. Ms. Shaff stated that typically she wouldn't call the issue out under another section of the code; however she could. Mr. Sherrill stated he would like to lrnow what the applicable code was for the stairway, and that he would be willing to have the area re-inspected and new orders written if necessary. Ms. Moermond stated that she would like more time to research the code and that her decision would be forthcoming. Following the June 9 hearing: Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 3-inch variance on the second floor ceiling height for the current occupancy and ownership. The current owner is responsible for disclosing the conditions of the variance at the time of sale. 2. Appeal of Lorri Steffen to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1847 Randol�h Avenue. (rescheduled from 6/2) Appellant Lorri 5teffen (585 Portland Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55102) appeared. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Ms. Steffen that the egress windows were the oniy item being appealed. She recommended granting a 2-inch variance on the openable height of the sleeping room egress windows throughout the building. Appeal of Pang Mang & Doua Thao to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 900 Desoto Street. Appellant Pangmang Thao appeared. Ms. Moermond read from the inspector's report which listed openable dimensions of 21 inches high by 35 inches wide for the sleeping room egress window. She recommended granting a 3-inch variance on the openable height of the sleeping room egress window. 4. Appeal of Lawrence Walker to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1059 Dayton Avenue. Appellant Lawrence Walker (629 5t. Anthony Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55104) appeazed. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Mr. Walker that the egress windows were the only item being appealed. She recommended granting a 3.25-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows in both units. 09-747 June 9, 2009 Properry Code Hearing Minutes Page 3 5. Appeal of Randall Young to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1530 Snelling Avenue North. Appellant Randall Young (1530 Snelling Avenue N., St. Paul, MN 55108) appeazed. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She said that she had conducted an inspection for the Fire Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) on May 8 and found that the second floor bedroom window had openable dimensions of 21 inches high by 29 inches wide, that the glass was cracked and the windows did not stay open. She also found that the ceiling height in the three basement bedrooms was 81 inches and in the basement hallway was 72 inches. Ms. Moermond asked whether the basement hallway pzovided access to the sleeping azea. Ms. Shaff responded that it did. Ms. Moermond, Ms. Shaff and Mr. Young reviewed the photos of the basement showing the arrangement of the bedrooms, hallway, stairway and utility room. Ms. Moermond confirmed that the basement bedrooms had legal egress windows. Ms. Moermond asked how many bedrooms there were in the house. Mr. Young responded there were five: three an the basement and two on the main floor. Ms. Moermond stated she was not happy with the hallway ceiling height. She asked how much height could be gained by removing the ceiling below the ductwork. Ms. Shaff stated that not much height would be gained. Ms. Moermond asked when the basement ceiling had been put in. Mr. Young stated that he purchased the house in 2003, and that the ceiling had been done at that time. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Shaff what the departmenYs position was. Ms. Shaff responded it was a significant shortfall from the code and was especially bothersome because the hallway was the exitway. She said that there was no easy way to correct the problem. Ms. Moermond asked for a diagram of the basement layout. Mr. Young stated that he had prepared one but hadn't brought it along. Ms. Shaff stated that it was a small, short hallway. Mr. Young returned with diagrams of the layout of the basement. Ms. Moermond and Ms. Shaff reviewed the diagrams with Mr. Young. Ms. Moermond stated that she would make a decision on the ceiling height later in the day. She said she'd recommend that the appeal on the second floar windows be denied and a six-month extension granted for bringing the windows into compliance. Following the June 9 hearing: Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 3-inch variance on the ceiling height in the basement bedrooms and a 12-inch variance on the ceiling height in the basement hallway. The property owner must apply reflective mazkings to the low ceiling outside each bedroom door. 09-747 June 9, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes Page 4 6. Appeal of Ken and Annette Hanson to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1621 St. Anthon�Avenue. Appellant Ken Hanson (1873 Ivory Avenue N., Lake Elmo, MN 55042) appeazed. Ms. Shaff clarified that Item 1 in the orders referred to all Units except Units 9, 10 and 11. