Loading...
10-268Council File # 0' (li Green Sheet # 3100936 RESOLUTION `� CITY,�Fj,, �AINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented by 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the February 2 9, 2010 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals of Letters, Certificate of Occupancy 3 Deficiency Lists and Denial of Building Permits to Replace Egress Windows for the following addresses: 4 5 Proaertv Appealed Appellant 6 7 529 Portland Avenue William Uhlenkott 8 9 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant a nine-month extension to come into compliance; a step will need to 10 be permanently affixed below the window designated for egress to bring sill height into compliance. 11 12 2325 Endicott Street Sandra Jacob, Warehouse Rentals LLP 13 14 Decision: Grant a variance on the exposed paperback insulation, as long as there were no alterations to the 15 sprinkler system and the building use and/or ownership did not change. 16 17 638 Bidwell Avenue Jeffery Kaufmann, Lampert Bxteriors 18 19 Decision: Grant a variance for the three windows already installed. 20 21 1428 Hoyt Avenue East Patrick Hoy, Window World 22 23 Decision: Deny the appeal. 24 25 896 Rose Avenue East. Robert Koehnen 26 27 Decision: Deny the appeal. 28 �a-��S 29 Requested by Deparhnent of: � Form Approved by City Attorney By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: Approved by the Office of Financial Services � Adoption CertiBed by Council - ecretary B , � - Approj 11v or at J� ZtlGa l By: � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � �4'�C�� ' DepaRmenUOffice/Council; ' Date Initiated: ' c o_CouncO o I Green Sheet NO: 3100936 ' ConWd Person 8 Pfione � �� Department Sent To Person Initial/�ate '� , Marcia Moermond ; � ' o coun�u , 1 'Council Deparhnen[ DireMOr , Assign ' 2 Ciri Clerk City Clerk � �� Must Be on Council Agenda by (Oate): ; Number � � � For 3 i ' Routing , 4 I i �� Doa Type: RESOLUTIQN '� Order 'I 5' ' � i E-DOCUmentRequired: Y Dxument Contact: ConWCt Phone: ToWI # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signatule) Resolution approving the February 9, 2010 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officec for Appeals of Letters, Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency Lists and Denia] of Building Permits to Replace Egress Windows for the following: 529 Portland Avenue, 2325 Endicott Street, 638 Bidwell Avenue, 1428 Hoy[ Avenue East, and 896 Rose Avenue East. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Planning Commission CIB Committee Crvil Service Commission Pefsonal Service Contrects Must Answer the Following Questions: 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department� Yes PJo 2. Has this personffirm 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 ail yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: Oisadvantages If Approved: Oisativantages If Not Approved: ToWI Amount of Transattion: Funding Source: Financial lnformafion: (Explain) CosURevenue Budgeted: Activity Number: March 4, 2010 1:02 PM Page 1 la-��� MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATNE HEARING OFFICER ON APPEALS OF LETTERS OF DEFTCIENCY, VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION NOTICES & FEES, AND DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMITS Tuesday, February 9, 2010 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 1:40 pm. STAFF PRESENT: Leanna Shaff, Deparhnent of Safety and Inspections (DSI) — Fire; Ken Eggers, DSI — Building Inspections; Steve Ubl, DSI — Building Tnspections; Amy Spong, PED — HPC; and Mai Vang, City Council Offices 1. Appeal of William Uhlenkott to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 529 Portland Avenue. (continued from Dea 22) Appellant Bill IJhlenkott (529 Portland Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55102) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that the appellant was to have provided photographs showing the sill height measurement. Mr, iJhlenkott said he contacted Ms. Moermond's office and lefr a message requesting an agenda but had not xeceived a call back. Mai V ang pxovided a copy of the letter sent to Mr. IJhlenkott on Januazy 29 notifying him of the appeal and asking that the photos be provided. Ms. Moermond reviewed the photographs provided by Mr. Uhlenkott showing the type and configuration of the three windows and listing dimensions. Ms. Moermond asked where the windows exited to. Mr, Uhlenkott said they exited to the roof. Ms. Moermond asked what he recalled about earlier actions by the Property Code Board of Appeals. She referred to letter in the file regarding a permanent variance granted on November 18, 1980 allowing occupancy of the cellar unit. Mr. Uhlenkott said the variance was granted at about the same time the windows were requared. Ms. Moermond said the variance