Loading...
10-204Council File # / 0 ��D� Green Sheet # 3099037 RESOLUTION Presented by �y 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council ofthe City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the January 2 12, 2010 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals to Letters, Certificate of Occupancy 3 Deficiency Lists and Denial of Building Permits to Replace Egress Windows for the following addresses: 4 � Pronertv Appealed Appellant 6 7 1439 McAfee Street Raymond Siebenaler 8 9 Decision: Deny the appeal for Item #2 and grant an extension for 90 days to come into compliance; grant a 10 6-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in Unit 2-2" bedroom northeast side and 11 Unit 2-1 bedroom east side; grant a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in Llnit 12 2-3` bedroom west side; grant a variance on the sill height issue. 13 14 1494 Maryland Avenue East 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ?2 23 24 25 Jesse Yang Decision: Deny the appeal on the two upper floor bedroom windows with openable dimensions of 22 inches in width by 10'/4 inches in height; deny the appeal on the lower-level bedroom window with openable dimensions of 32 inches in width and 10 3 /4" in height; grant a variance on the openable height of the upper floor, middle bedroom window on the condition a photograph is provided showing window opens easily to at least 16 inches. 60 E. Geranium Decision: Grant a 1-inch variance on the openable height of the egress bedroom window. Bostrom Carter Hanis Adopted by Council: Date � � Form Approved by City Attomey By: Adoption Certified by Counc' ecretary BY� /l //9/lG1/L/i.`lilsli� Approvg� r: Date J��/ � �iDl� I/ �_ -� B . C� 4L/ �, Y' Yeas Absent I � Requested by Department of. 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 � ; DepartmentlOfficelCouncil: I Date Initiated: ' l��a�� �o-�°°^��� ;,ZFEB2o,o Green Sheet NO: 3099037 Contact Person ffi Phone: � Marcia Moermond Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): �� Doa Type: RESOLUTION � -�, Assign , Number For Routing j Order i 0 I 2 3 4 5 E-DOCUment Required: Y Document ConWd: ConWCt Phone: Council Department Director ' City Clerk ' (Sry Clerk ToWI # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Resolution approving the January 12, 2010 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals to Letters, Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency Lists and Denial of Building Permits to Replace Egress Windows for the following: 1439 McAfee Sheet, 1494 Maryland Avenue East, and 60 Geranium Avenue East. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Planning Commission CIB CommiBee Civil Service 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 persoNfirm 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 Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): AdvantageslfApproved: DisadvantageslfApproved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of Transaction: Funding Source: Financial Informati on: (Explain) February 12, 2010 3:54 PM CosURevenue Budgeted: Activity Number: Page 1 � .�+ 1�'��� MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OFFICER ON APPEALS OF LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CODE COMPLIANCE INSPECTION REPORTS, AND DENIAL OF BUTLDING PERMITS Tuesday, January 12, 2010 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 135 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Leanna Shaff, Deparhnent of Safety and Inspections (DS� — Fire; Mai Vang and Donna Sanders, City Council Offices Appeal of Raymond Siebenaler to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1439 McAfee Street. Appellants, Raymond and Karen Siebenaler (5776 Centerville Rd., White Bear Lake, MN 55127) appeared. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She stated that Inspector James Thomas had inspected for the Fire C of O on December 29, 2009. Inspector Thomas reported that in Unit 2, 2" Bedroom on the North East Side that the windows opened to 18" high x 38" wide. The code requires a minimum of 24" high x 20" wide minimum. Unit 2 l Bedroom East Side windows with the openable dimensions of the windows to be 18" x 38" and the 3 Bedroom on the West Side windows in Unit 2 with the openable dimensions of the windows to be 20" high x 38" wide. Ms. Shaff noted that also in Unit 1, but not being appealed, that the sill measures at 54." Item No. 2, also being appealed, that is a requirement from the National Electric Code is maintaining a minimum of 36" clearance in front of all electrical panels. The Appellants, Raymond and Karen Siebenaler, fiu reviewed the items which they are appealing, the 3 upper level bedroom windows' openable dimensions, as well as having to move the dryer from under the electrical panel. Ms. Moermond asked for clarification from the appellants that they are not appealing the window sill requirements, noted in Item No. 6. Mr. Siebenaler responded that a tenant had removed the ladder, however, they have already put the ladder back in. Moermond indicated that a step is preferred, rather than a ladder. Shaff added that in the case where a ladder is in place and in tact, a ladder may be acceptable. However, once a ladder is taken down that it is to be replaced with a step. Mr. 5iebenaler responded that it was the inspector who directed them to put the ladder back. Shaff noted that the ladders are very hard to climb and get out. January 12, 2010 Property Code Minutes /� ��� � Page 2 l Mr. Siebenaler reviewed that the ladder is currently bolted to the wall, the treads are approximately 24 inches wide, and that it is not the width of the openable crank-out window. However, the ladder was reinstalled, specifically so that it would serve as an egess window, and that the window opens to 27 inches. Ms. Siebenaler reported that both ladders on the main floor were put in as required by Section 8. Section 8 also required the crank out windows on the main floor. Both ladders had been in place. One of the renters ripped one off of the wall, so they took it home, repaired and painted it, and reinstalled it. Both Ms. Shaff and Ms. Moermond clarified that the step is not going to be required at this time, however, if it is ripped out again, a code-compliant step will be required. In this case it would literally be a step that runs the length of the window, like a standard stair step, to better enable someone to get out the window. Shaff stated that there are 54 inches at the bottom of the sill and the code requires a maximum sill height in an existing building to be 48 inches. A code compliant stair has a masimum rise to the top of the tread from the floor of 7%z inches. In this case one step would be sufficient. This step would have to be permanently mounted to the wall