Loading...
10-305Council File # 10-3�5 Green Sheet # 3102$76 Piesented by RESOLUTION CITY OF �AINT PAllL, MINNESOTA � 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the February 2 16, 2010 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals of Letters, Certificate of Occupancy 3 Deficiency Lists and Denial ofBuilding Permits to Replace Egress Windows for the following addresses: 4 5 PropertY Apaealed Aapellant 6 7 1731 Selby Avenue Jay Reiling 8 9 Decasion: Deny the appeal on the awning-style windows and grant a six-month extension to bring the 10 windows into compliance; grant a 3-inch variance on openable height of the double-hung egress bedroom 11 windows on the condition the permit is pulled and finalized within 30 days. 12 13 168 Wvoming Street David Keller and Carla Brown 14 15 Decision: Deny the appeal on the window. 16 17 849 Geranium Avenue East Jeff Beissel, Beissel Window & Siding 18 19 Decision: Deny the appeal. 20 21 646 Thomas Avenue Quality Residences LLC 22 23 Deeision: The vacant building fee must be paid; however the building may remain a Category 1 for 30 24 days. If the C of O is not issued within 30 days, the building will revert to a Category 2 vacant building 25 and a code compliance inspection will be required. z6 Bostrom Carter Harris Thune AdoptedbyCouncil: Date Yeas Absent Requested by Depariment of. ✓ ✓ Adoption Certified by Counc' ecretary BY L� � � ��-�d �! Approved�iby.iot�}��Dare � � 7/p / / By: y�Y%V � Form Approved by City Attorney By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council BY Approved by the Office of Financial Services � 10-3 � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � DepartmentlOffice/Councii: Date Initiatetl: �o-�°°°°�� ,,,�R2o,o Green Sheet NO: 3102876 Contact Person & Phone: . Oeoartment Sent To Person lnRiaUUate Marcia Moermond � � o nnn�a �� i oonc� De artmentDirector �� 2 ' Clerk GS Clerk Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 3 � Routing 4 �� Doc. Type: RESOLUTfO1J Order 5 E-Documenc Required: Y Document Contact: Contact Pho�: �' Total fF of Signature Pages, (Clip All Locations For Signature) AGtion Requested: Resolution approving the February 16, Z010 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals of Letters, C of O Deficiency Lists and Denial of Building Permits to Replace Egress Windows for the following: 1731 Selby Avenue, 168 Wyoming Street, 849 Geranium Avenue East, and 646 Thomas Avenue. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Gommission 1'Nas this personlfirm ever worked under a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2 Nas ihis person�firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current ciry employee? Yes No Explain ail yes answers on separote sheet and attach to green sheet. lnitiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Approved: . DisadvanWges If Not Approved: Total Amount of CosURevenue Budgetetl: Trensaction: Funding Source Activity Number: Financiai Information: (Explain) March 17, 2010 10:11 AM - Page 1 10-305 MINCTTES OF THE LEGISLATNE HEARING OFFICER ON APPEALS OF LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION NOTICES & FEES, AND DENIAL OF BUILDING PEKMITS Tuesday, February 16, 2010 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 1:35 pm. STAFF PRESENT: Leanna Shaff, Department of Safety and Inspecfions (DSI) — Fire; Matt Dornfeld, DSI — Code Enforcement; Mai Vang, City Council Offices Appeal of Jay Reiling to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1731 Selbv Avenue. Appellant 7ay Reiling (P. O. Box 270931, St. Pau155127) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated Inspector Skow-Fiske had conducted a C of O inspection on February 3, 2010 and reported that the openable dimensions of the upper level awning—type windows were 24 inches high by 15.5 inches wide, and the lower level double-hung windows were 22 inches high by 40 inches wide. She said the double-hung windows were installed without a permit. Ms. Moermond asked whether there were two windows being appealed. Mr. Reiling said there were four idenrical windows and they were on the upper level, not the lower level. He said the awning windows were on the lower level. The original windows looked like double-hung windows but were awning-style windows, and the lower sash tilted in to create a maximum opening of 24 inches high by 40 inches wide. He said the inspector had advised him to appeal, but he was ordered to bring the awning windows into compliance and was given six months to do so. He stated that he had replaced the upstairs windows himself, but on re-inspection, it was found that the openable height was not adequate. He said the windows were easily removable with two latches. He provided photographs of the building and windows which were reviewed. Ms. Moermond said she was fine with a variance for the windows that were 22 inches in openable height but not with the work having been done without a permit. She asked Mr. Reiling why he had not pulled a permit far the work. Mr. Reiling said he initially tried modifying the awning windows rather than replacing them and had then faced time constraints in ordering and replacing the windows. He didn't really think about getting a permit because he knew how to replace a window and do it to code. Ms. Moermond said he would have to pull a permit and have the work inspected, and that he probably would ha�e to pay double the usual fee. The other windows with an openable width of 15.5 inches concerned her more. Mr. Reiling said those measurement were inaccurate. Ms. Moermond, Ms. Shaff and Mr. Reiling discussed the configuration of the window and placement of the hardware, and how that affected the way the openable space was measured. Mr. Reiling said the hardware for the window wasn't operational. February 16, 2010 Property Code Minutes 10-305 Page 2 Ms. Moermond asked to see photographs of the windows with a measuring tape showing the window dimensions. She said she wouid allow 90 days to change the windows if her decision