Loading...
09-822CouncilFite# 09���"✓�" Green Sheet # 3073516 RESOLUTION �� CITYQF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented by 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the July 21, 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 Aupealed Anpellant 6 7 260 Clarence Street James Johnson 8 9 Decision: Grant 2-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the back bedroom. 10 11 1000 Mclean Avenue Joshua Rutzick 12 13 Decision: Grant a 2-inch variance on the openable width of the bedroom egress window. 14 15 426 Pierce Street Gwynne Evans 16 17 Decision: Grant a 3-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress window in Unit 10 and a 18 1-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress window in Unit 3. 19 20 985 Fifth Street East Paul Bruggeman 21 22 Decision: GranY a 3-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in all three second floor 23 bedrooms. 24 25 1642 Chazles Avenue Charles Williams 26 27 Decision: Grant a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows in Units B 1, B2, 28 B3 and B5. 29 30 1212 Summit Avenue John Scheffert, o/b/o 31 RP Management Inc. 32 33 Decision: Grant a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress window. 34 35 569 Lafond Avenue Antonio Grajeda 36 37 Decision: Grant a 1-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the west bedroom of 38 Unit 1, and a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the west and south bedrooms 39 of Unit 2. 40 41 �{ . •� � 42 913 Hudson Road 43 Pao Fue Vang 44 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension for six months to bring the window into compliance. 45 46 902 Frv Street Byron Barchert 47 48 Decision: Grant a 5-inch variance on the openable height af the egress windows in the upper unit 49 bedrooms; deny the appeal on the remaining items and grant an extension for 124 days to bring everything 50 into compliance. 51 52 980 Marion Street 53 Linda Mammenga 54 Decision: Deny the appeal and �ant an extension for 90 days to bring the dryer vent and any remaining 55 items into compliance. 56 57 1344 Summit Avenue Edward Kaye 58 59 Decision: Grant the appeal on the sprinkler system and continue the appeal for the door swing for 90 days. 60 61 2012 Como Avenue Ranjit Bhagyam b2 63 Decision: Grant a variance on the egress window and grant a variance for the ceiling height. 64 65 2028 Yorkshire Avenue Carol Werket, o/b/o Meridian 66 Management Tnc. 67 68 Decision: Grant a 2-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows throughout the 69 building. Requested by Deparhnent of: Adopted by Council: Date �`�( C7 P \ Adop ' erti iy out 7 Sectetary By: Approved y a or� ,pate �(�j � BY 14 By: Form Approved by City Attorney By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: Approved by the Office of Financial Services � � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � o�l �a-a- ; DepartmenN�ce/Councii: � � Date Initiated: � �o_co�nai i zs-�u�-os GC@@il $rl@@t �IO: 3073516 � ConWCt Person & Phone: � Marcia Moermond �- Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): ; Doc. Type: RESOLUTfON i y o t Assign Z j Number 3 For � Routing 4 Order 5 !, E-0ocument Required: Y ,, Documerrt Coritac[: i Contact Phone: Total # of Signature Pages ^ (Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requestetl: Resolution approving the decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters of Deficiency and Egress Window Variance Request for properties at: 260 Clarence St, 1000 Mclean Ave, 426 Pierce St, 985 FiBh St E, 1642 Charles Ave, 1212 Summit Ave, 569 Lafond Ave, 913 Hudson Rd, 902 Fry St, 980 Marion St, 1344 Summit Ave, 2012 Como Ave, and 2028 Yorkshire Ave. Recommendalions: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Planning Commission CIB Committee Qvil Service Commis5ion Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: 1. Has this persoNfirm ever worked under a contrad for this department� Yes No 2. Has this persoNfirm ever 6een a cRy employee? Yes No 3. Dces this person(firm possess a skill not normally possessetl by any current city emplayee? Yes No Expiain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): AdvanWges IfApproved: Disadvantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount ot Transaction: Funding Source: Financial Informati on: (Explaio) CosVRevenue Budgeted: Activity Number: July 29, 2009 1:05 PM Page 1 �� i� MINLJTES OF THE LEGISLATTVE HEARING ON LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES AND CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, 7uly 21, 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; and Mai Vang, City Council Offices 1. Appeal of James Johnson to a Variance Request for Egress Windows for property at 2b0 Clarence Street. Appellant James Johnson appeared. Ms. Moermond asked whether the appeal concemed a new window installation. Mr. Johnson said that he purchased the house, remodeled it and had replaced the windows as part of the remodeling. He said there were two bedrooms and that the smaller bedroom had egress windows that were 1.25 inches shortin openable width. Ms. Moermond asked what the height measurement was. Mr. Johnson said that the he did not bring his paperwork along but that the height measurement was okay. Ms. Moermond read from the appeal form that the ea ess window measured 22.25 inches by 22.25 inches. Mr. Johnson confirmed that that was accurate. Ms. Moermoud asked when the permits for the window replacement had been pulled. Mr. Johnson said they were pulled in May. He aid he ordered the windows early and that no one had known then that the guidelines had been changed. He said he had all of the windows in but one when he had first contacted Ms. Moermond about the egress requirements. