10-219Council File # 10-219
Green Sheet # 3099076
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ��
Presented by
1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the January
2 5, 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
5 Propertv Appealed Appellant
6
7 391 Toppin� Sueet Jeff & Judy Otto
8
9 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension to Februazy 12, 2010 to complete Item 3 on the
10 deficiency list.
11
12 2237 Third Street East Richard and Phyllis Nellessen
13
14 Decision: Grant a 2-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the downstairs bedroom
15 and granting a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the upstairs bedroom; grant
16 the appeal releasing the appellants from the C of O program as this situation was the equivalency of owner
17 occupancy.
18
19 2296 Seventh Street West Glenn Mulvihill
20
21 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension until April 15, 2010 for compliance on the window
22 screens; grant a 2-inch variance on the openable height of the egress bedroom windows throughout the
23 unit.
24
25 841 Burr Street. Michael Healey
26
27 Decision: Grant the appeal.
28
29 7 Sandralee Drive East Walter and Renee Schoumaker
30
31 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension to December 31, 2010 for the egress windows to come
32 into compliance, and to February 5, 2010 for the balance of the items in the deficiency list.
33
34 640 Victoria Street North Chris Sauro
35
36 Decision: Grant a 2-inch variance on the openable height of the egress replacement windows in the first
37 floor two bedrooms. Grant a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress replacement window in
38 the second floor bedrooms.
39
10-219
41
Boshom
Carter
Harris
Stark
Thune
Adopted by Council: Date
Yeas
✓
Adoption Certified by Coun ' Secretary
By:
Approve y Ma� ate 3� b O
BY �" �✓
Requested by Department of:
�
Form Approved by CiTy Attorney
By:
Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
Approved by the Office of Financial Services
By:
10- 9
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
. DepartmenUOfficelCouncii: � Date Initiated:
co-�°°°��� , ZFEBZO,o Green Sheet NO: 3099076
Contact Person 8 Phone: , Department Sent To Person InitiallDate '
Maraa Moermond �, ♦ � U Councu �
� 1 Council DepartmentDirector
; Assign ' Z G}p•Clerk CiA�Clerk ' �
. Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): � Number 3 �
For
Routing ' 4
� Order 5
1 Doc. Type: RESOLUTION , �,
E-DocumentRequired: Y
Document Contact:
ConWCt Phone:
Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature)
Resolurion approving the January 5, 2010 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals to Letters, Certificate of
Ocwpancy Deficiency Lists for the following: 391 Otto Street, 2237 Third Sh East, 2296 Seventh Street West, 841 Burr Sheet, 7
Sandralee Drive East, and 640 Victoria Street North.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R)�
Planning Commission
CIB Committee
Civil Service Commission
Personai Service Contrects Must Answer the Following Questions:
t. Has this person/frm ever worked under a confract for this depadment?
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
curtent ciry employee?
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet.
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
Advan W ges If Approved:
DisadvanWges If Approved:
DisadvanWges If NotApproved:
Total Amount of
Transaction:
Funding Source:
Fi nancial Information:
(Explain)
CosdRevenue Budgeted:
Activiiy Number:
February 12, 2010 4:35 PM Page 1
10-219
MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OFFICER
ON APPEALS OF LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY,
VACANT BUILDING REGISRATION NOTICES & FEES
AND DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMITS
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West
Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer
The hearing was called to order at 1:35 p.m.
STAFF PRESENT: Phil Owens, Deparhnent of Safety and Inspections (DSI) — Fire; Leanna Shaff,
DSI — Fire; and Mai Vang, City Council Offices
1. Appeal of Jeff & Judy Otto to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 391
Top� S�treet. (Continued from Nov. 17)
Jeff Otto, Appellant, appeared.
Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Shaff if there was an update report. Ms. Shaff replied there was no
update report since the issue was continued, and the inspector had not gone to the property.
Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Otto if there had been any conversation about any personnel issues, any
forms provided, or had he made any inquiries of the supervisors regarding the inspector? Mr. Otto
stated he had not contacted anyone. He said it was his understanding that he was to wait until this
hearing date. He told Ms. Moermond he had emailed her because he had seen the inspector driving
around his building, which concerned him.
Ms. Moermond asked what he had done about assessing the problems with the building. She asked
if he had made any changes based on changes in the weather. Mr. Otto said he was confused and
said he had given everything to her at the November 17, 2009 hearing. He said he thought she was
going to tell him something at today's hearing. Mr. Otto stated that at the November 17, 2009
hearing, Ms. Moermond had told him that there may be a meeting and that it might not take place in
the Legislative Hearing Room. He said she had advised him that possibly other people would
participate, rather than Ms. Moermond.
Ms. Moermond said that when she looked at the building, going item for item, she was struck that
he needed to put together a work plan on how to address the leaks in the roo£ Ms. Moermond
asked Mr. Otto if he had a plan in place. He stated that they fix the leaks as they occur because it is
a large, old building. Ms. Moermond asked if he had if he had a re-roofing plan in place. Mr. Otto
said there were 75,000 square feet on the building and that they could not afford to re-roof the
building and stay in business. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Otto if he could get ahead of the leaks by
putting a Capitol Improvement-type plan in place where he could have monies secured for future
roofing problems.