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Hanson whether he would install a step to address sill height. Mr. Hanson said that it had already been done. Ms. Moermond stated that she would not recommend a variance for the egress windows measuring 16 inches high by 26 inches wide. She said for windows that short, she looked for at least two inches in extra width for each inch in height shortfall. She said the windows measuring 16 inches high by 34 inches wide were closer, and asked what type of windows they were. Mr. Hanson said they were double hung windows. Ms. Moermond recommended granting an 8-inch variance on the openable height of the second bedroom egress windows in Units 9, 10 and 1 l. She recommended denying the appeal on the egress window in the first bedrooms in Units 9, 10 andl l. Mr. Hanson stated the height of the window opening for the double hung windows was probably 32 inches and asked whether the replacement window would need to open to that height. Ms. Shaff clarified that the required minimum openable height was 24 inches. She said the work would need to be done under permit and the building inspector would approve the specific window size and type. Ms. Moermond stated that if Mr. Hanson was not able to find an acceptable replacement window to come into compliance and needed to file another appeal, she would waive the appeal fee. She recommended granting 90 days for bringing the windows into compliance. Ms. Shaff stated that there was a second piece to the appeal. Mr. Hanson stated that there was an existing variance for the boiler inspection. He said that they were acquiring the property through a contract for deed and were asking that the variance be put in their name. Ms. Moermond asked for a clarification of the variance. Ms. Shaff stated that the previous property owners had been allowed to install hardwired carbon monoxide detectors in the boiler area in lieu of the residential heating report on the boiler. Ms. Moermond said that she would recommend that existing variance for the heating facility remain in place. On June 1 l, Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 3-inch variance on the openable height of the master bedroom egress windows in all units except 9, 10 and 11; and a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the second bedroom egress windows in all units except Units 9, 10 and 11. 09-747 June 9, 2009 Properiy Code Hearing Minutes Page 5 Appeal of Thomas Conway to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 254 Grig s¢ Street. Appellant Tom Conway (7210 Thames Circle, Woodbury, MN 55125) appeared. Ms. Moermond read from the inspector's report which listed openable dimensions of 16 inches high by 35 inches wide for sleeping room egress windows throughout the building. She said that 16 inches was the shortest that she would go, but that in this case each inch in shortfall was made up for by two inches in extra width. She recommended granting an 8-inch variance on the openable height of the sleeping room egress windows throughout the building. Appeal of Jerome and Carrie Kelley to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1991 Grand Avenue. Appellant Carrie Kelly (P.O. Box 76011) appeared. Ms. Moermond read from the inspector's report which listed openable dimensions of 19 inches high by 36 inches wide for sleeping room egress windows in all units. She recommended granting a 5- inch variance on the openable height of the windows. 9. Appeal of Thomas Zahn to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 807 Hol� Avenue. Appellant Thomas Zhan appeared. Ms. Moermond asked whether anything other than the windows was being appealed. Mr. Zahn stated that he would also like to appeal the exterior painting schedule. He asked whether the house could be painted in phases, one side at a time. He submitted photographs and said that the house didn't really need painting. Ms. Moermond stated that that would be fine as long as the areas that were in bad shape were dealt with right away. Ms. Shaff agreed that the schedule was acceptable. She asked about the egress window being appealed. Ms. Moermond read from the inspector's report which gave openable dimensions of 18 inches high by 39.5 inches wide for the sleeping room egress window in the third floor unit. She recommended granting a 6-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window. 10. Appeal of Leng Vang to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1006 Fremont Avenue. Appellant Leng Vang (8154 Heath Avenue, Cottage Grove, MN 55016) appeared and stated that he was only appealing the egress window size requirement. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Mr. Vang that the bedroom furniture had been removed from the basement computer room. Mr. Vang said that he had notified the tenant and that the bedroom fuiniture had been removed. 