Loading...
09-821Council File # D�"8�� Green Sheet # 3073217 RESOLUTION �� 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the July 14, 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 Pronerty Anpealed Appellant 6 7 769 Hawthorne Avenue East David and Susan Belair 8 9 Decision: Grant a 7-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows. IQ 11 500 Fry Street James Daly 12 13 Decision: Grant a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the front bedroom, and 14 grant a 2-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the two back bedrooms. 15 16 149 Morton Street East Nathan Albee 17 18 Decision: Grant a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in Unit 10, northwest 19 bedroom. 2� 21 1330 and 1344 St. Paul Avenue John Mollner 22 23 Decision: Grant a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows at both 24 addresses. 25 26 139 Congress Street East Mark Hurley 27 28 Decision: Cnant a 6-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in both main floor 29 bedrooms, and a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the basement bedroom. 30 31 1570 Pacific Street Chou Vang 32 33 Decision: Grant a 3-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in Bedroom 1, a 2-inch 34 variance on the openable height of the egress window in Bedroom 2, and a 2-inch variance oti the openable 35 height of the egress window in the master bedrooni. 36 37 873 Selbv Avenue Gary Jackson 38 39 Decision: granting a 1-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window for the west bedroom 40 and deny the appeal on the window well size and grant an extension for 120 days to bring into compliance. D�j�g�-I 41 1220 Sherburne Avenue David Palmer 42 43 Decision: Grant a 7-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in both bedrooms in Units 44 9 and 10. 45 46 2204 Seventh Street West Jeanne & Sue Rohland 47 o1b10 WJS Inveshnents 48 49 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension to November 18, 2009 to bring the windows, window 50 wells, stuccq and concrete work into compliance. 51 52 903-905 Laurel Avenue Joseph Flood 53 54 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension to August 31 to repair the steps and landing, and an 55 extension to November 27 to repair the rotted wood and to paint the garage and house. 56 Requested by Department of. Adopted by Council: Date '�7' S f(�� Adoprio ertifie y C uncil ecretary By: Approv b Ma� : Date �(� B �___.� � Form Appioved by City Attorney By: Form Approved by Mayor foe Submission to Council By: Approved by the Office of Financial Services � � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � U �-8� i DepartmenUOffice(COUncit: , Date lnitiated: � � �o-�°°°p� ' z�-�u�-0g Green Sheet NO: 3073217 ^ � Contact Person & Phone: ' Deoartment Sent To Person Initiai/Date ; � � 0 Council Marcia Moertnond � 1 �CouncIl Deva�eutDirector , �� �'g 2 Giri Clerk Citv Clerk � � Must Be on Councii Agenda by (Date): � Number „ � I p 7 RESOLUTION E-Document Required: Y Docum¢nt Coniact: Contact Phone: For 3 Routing �, 4 ' i Ortler I 5 ; T # of Signat Page _ (Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Resolution approving the decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters of Deficiency for proper[ies at: 769 Hawthorne E, 500 Fry, 149 Morton E, 1344 St. Paul, 139 Congress E, 1570 Pacific, S73 Selby, 1220 Sherbume, 2204 Seventh W, and 903-905 Laurel. Recommendatlons: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Planning Commission CIB Committee Civi1 Service Commission Personal Service Contrects Must Answer lhe Following Questions: 1. Has fhis persoNfirm ever worketl under a wniract for this department? Yes No 2. Has this perso�lfirm ever 6een a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person�rm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiatlng Pra6lem, Issues, Opportuniry (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: D(sadvanWges If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of Transaction: Funding Source: Financial Information: (Explain) CosURevenue Budgeted: Activity Num6er: July 28, 2009 9:33 AM Page 1 6 y�sa � MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARTNG ON LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES AND CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, July 14, 2009 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West STAFF PRESENT: Leanna ShafF, Deparhnent of SafeYy and Inspections (DS� — Fire Prevention; and Mai V ang, City Council Offices Appeal of David and Susan Belair to a Variance Request far Egress Windows for property at 769 Hawthorne Avenue East. Appellants David and Susan Belair (769 East Hawthorne, St. Paul, MN 55106) appeared. Ms. Moermond asked whether the appeal involved an application far a building permit for windows. Ms. Belair clarified that it involved two windows that had already been installed but were not approved by the city inspector. Mr. Belair said that they