09-955Council File #�� ��
Green Sheet # 3077516
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
RESOLUTION
CITY OFSAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented by
l�
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the August
18, 2009 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals on Letters of Certificate of Occupancy
Deficiency Lists and Vacant Building Registration Notice and Fee for the following addresses:
Prouertv Appealed
869 Marshall Avenue
Appellant
Lyle Vevea
Decision: Grant a 3-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the second floor
bedrooms.
2034 and 2052 Yorkshire Avenue Stuart Simek, ob/o Yorkshire
Grove Properties
Decision: Grant a 1.5-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows throughout the
buildings.
2053 Yorkshire Avenue Stuart Simek, ob/o Yorkshire
Grove Properties
Decision: Grant a 2.5-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows throughout the
building.
ll13 Sixth Street East
Tarryl Olson
Decision: Grant a 3-inch variance on the openable width of the egress window in the upper level north
bedroom.
478 Lexington Pkw�
Ira Kipp, o/b/o College Duplex Co
Decision: Grant a 1.5-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows throughout the
building.
1626 Carroll Avenue
Robert Vehe
Decision: Deny the appeal and granting 120 days to bring the windows into compliance.
1571 Lafond Street
Kibrom Haile, o/b/o LMeat Inc.
Decision: Grant a 3-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress window in Unit 2. Deny
the appeal on the egress windows in Units 1 and 5 and grant 120 days to bring the windows into
compliance.
0 y-9�s
42 1576 Suminit Avenue
43
Terry Gorman, o/b/o Macalester College
44 Decision: Deny the appeal and granting an extension to December 31, 2010 to bring the roof into
45 compliance.
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
Bostrom
Carter
Harris
Helgen
Yeas
Absent
Requested by Department ot
Stark
Thune
Adopted by Council: Date
J
✓
�
Adophon Certified b Counci ecretary
BY: � ,. ;- ` �
Approved b ay r• Date
By:
�
Form Approved by City Attomey
By:
Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
Approved by the Office of Financial Services
By:
� Green Sheet Green Sheet
Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
b9' 1,Ss
! �epartmenUOfficelCouncii: : Date Initiated: i
— ; co-�°��G� i Zs-auc-0s ; Green Sheet NO: -307751�-
� Contact Person R Phone- ' , Department Sent To Person Initial/Date ;
,' Maraa Moermond �; � , o cooa�;1 '�
i
� 1 Council DeoartmentDirector '�
; Assign ; �,� �
i Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): '', Namber i Z C'ri Cluk � Ciro Clerk i
' For � 3 � " � I
f ; Routing j 4 �� � I
� Doc. Type: RESOIUTION � Order 5 ��—� _ I
E-DOCUmentRequired: Y
Document ConWCt:
Contact Phone:
Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature)
Resolurion approving the August 18, 2009 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letter of Deficiency for
properties at: 869 Marshall Avenue, 2034, 20>2 & 2053 Yorkshire Avenue, 1113 Sixth Street E, 478 Lexington Pkwy S, 1626
Carroll Avenue, 1571 Lafond Street, and 1576 Summit Avenue.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R):
PlanNng Commission
CIB Committee
Crvil Senice Commission
Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions:
1. Has this person/frm ever worked under a contract for this department?
Yes No
2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any
current city employee?
Yes No
Fxplain all yes answers on sepa2te sheet and attach to green sheet.
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
Advantages If Approved:
DisadvantageslfApproved:
Disativantages If Not Approvetl:
Total Amount of
Trensaction:
Funding Source:
Financial Information:
(Explain)
Cost/Revenue Budgeted:
Activity NUmber:
August 26, 2009 9:51 AM Page 1
dy..y�s
MINUTES OF TAE LEGISLATIVE HEARING
ON APPEALS OF LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West
Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer
The hearing was called to order at 135 p.m.
STAFF PRESBNT: Leanna Shaff, Department of Safety and Inspections (DSn — Fire Prevention;
and Mai Vang, City Council Offices
2. Appeal of Lyle Vevea to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 869
Marshall Avenue. (Rescheduled from July 21)
Appellant Lyle Vevea (1043 Grand Avenue, #176, St. Paul, MN 55105) appeared.
Ms. Moermond asked whether the egress windows were the item being appealed. Mr. Vevea said
the building was an American Foursquare home built on Marshall Avenue in 1909 with three
bedrooms on the second floor, all with original windows. He said the net glazed area was double
what was required.
Ms. Moermond asked for a staff report. Ms. Shaff read from the inspector's report that the
openable dimensions of the bedroom egress windows on the second floor were 21 inches high by 31
inches wide, and on the third floor were 16 inches high by 22.5 inches wide. Mr. Vevea said the
third floor window was not being appealed.
Ms. Moermond said that the additional width in the second floor windows more than
accommodated for the shortfall in height. She recommended granting a 3-inch variance on the
openable height of the egress windows in the second floor bedrooms.
Ms. Shaff confirmed with Mr. Vevea that the third floor was not being used for sleeping.
Appeal of Stuart Simek, on behalf of Yorkshire Grove Properties, to a Certificate of
Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 2034 2052 and 2053 Yorkshire Avenue.
Ms. Moermond reviewed the inspector's report priar to the hearing and issued the following
decisions. The appellant was notified and did not appear. Ms. Moermond recommended the
following: 2034 and 2052 Yorkshire: grant a 1.5-inch variance on the openable height of the
bedroom egress windows throughout the buildings. 2053 Yorkshire: grant a 2.5-inch variance on
the openable height of the bedroom egress windows throughout the building.
