09-974Council File #t �-9'�f (�
Green 5heet # 3077876
RESOLUTION ! g
OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOT�1 -
Presented
1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the August
2 25, 2009 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals to Letters of Certificate of Occupancy
3 Deficiency Lists for the following addresses:
4
5 PropertV Aupealed Appellant
6
7 1572 Edgerton Street Cazl and Cheryl Schilling
8
9 Decision: Grant a 1.5-inch variance on the openable width of the egress window in the lower level child's
10 room.
11
12 607 Grand Avenue EMK Holding Co LLC
13
14 Decision: Grant a 1.5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the second floor
15 bedrooms.
16
17 925 Woodbridae Street Brian Gallagher
18
19 Decision: Grant a 1-inch variance on the openabie height of the egress window in the first floor bedroom
20 and grant a 1.5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the second floor bedroom.
21
22 1830 Lincoln Avenue Drew Palmer
23
24 Decision: Grant a 1-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in bedroom # 1.
25
26 780 Curfew Street David Rohan
27
28 Decision: Grant a 4-inch vaziance on the openable height of the egress windows in the two third-floor
29 bedrooms in Unit 2; grant a 7.5-inch variance on the openable height and a 3-inch variance on the openable
30 width of the bedroom egress window in Unit 3.
31
32 455 Bazclav Street John Moris
33
34 Decision: Grant a 6-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in all upstairs bedrooms;
35 and withhold enforcement action on the parking surface for two years.
36
37 475 Banfil Street Mark and Nancy Hulsey
38
39 Decision: Grant a 1.5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the east middle
40 bedroom.
b�-���f
:�
Bostrom
Carter
x�s
Yeas
Requested by Deparhnent of:
Adopted by Council: Date
�
Adophon Certified by Council Se tary
B �
Approvedb or: e � !� (�
By:
�
Form Approved by City Attomey
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 �
a�-97�{
� , DepartmentlOfficelCouncil: Date Initiated: !
�_�-cacA� -- ----�-z�a�rczoos---�—C�1°@erl $h@�@�1�0:""
� � �
As�
Number
For
Routing
Order
ConWM Person 8 Phone:
Marcia Mcermond
Must Se on Councii Agenda by (Date):
Doc. Type: RESOLUTION
E-Document Required: Y
Document Contact:
Cantact Phone:
0 ;Council � I
1 Cov cil r Deoarhm� entDirector �
2 Ciry Clerk Citr Clerk I
3 I il I
4 ' ��
5 I -�
Total # of Signature Pages (Clip All Locations for Signature)
Resolution approving the decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters of Deficiency for the following
properties: 1572 Edgertnn Street, 607 Gxand Avenue, 925 Woodbridge Skeet, 1830 Lincoln Avenue, 78� Curfew Sfreet, 955 Bacclay
Sueet, and 475 Banfil Street.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Re�ect {R):
Planning Commission
qB Committee
Civil Service Commission
Personal5ervice Contreots Must Answer the Following (luestions:
1 Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this departmenY?
Yes No
2. Has this person/firm ever bee� a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this person/firm 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.
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
AdvanWges If Approved:
DisadvanWges If Approved:
Disadvantages If Not Approved:
Total Amount of
Trensaction:
Funding Source:
Financial I nformation:
(F�cplain)
CosURevenue Budgeted:
Activity Number:
August 28, 2009 10:54 AM Page 1
��-���
MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING
- -
— ON APPEALS OF LBTTBRS OF DEFICIBNCY
AND CORRECTION ORDERS
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West
Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer
The hearing was called to order at 1:3Q p.m.
STAFF PRESENT: Leanna 3haff, Department of Safety and Inspections (DSn – Fire Prevention;
Joel Essling, DSI – Code Enforcement; David Palm, City Attomey's Office; and Mai Vang, City
Council Offices
2. Appeal of Carl and Cheryl Schilling to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for
property at 1572 EdQerton Street.
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. Moerxnond recommended granting a
1.5-inch variance on the openable width of the egress window in the lower level child's room.
3. Appeal of EMK Holding Co LLC to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property
at 607 Grand Avenue.
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 egress windows in the second floor bedrooms.
4. Appeal of Brian Gallagher to a Ceftificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 925
Woodbridge Street.
Appellant Brian Gallagj�er (5324 45 Avenue S., Minneapolis 55417) appeared.
Ms. Moermond asked for a staff report. Ms. Shaff stated that Inspector Cummings had inspected
for the Fire C of O on August 11 and reported that the openable dimensions of the egress window in
the first floor bedroom were 23 inches high by 31 inches wide, and in the second floor bedroom
were 22.5 inches high by 28 inches wide.
Ms. Moermond noted Item 4 on the deficiency list citing obstructions to egress; she asked whether
the inspector had noted the items causing the obstruction. Ms. Shaff said there were no notes. Mr.
Gallagher said it was a dresser and had been moved.
Ms. Moermond stated that for both of the windows the shortfall in height was more than adequately
made up for in extra width; she recommended granting a 1-inch variance on the openable height of
the egress window in the first floor bedroom and granting a 1.5-inch variance on the openable
height of the egress window in the second floor bedroom.