Mr. Otto said that he had not appealed over the roof leak and that they had fixed that. He appealed
over the basis of Item 3 and he said they were trying to clarify this section.
io-zi9
January 5, 2010 Property Code Minutes
Page 2
Ms. Moermond said she did not see anything specific to the wall in the document, outside of his
statement that he had concems with the wall. She said she was aware of his concerns about
inspector conduct and concerns about financing repairs. She did not see anything delineated
between the three kinds of repairs that were required.
Mr. Otto said that at the November 17, 2009 hearing, he had told Ms. Moermond that orders were
unclear. He said that Ms. Moermond had understood his confusion—some items were highlighted,
some were in small print. Mr. Otto said he did not know what chipped paint the inspector was
referring to.
Ms. Moermond called upon Assistant Fire Marshall Phil Owens. Inspector Owens refened to the
November 2, 2009 letter and said there were ttiree outstanding corrections--hazardous materials
identification placards, maintain roof in weather-tight manner and repair the leaks. He said a permit
would be required for a new concrete wall which was being installed within the warehouse. Prior to
coming to the hearing, he had checked to see if a permit had been issued. He was unable to
determine if one had been issued. He said that towards the rear of the building there were a couple
of places that had penetrations in the siding and that there was a place near one of the overhead
doors where possibly a fark truck had impacted. He said these were the types of things that Number
3 alluded to, in addition to the roof leak in Number 2 and the hazardous materials identification
placards in Number L The letter previous to that from October had eight items listed. He said, "I
assume from this subsequent November 2 letter that the other five had been corrected and that we're
only now looking at Number tluee. He said he and his staff still were still unable to understand
what the actual appeal was about.
Ms. Moermond said, "Let's work through this, going back. So the exterior placards you have
addressed?" Mr. Otto said, "They've been done." Ms. Moermond asked, "The roof, you're saying
the leaks are fixed?"
Mr. Otto `But if you had told me six weeks ago you wanted me to put together a plan, I would have
put together a plan. I understood that this was all being put off ..."
Ms. Moermond said that she recalled that Mr. Otto had stated he did not know which leaks the
inspector had referred to because there were so many and they came up from time to time. She said
that he had told her that he deals with, but the weather prevented him from locating them.
Mr. Otto said "You asked today if I have a comprehensive, long-term plan? You didn't ask me six
weeks to do that. I would have prepared that kind oFplan and I would have had it in place. It is a
big old building, as I have said. It is a lot of buildings that were put together at times. You could
fix the whole roof and you could still end up with leaks because of the way this building has been
configured over the years. So, what we have done is when there are leaks, we get a roofing
company there to fix them. Since I was here last time, I have gotten a contractor to give me a bid
over a portion of the building, what it would cost. Simultaneously, we are trying to see if we can
get a fire sprinkling system in there to deal with other issues that they have brought up over the
years. I thought the only thing that was standing out as of last time I was here was Number 3 and
when you talked about them putting together a paragraph like this, I thought that I was to
understand...what I took to mean that day was I was supposed to know the only thing we were
supposed to be looking at was this heavy, highlighted material, not the part before that. If thaY s the
10-219
January 5, 2010 Property Code Minutes
Page 3
case, I gave proof at my last meeting and I don't know why Mr. Owens and his office doesn't have
it, but we had the permit as of when I was here six weeks ago and i furnished that that day."
Inspector Shaff interjected "However, the permit is still active. It's not finaled."
Inspector Owens "IYs not finaled and the clarification we need to get from the building inspector,
and Mr. Otto, it isn't his fault at all. The permit says `siding repairs.' So what we're unclear of is
this for the through penetrations and the damage to the siding or does this also include the masonry
wall thaYs being constructed inside the building."
Mr. Otto "Yes it does. Ms. Moermond, A. J. Niese saw what was being done. He is the one who
said you guys can't do this without a permit. So he witnessed this with his own eyes."
Ms. Moermond "Would it be as simple to say that the permit doesn't describe these?"
Mr. Owens "It says siding repair. We don't lrnow what that entails."
Ms. Shaff "With a value of $480: '
Ms. Moermond, "Okay, so you're thinking with a value of $480 when it says siding repair that it
doesn't also cover the concrete work thaYs being done?"
Ms. Shaff "Probably not."
Mr. Owens said "We just need to clarify with the building inspectors. Our folks don't issue these
permits, nor do they make these types of inspections. We just need to clarify what this permit
covers—that the building inspectors are moving forward with this project. Just a simple
clarification."
Ms. Moermond "Is this something that can be handled by phone or does it require somebody to
come into the Permit counter?"
Mr. Owens "I just basically need to be able to talk with the Senior Building Inspector to determine
does this permit encompass all the work that was recognized or is there one permit missing."
Ms. Moermond "Okay, so if the answer is that it does encompass all of the work, then we're good
to go?"
Mr. Owens "Then we're simply waiting on the completion of the construction and the finaling of
the permit."
