Loading...
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.