Loading...
10-344Council Fite # /�' � Green Sheet # 3104646 RESOLUTION � CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MWNESOTA � , - ._ � s Presented by 1 BE IT RE50LVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the March 9, 2 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 Anpealed Appellant 6 7 816 Manomin Avenue Renewal by Anderson 8 9 Decision: Deny the appeal. 10 11 1167 Grand Avenue Stephen Willwerscheid, Willwerscheid & Sons 12 13 Decisian: Grant a 2-inch variance on the openable width of the egress window measuring 30 inches high 14 by 18 inches wide. A step unit with a minimum of two steps must be permanently affixed to address sill 15 height in Bedroom 2. 16 17 1083 Albemarle Street Antonio Lopez 18 19 Decision: Deny the variance request and grant an extension to July 31, 2010 to provide proper egress or 20 discontinue the use of Unit 1, master bedroom, as a sleeping room. 21 22 1984 Hyacintb Avenue East Joe Steinmous 23 24 Decision: Deny the appeal. 25 26 1836 Mechanic Avenue East Steven and Ana Lee 27 28 Decision: Grant an 8-inch variance on the openable height of one replacement window with openable 29 dimensions of 16.25 inches high by 34.25 inches wide. Grant a 6-inch variance on the openable height of 30 the four replacement egress windows with openable dimensions of 16.25 inches high by 26.25 inches wide 31 on the condition the appellant is able to remove the stops to a11ow two more inches in openable height. 32 33 647 Van Buren Avenue Tim Reis 34 35 Decision: Deny the appeal. 36 la-3�� 37 Bos�om Yeas Requested by Deparhnent oE Harris / � Form Approved by City Attomey By: Adopted by Council: Date �j�7jo�`/�J/f Form Approved by Mayox for Submission to Council Adoprion Certified by Coun il Secretary By; f �. Approved by o Date � �`f ?�D/J By: � Appzoved by the Office of Financial Services � � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � DepartmenU�ce/Council: � Date Initiated: ' /0 ����{ co_��°°°�� ' 3aMAR2o,o ' Gr She NO: 3104696 � Contact Person & Phone: � ' Deaartment Sent 7o Person Initial/Date ', Marcia Moermond � � 0 coun�il , 1 Council DepartmentDirector . ' Assign , Z City Clerk Ciri Clerk ' ' Must Be on Council Agentla by (Date}: '; Number , ,� ', j For - ',, Routing 4 ' I, �, Dom Type: RESOLU710N �, Order ; 5�, �'� '�, E-Document Requiretl: Y Document Contact: Contact Phone: Total # of Signature Pages ^ (Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Resolution approving the March 9, 2010 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals to Letters, Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency Lists, and Denial of Building Permits [o Replace Egress Windows for the following: 816 Manomin Ave, 1167 Grand Ave, 1083 Albemarle St, 1984 Hyacinth Ave E, 1836 Mechanic Ave E, and 647 Van Buren Ave. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Re�ect (R): Planning Commission CIB Committee Ciml Service Commission Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Folfowing Questions: 1. Has ihis personlfirm ever worked under a contract for this depaRmenP+ 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 curreni city empbyee? Yes No EXplain all yes answers on seRarate sheet and attach to green sheeL Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): AtivanWges If Approved: DisadvanWges If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of Transaction: Funtling Source: Financial information: (Explain) CosURevenue Budgeted: Activity Number. March 30, 201612:54 PM Page 1 �Q-�u� MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATNE HEARING OFFICER ON APPEALS OF LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION NOTICES & FEES, AND DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMITS Tuesday, March 9, 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: Mike Urmann, Deparhnent of Safety and Inspections (DSI) — Fire; Matt Dornfeld, DSI — Code Enforcement; Steve Ubl, DSI — Building Inspections; Mai Vang, City Cauncil Offices Appeal of Renewal by Anderson to the denial of building permit to replace egress windows for property at 816 Manomin Avenue. Appellant Robert Snyder (1920 County Road C West, Roseville, MN SS ll3) appeared. Inspector Urmann stated that the appeal involved a new installation of windows and had come through Building Inspections. He read from the inspector's report that the openable dimensions of the window were 15 inches high by 27 inches wide. Ms. Moermond stated that for every inch in shortfall she looked for an extra inch in the other direction and for windows with a height shortfall approaching 8 inehes, she looked for two additional inches in width for every inch in height shortfall. She said she had never granted a variance for a window with less than a 16-inch openable height. Mr. Snyder said it was a complex issue for window replacement companies trying to work within state and local guidelines, and with customers who generally liked to keep the same window style. He stated that if they couldn't be accommodating they risked losing customers to contractors that didn't pull permits. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Snyder whether he was familiar with the mock double-hung windows. Mr. Snyder said the windows had a horizontal piece glued on and were not always desirable to the homeowner. Ms. Moermond asked whether there was a possibility to increase the openable height of the window being installed. Mr. Snyder said there was some room to lower it but widening it was not an option. He said it was a typical story-and-a-half with a window at each end of the upper level. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal. Mr. Snyder said he would explore other options with the existing rough opening and submit something if he was successful in getting a larger openable area. Ms. Mcermond said she would recommend that the appeal fee be waived if something else needed to be submitted for a variance. March 9, 2010 Property Code Minutes G � ���,(,/� Page 2 �� 2. Appeal of Stephen Willwerscheid, J.A. Willwerscheid & Sons, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at ll 67 Grand Avenue. (Rescheduled from 312) Appellant Steve Willwerscheid appeared. Mr. Urmann gave a staff report. He said there were window and sill height issues in Bedrooms 1 and 2. The inspector's notes indicated that Bedroom 1 was used as a living room/sitting room and the window did not open and did not meet the minimum size requirements. Bedroom Z had an egress window with openable dimensions of 30 inches by 18 inches. Mr. Urmann could not find the sill height measurement in the report. Mr. Willwerscheid said it was 54 inches. Ms. Moermond said she did not see where it said the window wouldn't open. Mr. Urmann said it was on the letter sent February 23. Ms. Moermond and Mr. Urmann reviewed the letters and orders. Mr. Willwerscheid provided photographs showing the window with the 54 inch sill height. He said the building was brick and Chat section had been built in the early 1960s, and it would be difficult to move the window down. Ms. Moermond asked whether he could install a step. Mr. Willwerscheid said there was baseboard heat and he anticipated he'd have problems in the future with inspectors citing a step installed over a radiator. Ms. Moermond asked for a description of the heat registers. Mr. Willwerscheid said the registers were covered and about six inches high. Mr. Ubl described the building departmenYs requirements for requesting and installing a sYep unit to address sill height. He said there were design options for accommodating baseboard heat and that a permit was required. Mr. Willlerscheid asked what specifications there would be for the steps and reiterated his concerns about a potential citation for covering the heat registers. He said he felt the requirement opened a can of worms in a building that had been there since 1942. He said the room had been a bedroom since the SOs and he didn't understand how the code could require that the building be altered after so many years. He said it was not a fire or egress danger. Ms. Moermond said there was new enforcement of an old code. Ms. Moermond asked whether he thought he could install something that would be high enough above the radiator. Mr. Willwerscheid said he could install a bracket and hang a shelf above the window. He reiterated his concerns about building a step to be a safe distance from the radiator while still meeting run and rise requirements. Mr. Ubl said the design did not have to be wood or solid and could be vented or have slats. Ms. Moermond asked about the window size issue. Mr. Willwerscheid referred to the letter dated February 23 and said the window in Bedroom 2 was strictly a sill height issue. He provided a photograph of the window in Bedroom 1. He said it was openable, and he provided dimensions. Ms. Moermond asked how the window opened. Mr. Willwerscheid said they were slider windows. March 9, 2010 Property Code Minutes ��,,���/ Page3 ��+ Ms. Moermond asked whether the inspectar had measured the openable space. Mr. Urmann said the window in Bedroom 1 had been unopenable at the inspection, and in Bedroom 2 had openable dimensions of 30 inches high by 18 inches wide. He said those dimensions were from the letter dated February 23. Ms. Moexmond said she had letters dated January 25 and February 22. Mr. Urmann said the most recent letter was dated February 23 and had been sent to the property management, and the letter prior to that did not have measurements. Ms. Moermond said two prior letters did not have measurements; she asked why there had been so many letters. Mr. Urmann said information had probably been updated between February 22 and 23, and he wasn't sure about January 25. Mr. Willwerscheid said January 25 was the first letter and the inspector had come back out to re-inspect. Ms. Moermond also noted that the appeal was filed on February 19 but there was a reinspection on the 22 She said there should have been a stay of enforcement during the appeal period. Mr. Urmann said it was his understanding that the stay applied only to those orders being appealed. Ms. Moermond said that was not correct. Ms. Moermond noted the discrepancy between the openable height measurements provided on the appeal form and those on the inspection report. Mr. Willwerscheid said there was a stop that prevented the window from opening fully and the measurements he had provided were of the smaller openable space. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 2-inch variance on the openable width of the egress window measuring 30 inches high by 18 inches wide. She said the windows in both rooms must open easily. A step unit with a minimum of two steps must be permanently affixed to address sill height in Bedraom 2. Mr. Ubl reviewed the run and rise requirements far the step. Appeal of Antonio Lopez to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1083 Albemarle Street. Appellant Tony Lopez (6729 Partridge Place, Lino lakes, MN 55014) appeared. Mr. Urmann gave a staff report. He said Unit One had a master bedroom with a large unopenable pictwe window, French doors leading to the rest of the unit, and a door leading to the building's entryway. He stated that the openable dimensions of the bedroom window in Unit Two were 22 incbes high by 24 inches wide. Mr. Lopez provided photographs of both bedrooms. Ms. Moermond granted a 2-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the Unit 2 second floor child's bedroom. Mr. Lopez reviewed the Unit 1 photographs and described the layout and location of the doars from the master bedroom. Mr. Urmann said the door would have to lead directly to the exterior to meet code. Mr. Lopez said the building was built in 1906 and had a brick exterior. He stated that Unit 1 had original single-pane windows that could be easily broken out in an emergency. Ms. Moermond asked about the French doors. Mr. Lopez said they exited into the maan living area of the unit. He said he understood the intent of the code and would not put his renters in a dangerous situation. March 9, 2010 Property Code Minutes / �� �� Page 4 6 Mr. Moersnond asked how many bedrooms were in the unit. Mr. Lopez said there were three. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Mr. L.opez that the bedroom being appealed was a living room being used as a bedroom and there were two additional bedrooms. Mr. Lopez said the two other bedrooms met code. Ms. Moermond said Mr. Lopez was going to have to propose a different solution. She asked whether there were options with the small windows on either side on the picture window. She asked whether they were double hung. Mr. Lopez said they were. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the variance and granted an extension to July 31, 2010 to provide proper egress or discontinue the use of the Unit 1 master bedroom as a sleeping room. She said it might be possible to replace the picture window with an openable one. Appeal of Joe Steinmous to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List far property at 1984 Hyacinth Avenue East. No one appeared. Ms. Moermond recommended denyin� the appeal. 7. Appeal of Steven and Ana Lee to a Code Compliance Inspection Report for property at 1836 Mechanic Avenue East Appellant Steven Lee (4853 Hillvale Avenue W., Oakdale, NIl� appeared. Mr. Ubl gave a staff report. He said the request was for a variance for an egress window with a glazed area of 10 ft, openable dimensions of 16.25 inches high by 34.25 inches wide, and a 42-inch sill height. Ms. Moermond noted that the building department recommended a variance and she said she was comfortable granting one. Mr. Lee said there were four windows with different dimensions. Mr. Ubl stated that the four additional windows had a glazed area of 8 ft, openable dimensions of 16.25 inches high by 26.25 inches wide, and a 42-inch sill height. He said Mr. Seeger recommended approval. Ms. Moermond stated that the recommendation differed from past recommendations far windows of thaY size. Mr. Ubl said that was correct. Mr. Lee stated that the windows were new and had been installed before he had taken occupancy. He said the building had been a Category 2 and there had been nothing in the inspection report about the windows. He said he had checked with window companies and been told they were egress windows because they popped out. Ms. Moermond asked who the window company was. Mr. Lee said he talked to a couple of window companies at the home and garden show. He stated that the inspectar had said they were egress windows although the fire inspectors would tell him otherwise. He asked whether the size could be grandfathered in since they wexe brand new windows. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Lee to describe where the windows were. Mr. Lee said it was a duplex with a two-bedroom and a three-bedroom unit. He said each bedroom had two identical windows. Ms. Moermond said that in the 16-inch range for openable height she looked for 34 to 36 inches in width. March 9, 2010 Property Code Minutes �jj'� PageS Mr. Lee said he hadn't seen another window that would work in the existing opening. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Lee who had done the building rehab. Mr. Lee stated that he had. He provided photographs. Ms. Moermond and Mr. Lee reviewed the photographs. Ms. Moermond asked whether the windows had stops at the top. Mr. Lee said they did. Ms. Moermond said removing the stops would add another inch in height. Mr. Lee stated that he could increase the openable height by 2 inches by removing the stops. Ms. Moermond stated that if the stops could be removed to a11ow two more inches in openable height she would recommend a variance. Ms. Moermond granted an 8-inch variance on the openable height of one replacement window with openable dimensions of 16.25 inches high by 34.25 inches wide. Grant a 6-inch variance on the openable height of the four replacement egress windows with openable dimensions of 16.25 inches high by 26.25 inches wide on the condition the appellant is able to remove the stops to allow two more inches in openable height. Appeal of Tim Reis to a Code Compliance Inspection Report for property at 647 Van Buren Avenue. Appellant Tim Reis (14865 Crandall Avenue, Rosemount, MN 55068) appeazed. Mr. LTbl read from the building inspector's report that the window being appealed had a glazed area of 8.25 ft and openable dimensions of 44 inches high by 13.5 inches wide. He confirmed with Mr. Reis that it was a slider window. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Reis whether he had a photograph. Mr. Reis said he did not. Mr. Reis said the original window had been a crank-out window but between the lumber company and the builder the style ended up being changed to a slider. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Reis whether he was the rehabber. Mr. Reis said he owned the property. Ms. Moerxnond asked Mr. Reis whether he bought it recently. Mr. Reis said he had. Ms. Moermond noted that Mr. Reis's name was not on the code compliance; Mr. Reis said the name was that of the person he bought the property from. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal. She said the window would need to be brought into compliance either by changing it out or making the existing window open to at least 16 inches wide. She said she thought the size of the opening would accommodate a double hung window that would meet the code.