5. Appeal of Tarryl Olson to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1113
Sixth Street East
Ms. Moermond reviewed the inspector's report prior to the hearing and issued the following
decision. The appellant was notified and did not appear. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a
3-inch variance on the openable width of the egress window in the upper level north bedroom.
August 18, 2009 Property Code Minutes b y���$ Page 2
6. Appeal of Ira Kipp, on behalf of College Duplex Company, to a Certificate of Occupancy
Deficiency List for property at 478 Lexin�ton Pkwv S.
Ms. Moermond reviewed the inspector's report prior to the hearing and issued the following
decision. The appellant was notified and did not appear. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a
1.5-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows throughout the building.
8. Appeal of Robert Vehe to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1626
Carroll Avenue. (Rescheduled from August 11)
Appellant Robert Vehe (31 Gladstone Drive, Lino Lakes, MN 55014) appeared.
Mr. Vehe clarified that he was only appealing the efficiency apartment egress windows.
Ms. Moermond reviewed the inspector's repoft which gave openable dimensions of 15 inches high
by 26.5 inches wide for the e�ess windows in Units 5 and 6. She confirmed that they were
basement units and asked whether those dimensions were correct. Mr. Vehe said he hadn't
measured and wasn't sure. He said the inspector told him to just apply far a variance and there
would be no problem. Ms. Moermond said she would need to talk to the inspector about exactly
what was said. Ms. Shaff noted that sill height had also been cited in the inspector's report.
Mr. V ehe said he could not afford to replace the egress windows. He had a troubled building and
had suffered from a combination of bad property management, bad choices in tenants, and the
building was almost empty as he was starting over. He had thought he had a good property
manager and was working with the police and with Councilmember Stark's office. He was
currently taking classes through the police department on being a good landlord.
Ms. Moermond clarified for Mr. V ehe her criteria for granting a variance; she said she would be
willing to allow some time for him to explore options. Mr. Vehe confirmed with Ms. Moermond
that only one egress window per efficiency unit was required. He said he had completed 16 of the
items, but the inspector had been demeaning and had revoked the C of O and given him 30 days to
complete the work.
Ms. Moermond asked how many tenants were in the building. Mr. Vehe responded there were two
units still occupied and that he was trying to get the tenants out.
Ms. Moermond noted that the re-inspection date was September 8 and which was also the vacate
date. She asked Mr. Vehe whether he was confident everything could be completed by then. Mr.
Vehe said he was working with a good property manager and believed everything could be done.
Ms. Moermond asked whether he had gotten a quote for egress windows. Mr. Vehe responded that
he assumed he would be granted a variance.
Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting 120 days to bring the windows into
compliance.
August 18, 2004 Property Code Minutes � y., Li�s Page 3
9. Appeal of Kibrom Haile, on behalf of LMeat Inc., to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency
List for property at 1571 Lafond Street.
Appellant Kibrom Haile appeared.
Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She stated that Inspector Skow-Fiske had conducted an inspection for
the Fire C of O and reported that the openable dimensions of the sleeping room egress window in
Unit 1 were 12.5 inches high by 25 inches wide with a net glazed area of 437 squaze feet; in Unit 2
were 21 inches high by 31 inches wide with a net glazed area of 8.6 square feet; and in Unit 3 were
17 inches high by 27 inches wide with a net glazed area of 6.06 square feet.
Ms. Moermond asked whether all of the windows were being appealed. Mr. Haile said the windows
in Units 2 and 5 were being appealed.
Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 3-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom
egress window in Unit 2. She said that the dimensions of the window in Unit 5 did not meet the
criteria of two inches in extra width for every inch in height shortfall, and this window should be
replaced as well. She recommended denying the appeal on the egress windows in Units 1 and 5 and
granting 120 days to bring the windows into compliance.
10. Appeal of Terry Gorman, on behalf of Macalester College, to a Certificate of Occupancy
Deficiency List for property at 1576 Summit Avenue.
Appellant Terry Gorman (1600Grand Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55105) appeared, representing
Macalester College.
Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She said that Inspector Urmann had conducted a referral inspection
and written an order for the roofing to be weather tigl�t and free of defects.
Ms. Moermond asked for a clarification of the appeal. Mr. Gorman stated that the building had
been converted from offices to housing. There were curling shingles on the south-facing portion of
the roof but the roof was not leaking and maintenance was watching it closely. The plan was to
replace the whole roof but it was not budgeted for now; he said the roof would cost $75,000 to
$90,000 to replace.
Ms. Moermond asked when they planned to replace the roof. Mr. Gorman said it was the start of
the budget year, so the roof would get done next suminer, at the earliest, if it was budgeted as it was
a significant project.
Ms. Moermond asked how the building was used. Mr. Gorman said it was now going to be a
residence. It had been used for housing far the first year after Macalester bought it and was then
used far office space. The house had a sprinkler system, was well-maintained, and fit the Summit
Avenue profile. It would be important to do the roof wark correctly and not rush into it.
Ms. Moermond asked what would be done if the roof began to leak. Mr. Gorman said they would
work quickly to do a temporary fix of the problem area. The "trade guys" who had looked at it
were not concerned and indicated it looked worse than it was. He said they were watching it closely
and did not want to have damage to the interior of the house.
August 18, 2009 Property Code Minutes � G� q�S Page 4
6
Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granring an extension to December 31, 2010
_-- to bring the roof into compliance. If any teaks were found in the interim, they would need to be
addressed quickly.