09-747 June 9, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes Page 6 Ms. Moermond read from the inspector's report that the egress window openable dimensions were 20 inches high by 38 inches wide in the center sleeping room, and 20 inches high by 30.5 inches wide in the S.W. sleeping room. She recommended granting a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows. 11. Appeal of to Pat Conlin, on behalf of Twin Empire Inveshnents LLC, a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1891 Seventh Street East. Appellant Pat Conlin and Robert King (both 3168 Berwick Knoll, Brooklyn Park, MN 55443) appeared. Ms. Moermond said she would recommend granting variances for all windows except the one in Unit 5 measuring 12 inches high. She said that the inspector's report indicated that the window was 12 inches wide but that she assumed that that was an error. Mr. King submitted photographs and said that all of the windows were essentially the same. He said that there were two different styles of window, "sliders" and "up-and-downs", and that none were that small. Ms. Moermond asked where the 12 inch measurement had come from. Ms. Shaff said that it appeazed that Inspector Fish had measured the window in Unit 5 to be 12 inches wide by 46 inches high. Ms. Conlin stated that the openable width of the slider windows was 12 to 15 inches. Mr. King stated that the windows could be popped out. Ms. Shaff stated that the code specified that no special knowledge be required to remove the egress windows. Mr. King stated that tenants popped out the windows all the time. He said that the building was built in 1960 and that they'd owned in since 2003 and the windows had never been cited before. He said that the building was brick, and the windows could not be made to open any wider without severely changing the brick structure, and that that was why the removable windows had been installed. Ms. Moermond stated that she understood the situation but that the replacement windows required too many movements to remove and could not be removed easily enough in an emergency situation. Ms. Moermond stated that the measurements in the orders were befuddling and inconsistent, but that the photographs indicated that the windows were all the same. Ms. Conlin stated that the raw opening in the brick measured consistently 42 inches high. Ms. Moermond recommended granting the appeal on all windows. She asked that the Unit 5 egress window be re-measured at the re-inspection and new orders be written if the openable height was 12 inches. 09-747 June 9, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes 12. Appeal of Annette Sobczynslfl to a Vacant Building Registration Notice and Fee for property at 1034 Jackson Street. Page 7 Andrew Sobczynski (P.O. Box 2362, Fon Du Lac, WI 54936) appeared on behalf of the appellant. Lnspector pornfeld gave a staff report for Inspector Ed Smith. He said that the inspector's notes indicated that the property was listed as a category 2 vacant building and was a two-story duplex, secured by normal means. The property appeazed to be vacant and had been referred by Inspector Schiller of Code Enforcement due to lack of electric usage. There was peeling paint on the soffit and fascia, rotting wood frame and missing screens on the house. The detached one-car garage was secure but was missing windows, had peeling paint and rotting siding. There was an unsecured metal shed in the yard, and tires, carpet, rubbish, phonebooks, papers and PVC pipe were strewn throughout the yard. Inspector Smith had opened the vacant building file because the house was vacant with multiple code violations. Since that time, Inspector Smith had made three additional visits to the property and found no one at the property. Mulriple work orders had been issued at the property to clean the yard and cut the grass, as well as to secure the shed and garage windows. Ms. Moermond stated that the letter from the appellant indicated that there was a lease with a tenant at the property. Mr. Sobczynski stated that his sister had a friend who stayed at the property occasionally. Mr. Sobczynski said that the property was his sister's primary residence, she travelled for work and would be in New York until July. He said the conditions at the property had existed prior to his sister's purchase of the property in late October, and that it had been too cold to paint the garage at that time. He said that the inspectar had been to the property on November 17 and that his sister had not received notification of that visit. He said it was his understanding that it took almost two months for the deed to be registered, and that the only thing his sister had received was something in April. He said with regards to the low electric usage, his sister had been there when she purchased the house and had been there in December. He presented a police report from an incident in December when they had been at the property with friends and a neighbor had called the police. He said he did not dispute the reports of the conditions at the property and had no problem with the work orders, but that the conditions did not represent safety issues and his sister intended to take care of them. He said the heat, water and electric were on and his sister paid insurance at the property as her primary residence. He said the inspector had only been to the property twice during his