Mr. Gallagher asked about the order to re-hang the front storm door. He said the screen door
scraped against the overhang as it opened and asked whether a screen door was required. Ms. Shaff
August 25, 2009 Property Code Minutes G(,' �G�7 L j Page 2
said it could be removed as long as it was removed completely, including removing hardware,
filling hoies and repainting.
_ __ _ _ _
Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Gallagher whether he was asking to appeal the item. Mr. Gallegher said
he would like to.
Ms. Moermond and Mr. Gallagher discussed options for repairing the door including planing,
trimming and re-hana ng. Mr. Gallagher said the door hadn't been cited during his code
compliance inspection.
Ms. Moermond asked whether the door continued to open after it reached the point where it started
scraping. Mr. Gallagher said it did.
Ms. Moermond said she would like to see a clear swing to 80 percent. Mr. Gallagher responded
that his re-inspection was scheduled for September 10 and the inspector could check the door at that
time.
Ms. Moermond recommended granting the appeal on the screen door if, on re-inspection, the door
was found to open freely to 80 percent. She said the door would need to be trimmed if the inspector
determined it did not swing freely to 80 percent.
5. Appeal of Drew Palmer to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1830
Lincoln Avenue. (Rescheduled for August 18)
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-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in bedroom #1.
6. Appeal of David Rohan to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 780
Curfew Street.
Appellant David Rohan and Debra Rohan (780 Curfew Street #1) appeared.
Ms. Moermond requested a staff report. Ms. Shaff stated that Inspector Imbertson had conducted
the inspection for the Fire C of O on August 3 and reported that the openable dimensions of the
egress windows in the two, Unit 2 third floor bedrooms were 20 inches high by 21 inches wide, and
in the Unit 3 third floor bedroom were 16.5 inches high by 17 inches wide. She said the permit for
work done at the property only referred to windows, soffit and fascia in Unit 1.
Mr. Rohan stated that all windows in all three units had been replaced. Ms. Rohan said Unit 1 was
the billing address and they lived in Unit 1. She stated that the work had been done under permit by
Mastercra$; she provided a copy of the contract. The contractor had told them there would be a
final inspection but the inspector might just drive by and they might not be aware of it. She said the
property had been inspected twice since then. The third floor in Unit 3 had only a bedroom and
bathroom, and the bathroom window was the same size as those in Unit 2. The door between the
bedroom and bathroom could be removed. She provided a drawing of the layout.
August 25, 2009 Properiy Code Minutes �� � y7 �'( Page 3
Ms. Shaff noted that the permit had been closed without a final inspection. Ms. Rohan said they
had not been aware of that.
Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Shaff to review the DSI's policy on windows that had been installed
under permit. Ms. Shaff responded that the policy applied to work that had been done under permit
and finaled. Ms. Moermond said the question was whether the work had been finaled. Ms. Shaff
said the issues were whether the work had been finaled and whether the permit had been for work
done in Units 2 and 3.
Ms. Moermond asked whether the permit gave the value of the work done. Ms. Shaff said it was
for $16,000. Ms. Rohan said she had a receipt for $27,000. Ms. Shaff responded that this type of
discrepancy was not unusual.
Ms. Moermond asked what type of window was in Unit 3. Mr. Rohan said it was a double-hung
window and was the type that could be popped out with a couple of simple motions. He said the
tenants were instructed as to how to remove them. Ms. Rohan said the tenants were typically
graduate students.
Ms. Moermond asked whether there was any information from the building department about the
permit. Ms. Shaff said it was an express permit and that those were usually done on-lane.
Ms. Rohan asked whether the inspector who had conducted the 2004 C of O inspection should have
been aware of the pending permit. Ms. Moermond responded that the inspector may not necessarily
know. She said that Units 2 and 3 were the most likely candidates for variances although she didn't
generally go that low. She wanted to talk with staff about the issuance of the express permit before
making her decision. She said that Unit 3 was and issue.
Ms. Rohan asked whether removing the door between third floor bathroom and bedroom in Unit 3
would be sufficient. Ms. Moermond asked for the dimensions of the bathroom window. Ms. Rohan
responded that it was the same size as in Unit 2.
Ms. Shaff asked whether Unit 3 was an efficiency unit. Mr. Rohan responded that the main living
area was on the second floor and the bedroom and bath were on the third. Ms. Shaff said that
removing the door would not satisfy the requirement because 50 percent of the wall between the
rooms must be open.
After the hearing, Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 4-inch variance on the openable height
of the egress windows in the two third-floor bedrooms in Unit 2; granting a 7.5-inch variance on the
openable height and a 3-inch variance on the openable width of the bedroom egress window in Unit
3.
Appeal of John Moris to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 955
Barclati Street.
Appellant John Moris (1156 Nolan Avenue N., Stillwater 55082) and Kay Moris appeared.
Ms. Moermond requested a staff report. Ms. Shaff stated that Inspector Thomas had conducted an
inspection for the Fire C of O on August 10 and reported that the openable dimensions of the egress