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Johnson if he owned other investment property. Mr. Johnson said the property had been built for his grandmother and that his son had bought it and would be living there in the fall after the remodeling was complete. He said he owned a bar and restaurant next door to the properiy and that the property would act as a buffer zone for the bar. Ms. Moermond asked for assurance from Mr. Johnson that the property would be well taken care of. Mr. Johnson said that he had already put $50,000 into the property. Ms. Moermond said she expected that the lawn would be mowed and snow shoveled. Ms. Moermond said the window size shortfall was small but that the department would assert that information on the current code and required dimensions had been given to Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson said that window manufacturers should be informed of local code changes so that purchasers could be advised. Ms. Moermond said the regulations were federal and that window manufacturers were aware of regulations. Ms. Shaff clarified the applicable codes and said the egress window requirements had been the same for more than 30 years. She said they applied only to sleeping rooms and that it was the responsibility of ttie building owner to know which rooms were being used as sleeping rooms. July 21, 2009 Property Code Minutes � G��g�.a.. Page 2 Mr. 3ohnson stated that the size shortfall was only 125 inches and that he would be able to get out of the window. He acknowledged that a firefighter might have trouble getting in but said that another bedroom and the front door were close by. Ms. Moermond recommended granting 2-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the back bedroom, but that Mr. Johnson should have been aware of the requirements. 3. Appeal of 3oshua Rutzick to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1000 Mclean Avenue. Appeliant Joshua Rutzick (2556 Beth Court East, Maplewood, MN 55119) appeared. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Mr. Rutzick that the windows were the only items being appealed. She read from the inspector's report that the openable dimensions of the egress window in the upper unit rear sleeping room were 24 inches high by 18 inches wide, and recommended granting a 2inch variance on the openable width of the egress window. 4. Appeal of Gwynne Evans to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 426 Pierce Street. (Qwner missed the hearing on 7114 & requested it be rescheduled) Appellant Gwynne Evans (1405 Slunmit Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55105) appeated. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Ms. Evans that egress window size was the only item being appealed. She read from the inspector's report that the openable dimensions of the sleeping room egress wlndow in Unit 10 were 21 inches high by 26.5 inches wide, and in Unit 3 were 23 inches high by 23 inches wide. She recornmended granting a 3-inch variance on the openable height of the sleeping room egress window in Unit 10, and a 1-inch variance on the openable height of the sleeping room egress window in Unit 3. 5. Appeal of Paul Bruggeman to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 985 Fifth Street Bast Appellant Paul Bruggeman (6873 Ideal Avenue N, Mahtomedi, MN 55115) appeared. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Mr. Bruggeman that egress window size was the only item being appealed. She read from the inspector's report that the openable dimensions of the egress windows in the second floar bedrooms were 21 inches high by 30 inches wide. She recommended granting a 3-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in all three second floor bedrooms. Ms. Shaff asked about the status of the retaining walls in the egress window wells. Mr. Bruggeman responded that the work had been done and inspected. 6. Appeal of Charles Williams to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1642 Charles Avenue. Appellant Charles Williams appeared. 3uly 21, 2009 Property Code Minutes �.g�a Page 3 Ms. Moermond confirmed that the basement egress windows were the only item being appealed. She read from the inspector's report that the openable dimensions of the sleeping room egress window in Bl was 20 inches high by 29 inches wide, and said that she would recommend a variance. She said read that the openable dimensions of sleeping room windows in B3 and BS were ZO inches high by 27 inches wide and said she would recommend a variance. Ms. Moermond said she was more concerned about the window in B2. Mr. Williams said that the window in B2 wasn't opening all the way when the inspector was there but he Hxed it and it opened to 20 inches. He referred to the photograph of the building and said that all of the windows were the same. Ms. Moermond said the inspector could confirm that the window opened to 20 inches. She recommended granting a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows in Units B 1, B2, B3 and B5. Appeal of John Scheffert, on behalf of RP Management Inc., to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List far property at 1212 Summit Avenue. Appellant John Scheffert (1714 E. Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55414) appeared. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Mr. Scheffert that egress window size was the only item being appealed. She read from the inspector's report that the openable dimensions of the sleeping room egress window were 19 inches high by 35 inches wide, and recommended granting a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress window. 8. Appeal of Antonio Grajeda to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 569 Lafond Avenue. Appellant Antonio Grajeda (581 Lafond Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55103) appeared. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Mr. Grajeda that egress window size was the only item being appealed. She read from the inspector's report that the openable dimensions of the egress window in the west bedroom in Unit 1 were 23 inches high by 41 inches wide, in Yhe west bedroom of Unit 2 were 20 inches high by 27 inches wide, and in the south bedroom of Unit 2 were 20 inches high by 28 inches wide. She recommended granting a 1-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the west bedroom of Unit 1, and a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the west and south bedrooms of Unit 2. 9. Appeal of Pao Fue Vang to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 913 Hudson Road. Appellant Pao Vang (930 Mound Street, St. Paul, MN 55106) appeared. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She said that Inspector Ricketson had conducted an inspection for the Fire Certificate of Occupancy and reported that the openable dimensions of the egress window in the first floor bedroom were 27 inches high by 16 inches wide. July 21, 2009 Property Code Minutes Page 4 tX'-8aa Ms. Moermond said that far windows which were less than I S inches in openable width, she liked to see a 2-inch compensation in height for every inch in shortfall in width. She asked Mr. Vang to describe the building. Mr. V ang said it was a single-family rental home and the two windows were only 2.5 feet off the � and he could not make the window wider without cutting into the wall. Ms. 5haff said that the giazed area was quite lazge — 66 inches high by 24 inches wide. Mr. Vang said that there was a picture window there as well with the same dimensions. Ms. Moermond said that the window would have to be replaced, and that she would give Mr. V ang six months. She said it was just one window and didn't meet the basic criteria. Mr. Vang said that he would probably have to cut into the wa11. Ms. Shaff asked the size of the fixed glass piece in the picture window. Mr. Vang said that it was about 66 inches high and three feet wide. Ms. Shaff asked whether it was a new or old window. Mr. Vang said it was a replacement window. Ms. Shaff suggested that Mr. Vang could replace the fixed glass piece with a sliding type window rather than cutting into the wall to replace the existing egress window. 10. Appeal of Byron Barchert to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 902 Frv Street. Appellant Byron Borchert (312 E. County Road D, St. Paul, MN 55117) appeared. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She said that lnspector Imbertson had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O and found there was a bed in the upper unit set up in the living room and there were egress window issues in the bedroom and the living room. She said the openable dimensions of the windows in both rooms were 19 inches high by 23 inches wide. She said the upper unit tenant had been given notice and that the inspectar was willing to allow more time. She said she wasn't sure what else Mr. Borchert was asking for. Mr. Borchert said the inspector had been very helpful and had told him the tenant had installed some hardware into the window channels that restricted how far they could be opened. He said he had removed the hardware and that the openable dimensions were now 20.25 inches high by 23 inches wide. He said he had pictures of the windows. He asked whether the furnace test was a standard requirement. Ms. Moermond and Ms. Shaff said that it was. Mr. Borchert asked for a clarification of Item 16 requiring that the bathroom floar be made impervious to water. He said he bought the house in 1993 and had not done anything with the floors, He said it appeared that tweive by twelve riles had been put on top of an old linoleum floor, and asked whether he would need to pull up the tile to show the inspector. Ms. Moermond said that based on the inspector's note, it appeared the correction could be made by doing some caulking. Ms. Shaff said that it should be clarified with the inspector. Mr. Borchert reviewed some of the problems he had with the tenant. Ms. Shaff confirmed with Mr. Borchert that the tenant had been given notice in writing and that a copy had been sent to the inspector. 