was to deny the appeal. She granted 30 days for having the peimit signed off: Mr. Reiling clarified that there was only one egress window on the main floor and he would provide a photograph of that window. On Mazch 12, 2010, Ms. Moermond reviewed the photographs provided by Mr. Reiling and recommended denying the appeal on the awning-style windows and granring a six-month extension to bring the windows into compliance. She recommended granting a 3-inch variance on openable height of the double-hung egress bedroom windows on the condition the petmit is pulled and finalized within 30 days. 2. Appeal of David Keller and Carla Brown to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 168 Wvoming Street. Appellant Carla Brown (17375 Jersey Way, Lakeville, MN 55044) appeared. Ms. Moermond reviewed the appeal; she asked how many bedrooms were in the house. Ms. Brown said there were three, not including the upper level. She said the upper floor was finished and optimum for a bedroom except for the window size and the inspector had suggested that they appeal. Ms. Moermond asked for a description of the windows. Ms. Brown said there were three double- hung windows with an openable heigJit of l 8.5 inches. Ms. Moermond read from the report that the openable width was 22 inches. She stated that for windows that many inches short of the height requirement, she liked to have two extra inches in width far every inch of height shortfall, and this had not been met in this case. She suggested that Ms. Brown consider a different style of window. Ms. Moermond asked about the ceiling height. Ms. Brown said the height was 7 feet at the peak, but was pitched. Ms. Moermond asked what proportion of the ceiling area was 7 feet high. Ms. Brown said it was a third to a hal£ Ms. Shaff said it would need to be measured to confirm that it met the requirement. Ms. Shaff asked whether there was a C of O yet. Ms. Brown said there had been four building inspectors but she didn't think there had been a Fire C of O inspection. Ms. Shaff asked whether it was a registered vacant building. Ms. Brown said it was. Ms. Moermond said she would deny the appeal on the window. Appeal of 7eff Beissel, Beissel Windaw & Siding, to the denial of a building permit to replace egress windows for property at 849 Geranium Avenue East. No one appeared. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal. 10-305 February 16, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 3 5. Appeal of Quality Residences LLC to a Vacant Building Registration Norice and Fee for property at 646 Thomas Avenue. Appellant Mark Kneer (923 Payne Avenue, St. Pau155130) appeared. Mr. Dornfeld stated that the property had been condemned by Inspector Fish on January 12, 2010 with 30 deficiencies, and referred to vacant buildings. A reinspection report stated that the house was illegally occupied by unruly tenants, and that the owner was aware of the situation and was attempting to remove the tenants. The tenants were eventually removed with the help of the police. The vacant building file was opened on January 20, 2010. Ms. Shaff stated that the C of O file was opened on November 5, 2009 because of police issues. She said there were inspections on November 19, December 1�, January 13 and January 28, and the last report listed 23 deficiencies. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Kneer what he was looking for in the appeal. Mr. Kneer stated that he didn't think the property should be a Category 2 vacant building. He said he worked with Inspector Fish to remove the tenants but had received death threats and wasn't able to go to the property unfil he got help in getting the tenants removed. He said that St. Paul police didn't notify property owners of police calls, and he first learned of the problems at the property on October 26. He said he pulled a police report and filed an unlawful detainer that same day. He described some of the crimes committed by the tenazit's family and kris attempts to get help from the city. He stated that the tenant considered herself to be a victim and had access to free legal service which made it difficult to evict her; he said he had been through similar experiences at other properties and it was expensive. He provided copies of the lease, police reports and the unlawful detainers. He said 644 Thomas was occupied and had passed the Secfion 8 requirements. Inspector Fish had re-inspected 646 Thomas on the 28�' and the windows were repaired but some doors and heafing grates were missing. The property was empty and clean and he could have the work done in a week if the building was a Category 1, but it would take three months if it was a Category 2. Ms. Moennond asked if he did tenant screening. Mr. Kneer said he did. Ms. Moermond asked whether the tenant's children listed on the lease were adult children. Mr. Kneer said there were no adults other than the tenant. Mr. Aornfeld said the tenant had told him she had eleven children. Mr. Kneer said the tenant had three children but a gang had taken over the house. Ms. Moermond said she would like to review the documents. She asked whether there were comments from DSI staff. Mr. Dornfeld said he had no problem allowing Mr. Kneer time as a Category 1 if he was willing to pay the fee, and to pull permits and conect the deficiencies without having to go tlu�ou� a code compliance. Ms Moermond asked how long he would recommend allowing. Mr. Dornfeld said 30 days seemed more realistic than a week. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Kneer whether this was an acceptable anangement. Mr. Kneer said it was. Ms. Moermond recommended that the vacant building fee must be paid, but she would allow the building to remain as a Category 1 for 30 days. If the C of O had not been issued in 30 days, the building would revert to a Category 2 vacant building and a code campliance inspecrion would be required. She said the building did meet the criteria for a Category 2 vacant building and he was being given a brealc.