Ms. Moermond "If the permit doesn't cover the work that we're talking about, there needs to be an
application made for a permit for those items and we're good to go. Okay, Pm sorry, my notes
weren't where your conversation is. I am remembering pieces of this. This is not what I was
reading here. Please understand. I am trying to put this together. Would it work for you to have
that conversation with the building inspector? You had the conversation with the building
inspector? Okay, and how would you like to proceed? Would you like to converse with Mr. Otto?"
January 5, 2010 Property Code Minutes
10-219
Page 4
Mr. Owens "I can call Mr. Otto." Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Otto if that worked for him and he
said, `Yes.'
Mr. Otto "Are we not to be of the understanding then that when a Fire Inspector sees the work and
sees that iYs being done, and it was virtually completed and I had the permit and he saw it, that
we're still going to get those ambiguous kinds of lack of completion to this. He was there. He saw
it. He is the one who said we needed a permit. We didn't know that we needed a permit. It feels
like this is one of those Kafka novels that never ends"
Ms. Shaff "Ms. Moermond, until the permit is inspected and finaled by the building inspector, the
Fire Inspector won't sign off on the Fire C of O."
Ms. Moermond "And with respect to the Katka stuff, I think it's all borne of that. There wasn't a
consistent understanding from the beginning that the permit you had covered what we're talking
about. That's what it sounds like to me."
Mr. Otto: "This is the first I've heard of that, today, right now."
Ms. Moermond: "What are Mr. Neis' notes on this? Did he think, obviously because it's in the
order ...?" Mr. Owens said, "There's a note in the order that there's a concrete masonry wall being
installed inside the warehouse, work requires a permit. Contact DSI. And also that repair siding.
In my brief conversation with Inspector Neis is that there are through penetrations in the siding
towards the rear of the building ..."
Ms. Moermond "Where the forklift went through?" Mr. Owens "I think there are two different
places. But, P11 be glad to go to the site, outline For Mr. Otto the locations that are indicated."
Ms. Moermond "It was your belief that your permit for repairing the siding for $458 did cover the
cement work?"
Mr. Otto "He was there, he saw it." Ms. Moermond "No, no, no. What was your understanding?"
Mr. Otto "It was my understanding that it was done. When I brought the permit last time and
showed you that I got the permit and you told me to ignare the first part of three, we assumed that
we were done. We did the wark. I don't know what else I could do."
Mr. Owens "I think we can easily bring this to closure." Ms. Moermond said "That would be
great."
Mr. Owens "The building inspector's notes indicate that he has not inspected it. The fact that the
fire inspectar was on site and saw work in progress doesn't close that permit because the building
inspector has to do it."
Mr. Otto "Is it our responsibility to call the buiiding inspector?"
Mr. Owens said "IYs your contractor's responsibility to call the building inspector. If you were
doing the work yourself, which is unlikely because it should be a licensed contractor, your
contractor is responsible for closing that permit. But, to cut to the chase, I'll talk to the building
10-219
January 5, 2010 Property Code Minutes
Page 5
inspector. I'll go out there myself and see what we need to do to bring this to closure. Because if
he's already put up the placazds. If he's repaired the roof, at least for the leak this time, then all
we're waiting on is the closure of this permit and I'll try and facilitate that."
Ms. Moermond "I lrnow the majority of your testimony last time was about inspector conduct and
at that time I indicated I am not the place to put that. I could talk about the other items. But I can
tell you that Mr. Owens is the right place to talk to if you �vanted to continue that conversation.
Okay?"
Mr. Otto "I talked to you about that last time I was here and Pm not going to talk to about it again
with Mr. Owens. He is not the right person to talk to about this. With all due respect."
Mr. Owens –"Mr. Otto, I understand ..."
Mr. Otto "When you let go to my brother-in-law David about how you feel about me..."
Mr. Owens "You weren't party to the conversation, so you don't know what I said. However, what I
told your brother in law was that I understand that you folks are busy making pallets and I
understand that as a part of that business—recycling pallets and building pallets—there is an
inevitable waste stream. But you need to manage that. You need to maintain your building. We go
back, Mr. Otto, as you're fully aware, from the time that I was an inspector in the field, through the
time khat I was a supervisor, now to this time. Every time that we've come out there, save for two,
since 1991, these very similar violations have existed. And iYs just time to start maintaining your
building and Yo keep those pallets at the height that was permitted. The Code only permits six feet
and your building isn't sprinklered. You were given, in 1991, an appeal grant that allowed ten feet
for the non-sprinklered building and just about every time we're out there we find them at 12-14'
and iYs a very, very dangerous situation. I can think of no place, save maybe a furniture warehouse,
not involving flammable liquids and other hazardous materials, that is as dangerous place as idle
pallets. If that catches fire, it will be on fire for a while. You will lose your business. We will lose
a building in St. Paul and it simply isn't recoverable. It is a horrendous fire, with no sprinkler
protection. Now I understand why there's not because at the time you were D anted the appeal in
1991, there wasn't enough water in the street to provide you with the amount of water you would
need to protect such an enormous hazard. Now I understand that"
Mr. Otto "There still is not." Mr. Owens "And may not be, but there not being, then you need to
maintain your inventory."