7uly 21, 2009 Property Code Minutes pq.,g y a- Page 5 Mr. Borchert asked for a clarification of Item 7 addressing exterior unapproved exposed wiring. He said the wiring had been there all the time that he owned the property and he believed it had been installed conectly by an electrician. He said the wiring was for security tights and it was under the eves and was not accessible. He provided photographs. Ms. Shaff said the wiring needed to be enclosed and it could be run in conduit or inside the wall. Mr. Borchert said the inspector had told him it needed to be removed. Ms. Shaff said there were many ways to comply. Mr. Borchert said that he owned the house for 16 years, the house had been inspected before and the issue had not come up. Ms. Shaff said that the department had started inspecting duplexes and single-family rental homes in 2007 and this was the first Fire C of O inspection for the property. Ms. Moermond said that there was ofren a big laundry list after the first inspection. Mr. Borchert asked about the requirement for hand rails and provided photographs. Ms. Moermond and Ms. Shaff reviewed the code requirements. Mr. Borchert said the house had been constructed without the railings, he had no complaints or problems, and none of the other duplexes in the area had them. Ms. Shaff said since inspections of rental units had begun about two-and-a-half years ago, he could expect to see the same codes being enforced at other properties. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the upper unit bedrooms and denying the appeal on the remaining items and granting an extension for 120 days to bring everything into compliance. 11. Appeal of Linda Maminenga to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 980 Marion Street Appellant Linda Mammenga (35 Front Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55117) appeared. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She said Inspector Cummings had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O on June 18, and that a number of items were being appealed. Ms. Mauunenga said she was working with Lampert's on getting the final inspections for the siding and windows; she provided documentation and said the work had been done in 2002. She said the egress windows had been installed undex pernut at the same time as the windows, siding and doors. The biggest issue was the upstairs and that the inspector had cited the egress windows and the ceiling height and toid her the upstairs could only be used as an attia She had asked the inspector whether it could be used as an office space and the inspector had said it could, but that the stairway had also been cited as unsafe. She said the house had been built in 1895 and she had owned it for 23 years and that no changes had been made during that time. She said she was asking for a variance on the stairway. Ms. Moermond said that she didn't think the attic stairway would be called unless the attic was being used for habitable space. Ms. Shaff said that an office would be considered habitable space. Ms. Shaff asked Ms. Maminenga to describe the ceiling slope, and asked whether the inspector had measured the ceiling height. Ms. Mammenga described the ceiling and said it had not been measured and she had been expected to supply a tape measure. She said she would put in the 7uly 21, 2009 Property Code Minutes �j(.j � Page 6 lighting at the bottom of the stairs but that because of the stairway, the space couldn't be used as a bedroom even if the windows and ceiling were brought into compliance. She said the egress window had been noncompliant when it was installed and was just an inch short of the required size. Ms. Shaff said the window probably hadn't been in compliance at the time it was installed but it sounded like there were other issues. She reviewed the ceiling height requirement. Ms. Mammenga said that if she could get a variance on the stairway she would install lighting at the bottom of the stairs and extend the railing so that the upstairs could be used as an attic or office. Ms. Shaff clarified that the stairway and ceiling height requirements applied to habitable space which would include an office but not an attic storage space. Ms. Mammenga asked whether the correcrions to the upstairs would have to be made if she wanted to sell the house. Ms. Moermond said that as long as the room was not represented as a sleeping room, the conections would not need to be made. Ms. Maznmenga asked for a clarification of the heating facility repoft requirement; Ms. Shaff explained the code requirement. Ms. Mammenga said that the radiatar covers needed to be special-ordered and she would need more time to replace them; she said she had asked the inspector for an extension to Aua st 7. Ms. Shaff said it would not be an issue as long as Ms. Mammenga was able to provide documentation that the covers had been ordered by the time of the reinspection. Ms. Shaff asked about the dryer vent. Ms. Manimenga asked whether a permit was required just to replace the vent. Ms. Shaff confirmed that the mechanical code did require a permit. Ms. Mazninenga said that before she moved out of the house, they moved the washer and dryer from the basement back to the original location in the kitchen and that it had been done without a permit. She asked whether satisfying the permit requirement now �vould verify that the work had been done correctly. Ms. Shaff confirmed this was correct. Ms. Moermond asked that an inspection be scheduled to check the status of the corrections. She recommended denying the appeal and granting an extension for 90 days to bring the dryer vent and any remaining items into compliance. 