applied to Yhe cellar unit but not the windows, and that a different style of window would have to be installed. She said the opening was adequate to support a window that would meet code, and that only one code-compliant window was required in the room. Ms. Shaff asked whether the windows faced the front of the house. Mr. iJhlenkott responded that they were on the side. Ms. Spong reviewed the photographs. She and Ms. Moermond discussed the type of window that would be acceptable. Ms. Spong gave Mr. Uhlenkott an application for replacing windows on a house in a historic district and offered to provide information about the types windows that would meet code and satisfy HPC requirements. Ms. Moermond stated that the current openable height of the window was 12 inches and the openable �vidth was more than adequate. She recommended denying the appeal and granting a February 9, 2010 Property Code Minutes , l Q �g Page 2 nine-month extension to allow time for Mx. Uhlenkott to work with the HPC and arrange financing. Ms. Spong reiterated the need to submit an application. Mai Vang noted that there was still an issue with sill height. Ms. Moermond said a step should be permanently affixed below the window designated for egress to bring sill heijht into compliance. 2. Appeal of Sandra Jacob, Warehouse Rentals LLP, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List fox property at 2325 Endicott Street. 7im McCann and Jack McCann (2380 Wycliff Street, St. Paul, MN 55114) appeared on behalf of the appellant. Ms. Shaff stated that Inspector Neis had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O on December 23, 2009 and reported exposed paperface insulation throughout the building. She said that, per the manufacturer's label, the insulation should not be left exposed. She referred to an e-mail from Assistant Fire Marshal Owens indicating that covering the exposed insulation would require alteration of the fire sprinkler system, and that the limited exposure of the insulation did not present any additional hazazd beyond the wood construction of the building. Ms. Moermond confirmed with the McCanns that they had had a conversation to that affect with Mr. Owens. She recommended granting a variance on the exposed paperback insulation, as long as thexe were no altexations to the sprinkler system and the building use andlar ownership did not change. 3. Appeal of Jeffery Kaufinann, Lampert Exteriors, to the Denial of a Building Permit to replace egress windows for property at 638 Bidwell Avenue. Appellant Jeff Kaufinann (9220 Hudson Boulevard, Lake Elmo, MI� and Patty Scarrella, property owner appeared. Ms. Shaff said the appeal concerned three double-hung windows: two with openable dimensions of 1425 inches high by 28.75 inches wide, and one with openable dimensions of 17.75 inches high by 28.75 inches wide. Ms. Moermond stated that she would recommend a variance for the window measuring 17.75 inches high by 28.75 inches wide, but not the two measuring 14.25 inches in openable height. Mr, Kaufinann stated that they were insert windows and the largest of that style thaY would fit into the existing opening. He said that complied with Minnesota Code but he wasn't sure whether St. Paul code differed. He said it was his understanding that a window qualified if it was the same as the one it replaced. Ms. Moermond clarified that the St. Paul Code was the Minnesota Code, but the windows were being enforced under the Fire Code. She asked whether the house was owner-occupied. Mr. Kaufmann said it was. Ms. Moermond said the building code differentiated between owner- occupied and rental property, but the Fire Code did not distinguish. Februazy 9, 2010 Property Code Minutes (� ���CJ Page 3 � � Ms. Moermond asked whether installing a casement window was a possibility. Mr. Kaufinann said it was possible but would add additional cost. Ms. Moermond asked whether the double-hung windows had already been installed Mr. Kaufinann said they had. Ms. Moermond asked how it had happened that the windows were installed while the appeal was still pending. Mr. Kaufinann said there had apparently been a misunderstanding. He said both of the windows were in the same bedroom and it was his understanding that only one window needed to be changed. He said he had pulled a permit and had never encountered problems before when he replaced double-hung windows with the same. Ms. Shaff noted that the permit issued was an express permit. Ms. Moermond said the windows would probably have to be changed out. Mr. Kaufinann asked Ms. Moermond what information she needed from him. Ms. Moermond asked for records of permit applications. She said she would also be looking for more information from within DSI about when the permit was applied for, why it was granted and the information that was provided ar available to Mr. Kaufinann about expectations. Ms. 5haff read the specificarions printed on the online copy of the express permit and said the requirements wexe quite apparent. Mr. Kaufinann gave Ms. Moermond a copy of his permit and said that it was not clear from the wording on the permit whether the requirements referenced applied to the type of insert they had installed. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Ubl to clarify the definitions of "complete window xemova]" and "pocket or insert." Mr. Ubl stated Yhat his understanding was that installing an insert involved removal of the weights and sashes and installing new sashes and jams, and that full replacement involved removal of the entire existing box. Mr. Kauftnann stated that the new windows had been inserted into the existing frame. Ms. Shaff stated that was a pocket or insert window. Ms. Moermond asked for a staff recommendation. Mr. Ubl stated that, based on his conversation with the building official, the window would need to comply with current policy. Ms. Moermond asked how the situation had ultimately been caught. Mr. Ubl responded that Inspectar Kenyon had conducted the final inspection. He said he didn't know what had happened to allow it to get through express permits, but that procedures had changed since then to prevent it from happening again. Ms. Scarrella stated that there were still two windows to be replaced. Ms. Moermond said that a different style of window would have to be installed. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a variance far the three windows already installed because she didn't feel the requirements were adequately described in the permit application. She said she hoped a code-compliant window would be put in. She said correct and complete information had certainly been available elsewhere. 4. Appeal of Patrick Hoy, Window World, to the Denial of a Building Permit to replace egress windows far property at 1428 Hoyt Avenue East. No one appeared. Ms. Shaff said the permit stated clearly that the windows must meet ne�v egress window policy. Ms. Moermond recommended that the appeal be denied. February 9, 2010 Property Code Minutes �b �-� �g Page 4 6. Appeal of Robert Koehnen to a Code Compliance Inspection Report for property at 896 Rose Avenue East. Appellant Robert Koehnen (2232 107` Avenue, Baldwin, WI 54002) appeared. Ms. Moermond explained the process to Mr. Koehnen and clarified that her role was limited to issues involving process and timing, and not those involving the specific items on the inspection report. Mr. Eggers stated that he inspected the building and the conditions he found included no concrete floor in the basement, large amounts of loose insulation against the stone foundation, and deteriorated 2 x 4 four posts. Photographs were reviewed. Mr. Eggers continued to describe the specific conditions found at the property: the basement and the way the loose insulation could act as deterrent and create a condensate area; the siding and window permits had been pulled in 2006 and 2007 but there had been no final inspections; there were large amounts of building materials being stored in the garage and crawlspace; and the biggest issue was the 2 x 4 posts for the floor system. He also noted that the condition of the garage and said it was "out of plumb." Ms. Moermond noted the evidence of moisture in the basement. Mr. Koehnen stated that he purchased the house in October 2009 and that the property had been in foreclosure. He said he had evicted the tenants and his intention was to fix the house up so his son could reside there while attending school. He said he learned of the vacant building status after he purchased the house when he tried to obtain permits. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Koehnen whether he had been provided with a Truth-in-Sale-of-Housing report. Mr. Koehnen responded that he had not. Ms. Moermond clarified that it had been incumbent on the seller to provide that information. Mr. Koehnen said he had been gathering information about the property and was familiar the status and history now. He said he had filed the appeal to buy more time, and hoped to be able do the work himself rather than hiring a licensed contractor. He said he was a licensed boiler operator and had 20 years of building services experience. Mr. Eggers stated that as an owner-occupant, Mr. Koehnen could do all of the work himself except for the plumbing. Mr. Koehnen said he was told the work had to be done by a licensed contractor. Ms. Shaff noted that Mr. Koehnen lived in Wisconsin. Mr. Ubl said that Mr. Koehnen's son would be living there, and he wasn't sure how that might play into the owner-occupant status_ Ms. Moermond said the house could not be considered occupied yet because of the status of the electrical service. Mr. Koehnen stated that the permit issued was for $25,000 and his understanding