sister's ownership and that the first time his sister had had no lmowledge of it, and the assumption about the property being vacant had been made based on conditions at those two visits. He said they had attended a legislative hearing two weeks ago regarding a bill for work that had been done last year but hadn't gone into the computer until nine months later, and that he could see from the computer records how the inspector could come to the assumption that there was nobody there. He said they had someone who was supposed to mow the lawn, and that the woman who was staying at the property was supposed to maintain it and take care of the snow. Ms. Moermond confirmed that the previous owner was the Bank of New York. She asked whether the property had been purchased at auction. Mr. Sobczynsl� responded that it had. Ms. Moermond stated that there was a Truth in Sale of Housing inspection report from August of 2008. Mr. Sobczynsla said they had received a copy of that, and the house had been a verified legal duplex and had not been registered vacant at that time. Ms. Moermond said that the department was proposing that it be a registered vacant building at this time. 09-747 June 9, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes Page 8 Ms. Moermond asked what Ms. Sobczynski used as her mailing address. Mr. Sobczynski stated that his sister used the family address in Wisconsin. Ms. Moermond asked what state Ivfs. Sobczynsla's driver's license was issued from. Mr. Sobczynski said he wasn't sure but thought was New York. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Sobczynski whether he had a copy of the lease. Mr. Sobczynski said he could get it but the only thing he had was the police report from December. Ms. Moermond stated she would like to see the lease. Ms. Moermond stated she could live with the exterior code violations but would like them to be corrected. She said that the question was one of residency and she did not accept the fact that a party was there and the police were called as evidence that someone was living there. Mr. Sobczynski asked what constituted residency. He asked whether members of the military who were gone for extended periods would face the same consequences. Ms. Moermond stated that there were different laws that applied to people in the military. Ms. Moermond asked whether there were additional notes from Inspector Smith. Inspector pornfeld responded that Inspector Smith had been to the property four times: Apri123, May 7, May 15 and May 20. He said that no one had been at the property at any of those visits. Mr. Sobczynski stated that they had been there. Mr. Dornfeld stated that there had been three work orders to clean the yard and board the windows on the garage. Ms. Moermond asked whether the inspector's notes indicated why the building had been made a Category 2 rather than a Category 1. Inspector pornfeld stated that it had been due to multiple exterior code violations. He said could meet with Mr. Sobczynski at the property and reevaluate the condirions and possibly make it a category 1 or a preliminary. Mr. Sobczynski stated that he could have everything on the list corrected. Inspector pornfeld asked how the grass got to be a foot high in a month if someone was at the property. Mr. Sobczynski stated that his sister had hired someone to take care of the lawn. He said they had been at the property on May 20 and that no one had knocked on the doar. He said his sister had tried to meet with Inspector Smith but that he had refused to meet with her. Inspector pornfeld stated that he had tried several times over the past couple of days to contact Ms. Sobczynski by phone to resolve things before the hearing but had been unsuccessful and Ms. Sobczynski had not retumed his calls. Mr. Sobczynski asked how many days a person had to live in their own house to have it be considered occupied. Inspector pornfeld responded that the key thing was that the house needed to be maintained. Mr. Sobczynsld stated that none of the violations were hazardous to health. Ms. Moermond asked whether there was any mail that came to Ms. Sobczynski at the 3ackson Street address. Mr. Sobczynski said that some insurance forms might have been mailed to the address at the tune of parchase. Ms. Moermond asked where Ms. Sobczynski had lived previously. Mr. Sobczynski stated that his sister had lived with a friend most recently and before that had lived in Wisconsin and New York. 09-747 June 9, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes Page 9 Ms. Moertnond asked Mr. Sobczynski why Ms. Sobczynski had decided to live in St. Paul. Mr. Sobczynski said that his sister had wanted to live in either Milwaukee or St. Paul and had chosen St. Paul because she'd been able to purchase a house for $20,000. Ms. Moermond said that she would like to take some time to research the definition of owner and occupant, and the timing of the foreclosure and redemption period. Mr. Sobczynski said that his sister had established residence when she slept there the first night after she bought it. Ms. Moermond asked whether Ms. Sobczynski had a bed