Mr. Otto: "We have maintained that inventory at that level. Ms. Moermond, this is what I was
afraid was going to happen. I've already told you. In the last hearing, I told you I didn't want to
meet directly with just Mr. Owens. You had indicated that there may be other people auailable for
that meeting. ThaYs what I thought. If I thought this was what was going to happen today, I would
have brought additional people and a lawyer, legal assistance here. I am not equipped to deal with
this. I am trying to do my best as I showed you. We moved to the building 21 years ago. We got a
permit right away. They knew what we were doing then. We have, subsequently we've been cited
for things. We've always corrected those things, as we've always tried to do. Once we get it done,
it doesn't seem to make any difference. We are a small business. We're just trying to do the best
with the resources we've got. To comply with what they want us to do. There is shxff that goes on
beyond this hearing room where we don't feel we're getting a fair situation here."
10-219
January 5, 2010 Property Code Minutes
Page 6
Ms. Moermond "ThaYs what I would suggest is if you will have Mr. Owens, he's volunteered to go
check this information."
Ms. Moermond and Ms. Shaff were looking at documents. Ms. Shaff said the date was incorrect
and the document was difficult to read. Mr. Owens said it was a printer problem.
Mr. Owens stated the actual date was October 2009 and the camera was not calibrated for the date.
He said "Those are the dates at the initial inspection."
Mr. Otto "See, we haven't been provided with those pictures"
Ms. Moermond "It's a picture of pallets of a certain height. Here's what I want to do. Let's have
Mr. Owens go out and double check this. We have the concrete wall. It sounds pretty
straightforward. If you are not satisfied that adequate progress is being made by Mr. Owens
checking with the building official on what the building permit you have covers, contact the
building official also. What I'm going to say about doing the fix. It sounds pretty clear you're
halfway through the fix, or more. If the permit covers it, you're good. If it doesn't, go pull another
permit. Get your inspection. You're good. What we have, then, is the deadline that we're dealing
with on when all of this should be accomplished by. When you received the orders of November 2,
2009, the deadline was set out a month from that to November 30, 2009. We are here on January 5,
2010. Pm going to say how about we go to February 12, 2010 to have the item closed out. Last
thing, he is the first step in the chain of command for supervising. If you are not satisfied that your
message is being heard, I suggest you put your message in writing and copy appropriate people.
But I would say you really need to go through the chain of command."
Mr. Otto "We attempted to do that."
Ms. Moermond "Try again. Put it in writing. And I get what you are saying. I would handle it that
way. You can do copies of these things. You can provide yourself some insurance that way."
Mr. Otto "February 12? We will have a meeting here again on February 12?"
Ms. Moermond, "No, you should be all done by February 12 is the extension you have until to get
the building squared away."
Mr. Otto: "ThaYs when we have to have the building inspector come and say it's done?"
Ms. Moermond: `By then. And it could be done already if the existing permit covers it. It could
mean you have to pull a permit, but it seems like that's enough time to pull it and get it finaled."
Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting an extension to February 12, 2010 to
complete Item 3 on the deficiency list.
io-zi9
January 5, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 7
2. Appeal of Richard and Phyllis Nellessen to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for
property at 2237 Third Street East. (originally scheduled on Dec. 22; owner did not attend
hearing as she did not receive notice due to improperly filling out appeal form)
Phyllis Nellessen, appellant, appeared.
Ms. Moermond said she saw two things in the appeal—the window dimensions and that Ms.
Nellessen was in the C of O Program.
Ms. Nellessen said, "It's not a rental property." Ms. Moermond stated, "You're in it now and you
don't think you should be. Maybe phrase it that way."
Ms. Nellessen `Because I didn't know I was in it. I did pay the money, but I didn't know what I
was paying for."
Ms. Shaff provided a staff report and stated that a Fire C of O Inspection was conducted on
December 9, 2009 by Inspectar James Thomas. Ms. Shaff provided an explanation of the C of O
Program. "We'll preface that with—every building in the City of St. Paul, with the exception of an
owner-occupied single-family home, or an owner-occupied duplex, is required to be inspected. The
ordinance says `owner of record.' Ms. Shaff asked Ms. Nellessen if her father-in-law lived at 2237
Third Street East.
Ms. Nellessen responded that her father-in-law had built the home and it has been his home for 50
some years.
Ms. Shaff asked if he was the owner of record and Mrs. Nellessen responded "No." Mrs. Nellesser.
said they had gone through an attorney. In order not to lose the house because it was paid for, they
turned it over to her husband, Richard Nellessen.
Ms. Shaff asked how long ago this had been. Mrs. Nellessen responded, "Nine, or seven years ago.
We didn`t know any oFthis. Because the attorney told us as long as he was living there..."
Ms. Shaff stated, "They do the homestead thing and I look at yours and it says iYs a relative
homestead, but the ordinance specifically left that piece out about homesteading. IYs like Pve
heard in here before the owner of record, which means head to bed, basically. That being said, the
second piece of it is both bedrooms downstairs the windows opened measured 22" high by 3 P'
wide. And then the bedroom upstairs measured 20" high and 24" wide on the opening. The Code
requires a minimum opening height of 24" and a minimum opening width of 20". They just put the
new windows in to existing whatever was there. How long ago did they do that? Mrs. Nellessen
responded that it was approximately eleven years ago and they were now out of warranty.