12. Appeal of Edward Kaye to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1344 Summit Avenue Tom Fitzgerald (1134 Karyl Place, Roseville, MN 55113), appeared on behalf of the appellant Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She said that Inspector Skow-Fiske had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of Q on May 27, and that the items being appealed were those involving the building sprinkler system, the doar swing, and the illuminated exit signs. She said the building had been used as an AA meeting location since January of 1989. Mr. Fitzgerald corrected that it had been a meeting house since 1975. Ms. Shaff said the sprinkler requirement was not retroactive and should not have been included in the orders, but that the assembly use of the building did require a correct door swing and lighted exit signs. July 21, 2009 Property Code Minutes d9�g a a" Page 7 Mr. Fitzgeraid said that those requirements were tough. He said that it was a beautiful home with spectaculaz doors and that they did not want to replace them with steel frame doors. Ms. Shaff responded that replacing the doors was not required and that the requirement was only that the exit doar swing be in the direction of travel. Ivlr. Fitzgerald said that the carpenter had told him the only way to accomplish that would be to remove the door frames and start over. Ms. Shaff said the door swing had been a part of the code for a long time for assembly occupancy buildings. Mr. Fitzgerald said that everything else was done. Ms. Shaff asked whether the inspector had been back. Mr. Fitzgerald said that he didn't think the inspector had been back. Ms. Shaff said the work would have to be verified at re-inspection. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Fitzgerald to describe the house. Mr. Fitzgerald said that it was a beautiful, well-maintained, three-story home and was built in 1908. He said the third floor was not being used, per the original inspection, and that the basement had been redone. He said the building had beautiful woodwork and that no smoking was allowed. Ms. Moexmond asked Mr. Fitzgerald whether they consulted a contractor about the exit lighting. Mr. Fitzgerald said that they hadn't yet but they could. He asked whether the signs had to be hard- wired. Ms. Shaff said that they did not. Ms. Moermond recommended granting the appeal on the sprinkler system. Ms. Shaff said that other older facilities had been ordered to correct door swing and that it did require some work but was a critical safety issue. Ms. Moermond said she would like to continue the appeal for the door swing for 90 days to allow time for Mr. Fitzgerald to get a second contractor opinion. Mr. Fitzgerald said they would like more than 40 days because they were considering selling the building. 13. Appeal of Ranjit Bhagyam to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 2012 Como Avenue. Appellants Ranjit and Paula Bhagyam appeared. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She said that Inspector Imbertson had conducted an inspection on June 4 in response to a referral and reported that the ceiling height over the bedroom and living room in Unit 1 was between 6' 8" and 6' 9.5", and that the ceiling was 6' 9.5" at the highest point in the unit. Mr. Bhagyam said that the building had passed an inspection six months before and a"tenant from hell" had moved in since then and destroyed the unit over the course of three ar four months. He said he could provide proof of payment far the C of O fee. He said everything on the inspection report was from that tenant and that the only thing they really couldn't do was the ceiling height. He said they purchased the property over twenty years ago as a legal three-unit aparhnent and that they had always complied with orders. He said that altering the ceiling height would represent a financial hardship since they had three children in college. He said they were also appealing the egress window requirement and that the window had been the same since before the rime they purchased the property. He said if they could not get a variance they might lose the property. July 21, 2009 Property Code Minutes fYa�, a-. Page 8 �. � Ms. Moermond asked for a description of the bedroom window in Unit 1. Mr. Bhagyam said it was a double-hung window, and refened to the dimensions in the inspector's report which gave openable dimensions of 15.75 inches high by 34 inches wide. Ms. Shaff said that on-line records indicated that the Certificate of Occupancy fee was past due. Mr. Bhagyam said that he had sent it in about a month-and-a-half ago and that he could provide a copy of the check. Ms. Moermond suggested that Mr. Bhagyam verify that the city had received the check and that the check had cleared the bank. Ms. Shaff said that the fee had been due in December and that there would have been late fees for 30, 60 and 90 days. Mr. Bhagyam said that the invoice was for $96 after some adjustments. Ms. Shaff said she did not deal with fees and billing; Ms. Moermond said that she would follow up on the fees issue. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a variance on the egress window but that the openable height of 15.75 inches was less than what she was comfortable with. She said she was more concerned with the 4" ceiling height shortfall than with the 2" but that since it had been that way for a long time she would recommend granting a variance for that as well. Additional address 2028 Yorkshire Avemie: Carol Werket, on behalf of Meridian Managennent, requested a variance for egress windows which Ms. Moermond had also heazd appeals for other buildings they managed in this complex. Ms. Moermond reviewed the inspector's report and recommended granting a 2-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows throughout the building.