had received a$25,000 City of St. Paul rehab loan. He said that it was his understanding that the code relating to egress windows size had changed on April 30. Ms. Moermond darified that the enforcement of the existing code had changed. Mr. Belair said the ciry had selected the contractor with Che lowest of the three estimates they had gotten and the windows had been installed in mid-May. He said the contractor had signed the permit and the work should have been completed several months earlier, but that the city had lost some of their paperwork and it had had to be resubmitted. Ms. Moermond asked for the openable dimensions of the windows. Ms. Belair responded that there were three windows in the first bedroom and the one window that was in question was 22.5 by 20.5 inches from screen to screen, or 23.75 by 17 inches from the window to the window. Ms. Moermond asked whether Mr. Detomaso had walked through the property before they had gotten the bids. Mr. and Ms. Belair said that he had. Ms. Moermond confirmed with the Belairs that Mr. Detomaso had put together the specs that the contractors had bid on and the window size was not explicit in the specs. She said that it would have been reasonable for them to assume that what was put in the specs was code compliant. Ms. Moermond said that the window was right on the line, and she recommended granting a 7-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows. 2. Appeal of James Daly to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 500 Frv Street. Appellant James Daly (10550 Dale Road, St. Paul, MN 55129) appeared. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Mr. Daly that egress window size was the only item being appealed. July 14, 2009 Property Code Minutes ��,g� � Page 2 Mr. Daly said there were three egress windows with a giazed area of 50 inches high by 31 inches wide and there had been some brackets that had limited the openable height. He said he had removed the roller shades and brackets and that the windows now opened to 23.5 or 24.25 inches. He said the location of the building in relation to the sh and alley would make casement windows impractical. Ms. Moermond read from the inspector's report which gave openable dimensions of 19.25 inches high by 31 inches wide for the front bedroom, and 22.5 inches high by 31 inches wide for both rear bedrooms. She recommended granting a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the front bedroom, and �anting a 2-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the two back bedrooms. Appeal of Natban Albee to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 149 Morton Street East. Appellant Nathan Albee (5020 28` Avenue S., Minneapolis, MN 55417) appeazed. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Mr. Albee that egress window size was the only item being appealed. She read from the inspector's report which gave openable dimensions 19.5 inches high by 28.5 inches wide for the egress window in the Unit 10 nofthwest bedroom. Ms. Shaff said that the inspector had re-measured the width to 29.75 inches. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in Unit 10, northwest bedroom. 4. Appeal of John Mollner to a Certificate of Occtipancy Deficiency List for property at 1330 and 1344 St. Paul Avenue. Appellant John Mollner (2062 Marshall Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55104) appeared. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Mr. Mollner that egress window size was the only item being appealed. She read from the inspector's report which gave openable dimensions of 20 inches high by 28.5 inches wide far the sleeping room egress windows at both addresses. She recommended granting a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows at both addresses. Appeal of Mark Hurley to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 139 Conp'ess Sri'eet Bast. Appellant Mark Hurley (P.O. Box 9311, St. Paul, MN 55109) appeaxed. Mr. Hurley stated that his was also a window issue with windows that were wider than they were high. Ms. Moermond noted that there were a lot of windows and reviewed the window dimensions in the inspector's report. Ms. Shaff submatted a letter from a neighbor of another of Mr. Hurley's properties expressing concerns about problem tenants. duly 14, 2Q09 Property Code Minutes �-g a� Page 3 Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Huriey whether the address being appealed was part of a larger group of properties. Mr. Hurley said that was a single-family home. Ms. Moermond asked for some backg�ound on the letter submitted by Ms. Shaff conceming the other property. Ms. Shaff noted that Mr. Hurley and his wife owned several properties. Mr. Hurley responded that they owned eight. Ms. Shaff said that the letter was from the Morton-0akdale-Page (MOP) Neighborhood Watch group conceming tenants at Mr. Hurley's property at 214-216 East Morton. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Mr. Hurley that he had seen the letter. Mr. Hurley said that the problems had begun about three yeazs ago and that they had filed two discrimination complaints in response to the neighbor's complaints about the tenants. He said that the MOP group was not a recognized neighborhood watch group and that the head of the group had a problem with the tenants who were not white. Ms. Moermond asked about the status of the discrimination complaints. Mr. Hurley said that the problem was going through which allegations were justified and which were not. He said that the woman who had sent the letter called the police and code enfarcement at the "drop of a dime," but that they did have bad tenants in one side of the property that they were in the process of evicting. Ms. Moermond asked whether he had filed his complaints through the city or state human rights office. Mr. Hurley said that his wife had filed the complaints and had done it online but that they had not received a response and had recently filed a second time. He said he didn't know which agency his wife had filed the claim with. He explained that the neighbor had problems with the last six tenants. He said they had had a Caucasian tenant who had been a problem and was evicted, but that the neighbor had not complained about that tenant. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Hurley whether he had h working with West Side Safe Neighborhood or a similar organization. Mr. Hurley said that prior to receiving the letter they had not heard from that particular neighbor far two years and that since receiving the letter, they had been trying unsuccessfully to verify that the MOP group was an official neighborhood organization. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Hurley whether he screened his tenants. He responded that he did. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Hurley whether he had taken the Crime Free Multi-Housing training. Mr. Hurley said that he had not. Ms. Moermond encouraged him to take the training and to establish a working relationship with West Side Safe Neighborhood. Ms. Moermond reviewed the window dimensions as listed in the inspector's report for 139 Congress Street East which gave openable heights of 18.25, 18.5 and 19.75 inches and openable wldths of 34, 33.75 and 27 inches. She recommended granting a 6-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in both main floor bedrooms, and a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the e�ess window in the basement bedroom. 6. Appeal of Chou Vang to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1570 Pacific Street Appellant Chou C. Vang (700 W. CountyRoad B, Roseville, MN 55113) and Sisouk Vang appeared. July 14, 2009 Property Code Minutes �g g�.' Page 4 Ms. Moermond reviewed the egress window openable dimensions given in the inspector's report and recommended granting a 3-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in Bedroom 1, a 2-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in Bedroom 2, and a 2- inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the master bedroom. Appeal of Gary Jackson to a Certificate of Qccupancy Deficiency List for property at 873 Selbv Avenue. Property owner Tina Jackson (1571 Suburban Avenue, St. Pau1, MN 55106) appeared. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She said that Inspector Neis had conducted an inspection for the Fire Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) on June 10 and cited the basement bedroom window we11 and the west bedroom egress window. Ms. Shaff noted that building permits for the other basement remodeling and other work had expired without being inspected. Ms. Moermond asked when the permit had been issued. Ms Shaff said it had been issued November 21, 2005 and automatically closed in February 2007 due to no activity in one year. Ms. Jackson said that more than one inspector had come out during the time that the work was being done and she had been pregnant at that time and may have dropped the ball on having someone come back for a final inspection. Ms. Moermond read from the inspector's report that the openable dimensions of the egress window in the west bedroom were 23 inches high by 31 inches wide, and she recommended granting a 1- inch variance on the openable height of the egress window for the west bedroom. Ms. Moermond asked whether information on window well requirements would have been provided at the time that the permit was pulled for the window well. Ms. Shaff said that the information should have been provided. Ms. Jackson said that she had applied for the permit herself and didn't recall whether she had been given the information. Ms. Shaff said that it was best to have the person doing the work apply for the permit because a portion of the fee went towards the contractor recovery fund which helped provide recourse in the case of a bad contractor. Ms. Jackson said she had pulled the permit herself in order to save money. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Jackson whether she had a photograph of the window well. Ms. Jackson said that she did not. Ms. Moermond noted that there was a five inch shortfall in the width of the window well. She asked about the history at the property. Ms. Shaff said that electric and building permits had not been finalled, and that in 2005 there had been a tall grass and weeds abatement. Ms. Shaff stated that according to STAMP, the window well requirements were printed on the permit. Ms. Jackson said that she did not want the property to be unsafe and was willing to make the corrections but needed to know what was required. Ms. Shaff stated that the window well would July 14, 2009 Property Code Minutes �G�.�� � Page 5 probably need to be moved over to a11ow a three foot opening between the face of the open casement window and the side of the window well. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal on the window well size and grantin� an extension for 120 days to bring the window well into compliance. 9. Appeal of David Palmer to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1220 Sherburne Avenue. Appellant David Palmer (P.O. Box 7028, Minneapolis, MN 55407) appeared. Ms Moermond confirmed with Mr. Palmer that the egress windows were the only item being appealed. She read from the inspector's report that the openable dimensions of the sleeping room egress windows were 17 inches high by 39 inches wide, and said that for windows with less than 18 inches in openable height she looked for at least two extra inches in width for each inch in height shortfall. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 7-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in both bedraoms in Units 9 and 10. Mr. Palmer asked whether tlaere was anything proactive he could do to prevent having to file separate appeals far each of his properties. Ms. Shaff recommended that he speak to the inspector about scheduling the properties together. 10. Appeal of Jeanne & Sue Rohland, on behalf of WJS Inveshnents to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 2204 Seventh Street West. Appellants Jeanne and Sue Rohland (1562 Hague Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55104) appeared. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She said that she had conducted an inspection for the Fire Certificate of Occupancy on June 4, and that orders for exterior work included repairs to the sidewalk and stucco. She provided photographs. 5he said that 90 days was the standud amount of time allowed for that type of work and that the appellants were asking for an extension until next year. Ms. Moermond asked the appellants whether that was a good summary. Ms. Rohland stated that they had purchased the property in January 2009 and that it was run down and had been severely neglected and they were in the process of rehabbing it. She said they were facing a number of serious expenses, including the windows, paving the parking lot, new doors and a number of interior projects and that their banker had advised them to try to postpone the other exterior wark to next spring. She said they were also in the process of extricating some problem tenants and had put a lot of hours into the building. Ms. Shaff asked about the status of the windows and noted that a permit hadn't been pulled yet. She asked whether progress had been made or a plan developed. Ms. Rohland said they didn't have a plan but they were not at the hearing to talk about the windows. Ms. Shaff said she had spoken with Phil Owens and he indicated they would not be assigned a new inspector and that the work on the windows needed to move forward. 7uly 14, 2009 Property Code Minutes Qq I Page 6 Ms. Rohland stated they would enlarge the opening size for the windows but that their concern was with the window wells. She said the window wells would take up a lot of space, and there were also potential safety and liability issues associated with window wells. She asked whether there might be other options. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Rohland whether they wanted to appeal anything other than the timeline for the exterior repairs in Items 4 and 6. Ms. Rohland said they also wanted to appeal the window wells and that they weren't familiar with the process. Ms. Moermond asked whether they were new to the landlard business. Ms. Rohland said they also owned a triplex and an 18-unit building. Ms. Moermond reviewed the appeal process. Ms. Shaff noted that they were coming up against the deadline for the window corrections. Ms. Rohland stated that the windows would get done but that the costs had come in over budget because of the window size and window well requirements. She asked whether anything could be done to prevent falls into the window wells. Ms. Moermond suggested that they ask far input from the contractor. Ms. Rohland said that they were getting the third estimate the following day. Ms. Moermond stated that