Ms. Moermond recommended the variance be granted on the windows and stated, "Then the
question then is who is living there and should you be in the C of O Program?" Ms. Moermond
asked, "Were all of the other items on the C of O list things that you felt comfortable making sure
were done?" Mrs. Nellessen responded that she was comfortable, but that she did not lrnow who to
contact to check the carbon monoxide.
10-219
January 5, 2010 Property Code Minutes
I��
Ms. Shaff advised her to contact a licensed plumbing and heating contractor and tell them that she
needed a residential heating report done for the Fire Marshall's Office.
Ms. Moermond stated that she would like to think about the ownership situation—whether the
Nellessen's needed to continue in the C of O Program.
Mrs. Nellessen said that if they had to be in the program, it was fine with her. She asked if they had
to do anything with the windows.
Ms. Moermond responded that they should keep going with everything else. She said, "The
windows, you've got a variance on. That's taken care o£"
Ms. Moermond was going to tl�ink over the ownership issue. She said, "We'll call you tomorrow,
ar essentially, we'll get back to you."
Mrs. Nellessen said, `Then the inspection will be on whenever they schedule, and Ms. Moermond
responded, "Yes."
Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 2-inch variance on the openable height of the egress
window in the downstairs bedroom and granting a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the
egress window in the upstairs bedroom. The decision on ownership and opting out of the C of O
Program would be forthcoming.
On January 25, 2010, Ms. Moermond reviewed the appeal and recommended granting the appeal
and releasing the appellants from the C of O program as this situation was the equivalency of owner
occupancy.
3. Appeal of Glenn Mulvihill to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at
2296 Seventh Street West.
Glenn Mulvihill, appellant, appeared.
Ms. Moermond noted the screen and window dimension citations. Mr. Mulvihill stated that the
window was big, but it was 2" too narrow, but it was 6." Ms. Moermond said she was comfortable
recommending that a variance be granted. She asked about the window screens. Mr. Mulvihill
stated that Inspector Carver had been out four times and had advised he needed window screens.
Mr. Mulvihill said he has ordered screens from a vendor, but they were unavailable. He said he can
have them installed this Spring.
Ms. Moermond asked for a date and Mr. Mulvihill said, "May 15." Ms. Moermond asked, "Can we
roll it back into April 15? Mr. Mulvihill said that April 15, 2010 was fine with him.
Ms. Moermond said she would have his orders changed so his deadline on the screens was April 15.
She said they would not check the screens until then, or later. She recommended a variance on the
windows.
Mr. Mulvihill said he had other concerns. He said he had not met the inspector until the fourth time
he had been at his home. He said that after the initial inspection, he had fixed everything but the
10-219
January 5, 2010 Property Code Minutes
Page 9
window and the screens. Mr. Mulvihill said that at the second inspection, the inspector had added
"broken glass, extension cords,' so the inspector came out a third time. Mr. Mulvhill said that the
inspector came out a fourth time to check on the work his stepfather was doing. He said the
inspector went to the front door and noticed that the latch was broke. Mr. Mulvihill asked the
inspector if it was so important, why had he not noticed it on previous visits. He said the inspector
was very rude and told him he would be charging him to come out and re-inspect. Mr. Mulvihill
was concerned about inspection costs. Ms. Moermond stated, "It has nothing to do with your fee.
Because we've got the items on the list here that we've talked about. It sounds like you're in
agreement with the items, some of which have already been addressed?" Mr. Mulvihill replied,
"Yes, most of them, yes."
Ms. Moermond "And the two that you have questions and you want to negotiate, we just talked
about. The next question that you, it has to do with the fees." Mr. Mulvihill asked how much the
fees would be. Ms. Moermond said that information was not in front of her and she didn't know if
his bill had been drafted. She advised that could appeal the bill. Ms. Moermond told him if he did
not pay it, it would go to taac assessments and she could hear his appeal, with his responses
regarding why he thinks it is too high. She said, "If the Department is amenable, I can hear it earlier
and it would be reflected. But, basically that's the venue I need to do it in once we're looking at
something on paper."
Mr. Mulvihill "And one last thing, he kept saying, because I was just trying to get along. He's like,
`Well, I'm just going to start disciplinary actions against you.' I said, okay, what are they? What if
I say I don't want him on my property. What happens if I just say I don't want nobody around.
What are your steps and how long does it take?"
Ms. Moermond "If you say that you don't want anybody on the property and there's been a
finding—the Deparhnent would apply for, and 99.9% of the time, get an administrative search
warrant to check on all ofthese things. So it is not the same as a criminal search warrant, iYs an
administrarive one connected to fire inspections so they still would be able to get access as long as
this is an occupied property in this program."