and the step would stick out from the wall. Moermond recommended granting a 6-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in Unit 2— 2" bedroom northeast side and Unit 2— 1 s � bedroom east side; she further recommended granting a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in Unit 2— 3` bedroom west side and granting a variance on the sill height issue. Discussion followed regarding Item 2, relative to providing and maintaining a minimum of 36 inches clearance in front of all electrical panels. Mr. Siebenaler presented and reviewed four photographs depicting the layout of the furnace room. (Copies were made for the official record.) He described the fizrnace room to be 8 feet wide by 9 feet long in size, a very restricted area, noting it has been laid out like this since 1964. The dryer is a gas dryer, and if required to be moved in front of the meter, that it would block the walk-through area. He questioned that fire safety is a priority in case they were to blow a fuse? Shaff responded that it has to do with the National Blectric Code, as well as fire safety, and the servicing needs. Moermond noted that the water heater and cleanout area is not depicted in the photographs, with Mr. Siebernaler aclrnowledging that they were forgotten. Two solutions were identified for this deficiency, stacking the washer and dryer, or the removal of the dryer. In that case both the washer and dryer would be removed. Ms. Siebernaler said it is desirable to provide the laundry amenities to their renters far their convenience. It has been this way since 1964, describing the layout of the duplex as a split entry house with a front foyer and the laundry as the only common space, with a 2 bedroom unit downstairs and a 3 bedroom unit upstairs. January 12, 2010 Property Code Minutes /� ,��' I Page 3 �� Moermond stated that she was not comfortable with this deficiency and that the electrical code is pretty straightforwud on what meets code. She asked if they have looked into an affordable stacking of the washer and dryer? Ms. Siebenaler said that it was cost prohibitive. Mr. Siebenaler added that they would have to replumb and redo the electrical and that would get very expensive. He said that if denied they would have to remove the washer and the dryer Mr. Siebernaler said that if they moved the dryer in front of the meters it would really block up the exit. Shaff asked whether there is a way to put a platform over the plumbing cleanout to place the dryer on top of it? Mr. Siebenaler said that the tenants plug the clean-out up quite often, which is an issue. There was discussion that the platform could be a consideration as a lot of basements are done that way, and there still could be access to the stuff underneath. Mr. Siebernaler questioned whether he would be comfortable with a platform as a solution. Moermond recommended denying the appeal regarding Item #2 and granting an extension for 90 days to come into compliance. 2. Appeal of Jesse Yang to a Code Compliance Inspection Report request for egress window variance for property at 1494 Marvland Avenue East. Appellant Jesse Yang (1986 Margaret Street, St. Paul, MN SS ll 9) appeared, along with his tenant, T Xiong Udom (500 Grotto St., St. Paul, MN 55104). Ms. Moermond established with Mr. Yang that this is a vacant building. Moermond reviewed the Application for Appeal, the Egress Window Non-Compliance Determination reports, as well as the Code Compliance Report. Moermond asked the applicant to describe the rivo upper floor bedroom windows. Mr. Yang responded that the windows appear to be 4 year old vinyl windows. He said that the problem is that the windows measure 37 inches in height by 36 inches in width, and according to the code it should measure 20 inches or larger. At the code compliance check the City inspector determined that the window needed to be replaced. The house was built in 1958. Yang summarized that the windows are brand new double-hung windows, the house is stucco, and the cost estimate to replace the windows is approximately $2,000, which is the reason far the appeal. Moermond indicated she would deny the appeal saying that 10'/4 inches in openable height to get out is too short, and that a different style of window will be required regardless of whether this is an owner-occupied or rental unit. Mr. Yang said he measured the openable height of the double-hung windows is at 16 inches, not 10 3 /a. He said that the window measurements are 37 inches in height by 36 inches in width. January 12, 2010 Property Code Minutes /� ��� (� Page 4 i l Shaff reviewed that Jim Seeger completed the form, denoting the 10'/a inch openabie height measurement. Moermond said that in order to grant the variance for these two upper floor bedroom windows that she would need to see a photograph of the window open, using a yard stick or a measuring tape to demonstrate in a photo�aph that the openable height is at least 16 inches, and higher would be much better. However, she further stated that the width is only 2 inches more than what it would need to be. Normally what she would look for is that each inch that is short in height, she would look for at least 1 inch in additional width, but these windows only have Z additional inches in width, so the minimum height that she would consider would be 22 inches. Given this, a different style of window will be necessary in this case. Mr. Yang questioned that many houses have windows with these same dimensions? Ms. Moermond responded that more and mare these windows are being required to be brought into compliance with code. Moermond recommended denying the appeal on the two upper floor bedroom windows with openable dimensions of 22 inches in width by 10 3 /a inches in height. The upper floor middle bedroom window was next discussed. Moermond reviewed that the openable height is 14 3 /a inches, which Mr. Yang confirmed to be accurate. Moermond asked whether iYs possible to get it to open a couple more inches? Mr. Yang said that he believes it would be possible to open it to 16 inches. Moermond recommended granting a variance on the openable height of the upper floar middle bedroom window on the condition a photograph is provided showing window opens easily to at least 16 inches. Moermond gave her contact information to Mr. Yang for transmitting the photographs requested. Moermond recommended denial of the appeal of the lower level bedroom window with openable dimensions of 32 inches in width and 10'/4 " in height. One additional case was read into the record. Appeal of 60 E. Geranium for bedroom egress windows with an openable measurement of 23 inches in height and 26 inches in width. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 1-inch variance on the openable height of the egress bedroom window.