was that it did not include pluinbing and electrical. Based on that assumption, he said he estimated the total cost to be $50,000 to $60,000 which was more than he could afford. Mr. Eggers stated that the $25,000 Building permit was standard and included everything. Mr. Koehnen asked whether there was any way to have the vacant building status changed from Category 2 to Category L Ms. Moermond said the structure fit the definition of Category 2 in having major building code violations and the status could not be changed. February 9, 2010 Property Code Minutes � a: a�, g Page 5 Mr. Eggers said the siding and windows were done, and the soffit and fascia were fine, but the garage was in bad shape. Mr. Koehnen asked whether he would be better off tearing the garage down. Ms. Moermond asked what condition the pad was in. Mr. Eggers said there was no pad and would still need to have a parking surface. Ms. Shaff said a concrete slab could be put in. Ms. Moermond said demolition costs for removing a garage run in the �2,000 to $4,000 range. She said a concrete or asphalt parking surFace would be required, although there might be an exception if the pazking surface abutted a gravel alley. Ms. Shaff noted that a site plan review would be required. Mr. Eggers asked Mr. Koehnen whether he would like to meet on site to go over exactly what was needed. Mr. Koehnen said he was. Ms. Moermond said one question outstanding was whether Mr. Koehnen could do the electrical himself. Mr. Koehnen said two family members were licensed electricians; he asked whether they could pull permits for him. Ms. Moermond said they could. Ms. Moermond stated that if Mr. Koehnen's son resided in the house it would be considered rental property and a C of O would be required. A C of O would cover the same things but she didn't know how the permit department would treat the property. Mr. Ubl asked Mr. Koehnen whether he received any bids for the work. Mr. Koehnen said he had not had a chance yet. Ms. Moermond asked who had handled the sale. Mr. Koehnen said it had been a quit-claim and he warked directly with the seller. Ms. Moermond said it had been the seller's responsibility to disclose the registered Vacant Building status and requirements. Mr. Koehnen stated that the seller's side of the stozy was that she had talked to a"Steve" in DSI and had been told that the house was not vacant and had renters and that "Steve" would "take care of it." Ms. Shaff noted that the electrical service had been shut of£ Ms Moermond and Mr. Koehnen said it appeared that it had been shut off more than once. Ms. Moermond said the Vacant Building file had been opened on July 20, 2009 and the seller's conclusion about the property's status was not consistent with that of city staff. She said Mr. Koehnen could expect to receive a bill far the vacant building fee in July. Mr. Koehnen said the first year had already been assessed to property taxes. Ms. Moermond said the fee should have been paid at closing. She stated that if he was close to completing the work by the time the next fee was assessed to the property tases he could appeal to have it prarated or deleted. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal. Mr. Eggers will work with the appellant to develop a work plan. December 22, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes / �,� �� Page 9 ! 4. Appeal of William LThlenkott to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 529 Portland Avenue. Ms. Shaff said an inspection was conducted on November 19, 2009 by Inspector Mitchell Imbertson. He found the existing double hung windows in the bedroom of the third floor unit has an openable area of 12 inches high by 54 inches wide. Mr. LJhlenkott said in 1979 and 19&0 there was a variance and the basement window had to be lowered and the first floor windows had to be made as break-away windows. The inspector had said those windows were not in compliance. The building was purchased as a duplex in 1977 and now iYs a 4-plex. Ms. Moermond responded that the overall amount of glass is suff'icient but the problem is with the shape of it. The codes in the late 70s and early 80s would have changed on egress windows. Ms. Shaff added the code has been the same for many years. Ms. Moermond requested that DSI staff look for records on this property from the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Planning Commission, or the Properry Code Board of Appeals. Ms. Spong stated that she had no record of windows being approved since the establishment of the Historic District. Ms. Moermond's recommendation is forthcoming. She requested the appellant provide photos of sill height measurement for her and Ms. Spong's review. The matter was laid over for one month. Ms. Spong stated that depending on what is decided, the appellant may or may not need a building permit to make the changes.