Mr. Mulvihill. "IYs frustrating. Another thing, my front porch had a couple of things. Isabell said
`I want this room spotlessly clean.' I said why. He said `fire escape.' You walk in the door. You
got 8'4" and then another doar for the front. Now why do we got to have that room clean. I
mean,or you don't know the rules, maybe. This guy, I mean, I suppose he's the only inspector I got
to deal with, too?" Ms. Moermond said this was the only inspector.
Mr. Mulvihill said he wasn't here to "badmouth him, but he's not a very nice man, at all."
Ms. Moermond "The clear path to egress is pretty straightforward. Like if there's pile of stuf£ .."
Mr. Mulvihill "Even on the walls, he was being unreasonable."
Ms. Moermond "Next time, take a photo, do an appeal."
Mr. Mulvihill `But he didn't write anything up. Pll have the screens done by the 15` When I get
the bili, if I want to appeal it, I'll appeal it. Are you going to set up an inspection for the 15�'"�
10-219
January 5, 2010 Property Code Minutes
Ms. Moermond said she was not .
Page 10
Ms Shaff said she had spoken to Mr. Mulvihill on the phone. Ms. Shaff stated, "Typically, like
screens, iYs an on or after date" Ms. Moermond advised Mr. Mulvihill that she did not handle
personal complaints, but that the City has a venue for filing complaints. She said that Ms. Shaff is
the contact for filin� complaints against inspectors.
Mr. Mulvihill "No, I just want to get through the inspection. Thank you very much."
Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting an extension until April 15, 2010 for
compliance on the window screens; grant a 2-inch variance on the openable height of the egress
bedroom windows throughout the unit.
4. Appeal of Michael Healey to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 841
Burr Street.
Michael Healey, Appellant, appeared.
Ms. Moermond said "You have a question about bedbugs and mice. So Pm going to start over here
and find out a little bit more about the crittexs. Then P 11 find out more about the appeal. What do
we have on this?"
Ms. Shaff said "This is a referral without inspection from December 10, 2009 by Inspector Michael
Urmann and he required Mr. Healey to exterminate and control the insects, rodents or other pests
that they were told that was on a complaint and gave him until December 30, 2009."
Ms. Moermond asked if it was a normal practice to issue an exterminate order without inspection
and Ms. Shaff replied, "Yes. A lot of times we don't see, or we can't see, bedbugs a lot of times.
Sometimes roaches. Or we may see evidence."
Mr. Healey said there are two tenants in the building. He asked them if they experienced problems
and they told him they had no issues. He asked them to put that in writing, which they did, and he
had original statements. He said he is always up-to-date on his tenants' maintenance requests. They
advised him there were no problems.
Ms. Moermond reviewed Mr. Healey's documents and noted that there were six units. Mr. Healey
responded currently he only had two tenants.
Ms. Moermond asked if the other units were empty. Mr. Healey said they were being fixed up and
two would be ready to rent soon. The other two are being more extensively remodeled."
Ms. Moermond noted that possibly past tenants had left items behind. Mr. Healey said that every
unit was completely empty and he did not have mice or critters.
Ms. Moermond said she would grant an appeal. She stated that if the City had to send him another
letter, she would advise thaY he hire an exterminator.
10-219
January 5, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 11
5. Appeal of Walter and Renee Schoumaker to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for
property at 7 Sandralee Drive East. (Appeal not timely filed and can only appeal windows)
Walter Schoumaker, appellant, appeared.
Mr. Schoumaker stated he knew the Code and knew he had to get up to Code. He said that the
building is a 1960 rambler-style, with California-style awning windows. He had a question about
State Fire Code. He said it stated that if building is sprinklered, then egress windows are not
needed.
Ms. Shaff stated the entire building must be sprinklered. "Not just, see a lot of residential homes
where it may just be the basement or over the hazard, but yes the Fire Code does give an exception
for sprinklers." Mr. Schoumaker "Yes, because he did want me to check with the City to make sure
that this Code was still ..."
Ms. Shaff "Absolutely it is. They're not required above the 3 Td floor. We still do require window
screens for light and ventilation."
Mr. Schoumaker said that the problem was that this is a 1960 home with a stucco exterior and
plaster interior. He said the costs of installing new windows would be tremendous, about $2,000 a
window and he has four bedrooms, two on each side.
Ms. Shaff asked if he was seriously considering sprinklering the home. Mr. Schoumaker said he
was trying to weigh it out, but he didn't have the time because the inspection was due. He was
trying to weigh out if it is better to sprinkler it or do the construction.
Ms. Shaff said, "We love sprinklers. IYs like having a fire fighter in your house." Mr. Schoumaker
said, "Yes, I know. To me, thaYs the way to go. If I build a new house."
Ms. Moermond asked if she could find out more about the dimensions because Item 6 was unclear
to her. Ms. Shaff stated "Fourteen inches openable height and 42" in width."
Ms. Moermond asked what was the openable 29" glazed, was that that a height dimension for the
glazed area? Ms. Shaff responded that it was glazed area, the glazed height She said they were
pretty good-size windows.
Mr. Schoumaker said that they were off about 1 P' in one direction and that they did not meet the
Code.
Ms. Moermond told Mr. Schoumaker that he may be able to get by with the replacement window if
he had a variance. "Where I'm at, you could potentially have. If it's 29" in glazed height, right?"