the concerns associated with potential falls into the window wells were secondary to the need for safe egress. She said she understood that the appellants were frustrated but that in this case, the code favored egress over other concerns. She said that it was the appellants' responsibility to explore options for making the window wells safe. Ms. Moermond asked how much time would be needed to bring the windows into compliance. Ms. Rohland said they could have them done by the end of September or middle of October. Ms. Moermond said she would recommend 90 days to bring the windows into compliance. Ms. Rohland asked how much rime they could have for the stucco and sidewalk repair. Ms. Moermond asked for the estimated cost of that work. Ms. Rohland said that they wanted to campletely redo the stucco and that if would cost $7,000 to 8,000. Ms. Moermond reviewed the photographs and noted that some of the stucco was in pretty bad shape. Ms. Rohland said that the building was a complete dump when they bought it. Ms. Rohland said that they had also wanted to delay the stucco and sidewalk work until next spring because their regular stucco contractor might not be available befare winter. Ms. Moermond said that she would like to see some effort made to at least "band-aid" the problems and that the holes in the sidewalk presented a tripping hazard and source of potential liability. Ms. Rohland said that the regular maintenance person could patch the holes. Ms. Moermond asked whether something similar could be done where the sidewalk met the wall. She asked whether water had been getting in tl�ere. Ms. Rohland said that the stucco contractor had said there was no water coming in. Ms. Moermond recommended a new deadline of November 18 to bring the windows, window wells, stucco, and concrete work into compliance. July 14, 2009 Property Code Minutes ��,g�- � Page 7 11. Appeal of Joseph Flood to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 903- 905 Laurel Avenue. Appellant Joseph Plood (1075 Dayton Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55104) appeared. Ms. Shaff gave a sfaff report. She said that Inspector Neis had conducted an inspection for the Fire Certificate of Occupancy on 7une 9, and that the garage and house painting and replacement of front steps and landing were being appealed. She said she was concerned about the fact that foux appointment letters had been sent. Ms. Shaff and Mr. Flood reviewed the appointment dates. Mr. Flood said that he had left a message with Inspector Neis after the first letter letting him know that he was going to be out of town but that the inspector had not gotten the message. He said that one appointment letter had gone to the address of the property being appealed rather than to his residence. He said he wasn't sure about the other dates but that he had met with the inspector on June 9. He said he had skipped the July 9 reinspection because he wasn't aware that the items that were not being appealed would need to be re-inspected before the appeal was completed. Ms. Moermond said this was correct. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Flood to elaborate on the request far more time. Mr. Flood said that he couldn't afford to have the house painted and would be doing the painting, but probably wouldn't be able to do the cement work himsel£ He said he had painted the house six times in the past and that the standard schedule had been to paint two sides of the house every three years; he would need more time to do the sides that were in the worst shape. He acknowledged that the work needed to be done and requested a fair amount of time. Ms. Moermond stated that the sidewalk and landing presented a safety concern and needed to be taken care of sooner rather than later. She asked whether the rotting wood could be taken care of. Mr. Flood said that it could but that he needed more time. Ms. Moermond asked whether there were photographs or anything in the orders about the conditions of specific sides of the house. Mr. Flood said he did not bring photos. Ms. Moermond asked what kind of siding was on the house. Mr. Flood said it was four inch wood- lathe siding. Ms. Moermond asked whether the windows were vinyl or wood. Mr. Flood said they were wood. Ms. Moermond and Mr. Flood reviewed the specific location of the rotting wood, and the condition of the paint on eacb side of the exteriox. Ms. Moermond said that she would grant a 45-day extension for the cement work and until November 27 for all of the exterior painting. She asked whether the other items on the list were done. Mr. Flood said they were not. Ms. Moermond said she would � an extension until July 24 for all other items. Mr. Flood said that the inspector had given him until July 27. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting an extension to August 31 to repair the steps and landing, and an extension to November 27 to repair the rotted wood and to paint the garage and house.