there. Mr. Sobczynski said that she did. Ms. Moermond said that she would send a letter with her decision and that Ms. Sobczynski could come before the City Council for a public hearing if she was not satisfied with her recommendation. Ms. Moermond asked whether Ms. Sobczynski would be able to attend a public hearing on July 1. Mr. Sobczynski said that his sister would still be in New York. Ms. Moermond said that she would put it on for public hearing for July 1 and that if it needed to be continued, it would be pushed back to July 15. She said that if they could be available for the June 17 public hearing they would need to norify her by mid-day on June 10. She asked that Mr. Sobczynski submit a copy of the lease if he wanted it to be considered. On June 9, 2009, Ms. Moermond reviewed the records and recommended granting the appeal of the vacant building registration notice and fee. 13. Appeal of 7ames Swartwood to a Vacant Building Registration Notice and Classification for property at 518 Van Buren Avenue. Appellant James Swartwood (5537 Dupont Avenue S., Minneapolis, MN 55419) appeazed. Inspector pomfeld said he'd opened a category 2 vacant building on the property after the C of O was revoked by Inspector Martin. He said he inspected the property and found the house to be vacant with multiple code violations as had been listed in the C of O inspection report. He said the house was not secure and that there was garbage, refixse and junk in the yard and tall grass and weeds. Ms. Moermond asked when the C of O was revoked. Ms. Shaff stated that the letter had gone out on May 20. She provided Ms. Moermond with a copy of the letter. Ms. Moermond reviewed the inspection reports dated Mazch 19 and May 20. Ms. Shaff stated that the second floor had been an illegal sleeping area and was condemned. Ms. Moermond noted that the whole property had not been condemned at that time. Ms. Shaff provided photographs from the inspections. Ms. Shaff asked Mr. Swartwood whether he had evicted the tenants. Mr. Swartwood stated that the tenants had been evicted. He said he was required to hold onto their belongings for 60 days and that the tenants had broken in and caused damage even afrer being evicted. He said the tenants were out now and that all of the deficiencies had been corrected, he provided photogaphs and a structural engineer's report. He said the property had been issued a C of O before the tenants had moved in. Ms. Moermond and Mr. Swartwood reviewed the inspector's photographs. 09-747 June 9, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes Page 10 Mr. Swartwood said that Inspector Martin had done a walk-through of the house in April and had seen that most things had been corrected. Ms. Moermond asked when the tenants had left. Mr. Swartwood said that they had been out by May 27 or 28. Ms. Moermond asked how long it would be until everything was done. NIr. Swartwood said that he was ready for an inspection now. Ms. Moermond asked whether all of the deficiencies had been corrected. Mr. Swar[wood responded that everything had been corrected except for the egress windows. Ms. Moermond referred to Item 13 from the inspection dated May 20. She asked whether a step would be built to address sill height. Mr. Swartwood stated that he could have a step installed. Ms. Shaff stated that she would call the item under the fire code. Ms. Moermond asked for the specific code reference. Ms. Shaff said that the code reference used would hinge on the other issues in the second floor attic space, including the 4 foot ceiling height for the stairway. Ms. Moermond asked whether there had been a C of O issued without deficiencies prior to the March 2009 inspection. Ms. Swartwood stated that there had been one issued in 2008. Ms. Shaff stated that the process had started with a July 2007 appointment letter and that the C of O had been revoked along the way. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Mr. Swartwood that the building was a single-family home. Ms. Shaff stated that there had been over-occupancy problems at the time of the last C of O, but that it didn't look like the second floar had been addressed at all. Mr. Swartwood stated that the tenanYs daughter had moved in temporarily but that she hadn't been on the lease and he had gotten her out. He said the kids had used the second floor as a playroom. Ms. Moermond noted that the vacant building registration notice was dated May 12 but the letter upon which it was based was dated May 20. Mr. Swartwood stated that he had been cooperating with Inspector Martin and doing everything on the list until he reached an impasse with the tenants attacking the warkmen doing the repairs. He said that at that point, he decided to concentrate on getting the tenants out. Ms. Moermond recommended granting the appeal because of the inconsistency of the dates in the referral. She said the vacant building notice could be re-issued but asked that it not be done before June 30, 2009 to allow Mr. Swaaittwood time to complete the corrections and have the C of O reinstated. She asked that the step be built to address sill height.