Mr. Shoumaker stated he thought it was 24 and Ms. Moermond told him that was the legal
requirement, but she said, "You have a window that opens like this, right?"
Mr. Schoumaker said, "Yes. The dimension this way is 29" and glass, but they're only going to
count this opening here, which is 14."
io-zi9
January 5, 2010 Property Code Minutes
Page 12
Mr. Schoumaker said it could be a bigger opening if the mechanism was disabled and the window
swung wide open. He said he would much rather have it user-friendly.
Ms. Moermond asked if he had talked about replacing the windows. Mr. Schoumaker said he had
not. He said the home has been in his wife's family and for the last eleven years it was in he and his
wife's name. He said this was the first time they have had an inspection, so the process was new to
them. He said they had owner-occupied it for awhile and never had to worry about that portion of
it. He said things changed this year and everything had been thrown to them all at once. He said
the home was in immaculate condition and that the report was pretty minimal.
Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Schoumaker if he was willing to consider replacing the windows. He.
Schoumaker responded that they were interested, but they would like more time to weigh out if it
made more sense to put the windows in, or more sense to put the sprinkler system in. He said the
HVAC system was working perfectly. He said they found Code issues with the chimney, with
some of the venting that has to be repaised. "Twenty years ago it was fine, but up to today's
standards it's outdated." Mr. Schoumaker said that would be another big expense for them.
Ms. Moermond asked if he'd thought about what deadlines he could work with financially. He said
he thought it was reasonable to get everything up to code in a year.
Ms. Moermond said "How about not a year and maybe for the whole thing that you give me some
deadlines before then, like Pll have this done in 90 days. PIl have this done in 120 days. I don't
want to come to day 360 and find that `I don't have it done yet.'
Mr. Schoumaker said he would like to address the HVAC issues first. He said that was the most
important and that after the winter season, he would look at new windows or a sprinkling system.
Mr. Schoumaker said he would get estimates for the windows and if it made more sense to sprinkle,
they could start work right away.
Ms. Shaff requested a shorter time far getting estimates. Mr. Schoumaker stated everything was
done on the list, with the exception of the repair work that needed to be done on the windows.
Ms. Moermond said that if she took the HVAC and the windows, she would like to tell the Council
that they can have a deadline of January 30, 2010 to finish the balance. Mr. Schoumaker said they
could come out and inspect everything, with the exception of the HVAC and the window,
everything else had been repaired.
Ms. Moermond said she would still give him until the end of January and that an inspection could
be scheduled February 1, 2010, or after. Ms. Moermond lefr it up to Mr. Schoumaker to evaluate
which issue, HVAC or windows, he would address in 90 days. And windows, let's say, can you do
an evaluation of which one you're going to do in 90 days
Mr. Schoumaker said that with the existing openings, they may be able to customize a window to
fit, so they would meet that dimension. Ms. Moermond asked him to let her office know and she
asked Ms. Shaff what the Deparhnent would look for.
Ms. Shaff said that she didn't know what was found. "This is new to me. Let me remind us all in
this room that we almost had a death last week--2 deaths—from a malfunctioning system."
10-219
January 5, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 13
Mr. Schoumaker replied that he has smoke detectors and cazbon monoxide detectors on both sides
of the house: ' Mr. Schoumaker asked Ms. Shaff if she had received inspection report from the
contractor. She did not have it. She advised Mr. Schoumaker that he should always have the report
because he was the customer.
Mr. Schoumaker said his contractor had prepared a printout and told him the furnace was fully
functional and everything was operating correctly. He stated he wasn't surprised because he keeps
it neat and clean. The chimney surprised him. Ms. Shaff asked if it was because he had a new liner
in it and he said "Yes." The contractor told him, just by hearsay, hadn't done a visual, but given the
age, the chimney was due for a liner.
Ms. Shaff said she'd like that handled as quickly as possible, especially with houses buttoned up.
He responded that he would have the work done as soon as possible after he received several
estimates.
Ms. Moermond asked what kind of deadline was he looking for. Mr. Schoumaker. He said that a�
soon as he connected with the contractor and received the report. He said he would also contact
three other contractors. He thought he should have the bids back within two weeks and that work
could be started immediately.
Ms. Moermond said she would make all deadlines one week out further, February 5, 2010, except
for the windows. "All the other items, February 5. Windows will go 90 days, windows or
sprinkling."
Mr. Schoumaker said he would contact the office.
On January 29, 2010, Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting a 9-month
extension for the egress windows to come into compliance.
Appeal of Chris Sauro to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 640
Victoria Street North. (Rescheduled from Dec. 22)
Chris Sauro, appellant, appeared with Jim Reiter
Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Shaff for a staff report. Ms. Shaff reported that a Fire C of O Inspection,
conducted by Inspector Imbertson, found the first floor of the rear bedroom had existing double
hung windows, measuring 18 '/z " high by 29" wide. On the 2° floor, there were also existing
double hung windows, 16 '/�" high by 19" wide. She said they fell short a little bit on the 2" floor
and that the Code required five square feet of total glazed area. This had 4.62."
Mr. Reiter addressed Ms. Moermond and said that they were looking at Items 1 and 2. He said they
would like to "get a pass on those two things, but we'd agree to do the rest of the work and most of
the work has already been performed."
Ms. Moermond said. "Number 1?" and Mr. Reiter said the first floor has two bedrooms and #2 is
the second floor bedroom. Mr. Reiter stated that Mr. Sauro had been unaware that he had to pull a
permit.
10-219
January 5, 2010 Property Code Minutes
Page 14
Ms Moermond asked Mr. Reiter if he had a different list because her #2 was listed as a handrail.
Mr. Reiter said he was referring to a December 4, 2009 letter. Ms. Moermond said that the
November 9, 2009 letter was attached to their appeal. Ms. Moermond asked if there were more
concerns. Mr. Reiter stated that Mr. Sauro has owned the property, or his family has owned this
property, for over eighty years. He said Mr. Sauro's son has homesteaded the property as a relative.
Mr. Reiter asked Ms. Moermond if she would consider removing Mr. Sauro from the C of O
Program.
Ms. Moermond asked who lived at 640 Victoria Street N. Mr. Sauro responded that his son, Chris,
has lived at 640 Victoria Street N. for 18-20 years. Ms. Moermond noted that this property had
been before her before. She recalled that there had been a fair number of problems associated with
this property.
Mr. Sauro agreed with her, but he said the problems had been corrected a couple of years ago.
commented,.
Ms. Moermond said she would like to discuss the windows. Ms. Shaff responded that they wanted
to addxess #14 on the list tbe December 4 list, and #32 on the other list. She noted that it said
`Final Attempt' on the December 4 list.
Mr. Reiter stated that Mr. Sauro has had health problems and had recently been hospitalized and
had surgery. Mr. Reiter said he had spoken to Inspector Imbretson and asked for an extension. Mr.
Reiter said that most of the things in the original letter had been completed—the fumace, the
electrical, the gate in the back, a number of other little things.
Ms. Moermond said she would recommend that the Council grant a variance on the window
dimensions for the first floor bedroom where the openable area is 18.5" high and 29" wide. She
said she would not recommend that the Council grant a variance on the second floor windows
where the openable dimensions are 16 '/z" high by 19" wide.
Mr. Reiter stated that that window had been replaced. Mr. Sauro said he owned the house, which is
eighty years old. He said the windows were the original windows and he needed to replace them.
He has been pricing windows and says they are expensive. He said Menards had windows on sale
and that his son's friend installed all the new windows, except the upstairs window. He said, "We
had a bigger one. And it's a bigger one, whatever Mitchell required, whatever iYs supposed to be.
And then I just replaced all the windows and the original windows in the house, though iYs the
same size."
Ms. Shaff asked if they had pulled a permit and he said he had not. He said people buy things all of
the time and have friends or relatives doing the work on the side. He didn't think of a permit at the
time. His son's friend was out of work. It was cheaper for him and he had a bigger one put in
upstairs. He said that when Champion was over, they said the bathroom window had to be a certain
type of window that wouldn't break. He had that type put in. He said he had a larger window put
in upstairs. Mr. Sauro said Mitch Imbretson told him it had to be a certain size and the window that
was up there was only 18" by 19," and it was just an air window. He said his son sleeps upstairs, so
he had the bigger one installed. He said now he has been advised it is the wrong window and the
ones in the other bedrooms are regular size. He said he has had them replaced and now has been
told he should have bigger windows. He said he cannot afford them, he's 80 years old, still working
January 5, 2Q10 Property Code Minutes
10-219
Page 15
and trying to make ends meet. He said his home is in reverse mortgage and he had to borrow
almost $3,000 to put the windows in. He said he had a heating contractor check out his furnace and
was advised there were some elechical problems. He said most of the problems have been
corrected. He said the house is old and they al] had two plugs. He said he would get an electrician
to put in regular plus and three-prong plugs in and ground them. He said the situation is upsetting,
and he is just getting over his surgical issues. He said he does not claim anything, except the taxes
on the house, which he pays. He stated he wanted to get the issue settled and is concerned about
the `Condemned House' sign on his home.
Ms. Moermond stated, "I'm going to say you get the window, but the rest of the orders stand. And
you don't get the other window, but it sounds like you've got that taken care of. Go back and get
the permit so we'll be good. Obviously, some of the other corrections, some of them will require
permit and you'll take care of that, and that's great. The last piece was whether or not this should
be in the Fire C of O program and I would recommend that the Council treat this more like a rental
property than an owner-occupied property. That seems to be the way it functions more. I know iYs
your son. Mr. Sauro objected. He said it was not rental property and that his son has been there 18-
20 yeazs and he was supposed to pay him $300 a month. His son paid him one month and injured
himself at work and has not worked since. Friends live with his son and half of them do not work.
Mr. Sauro insisted it is not rental property. It's homesteaded. Mr. Reiter interjected that the son
currently lived there alone.
Grant a 2-inch variance on the openable height of the egress replacement windows in the first floor
two bedrooms. Grant a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress replacement window in
the second floor bedrooms.
Submitted by:
Darlyne Morrow