Loading...
10-400Council File # �O- 4 00 Green Sheet # 3106336 RESOLUTION C1TY�OF SAII�T PAUL, MINNESOTA �'� Presented by 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that Yhe Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the March 2 16, 2010 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals of Letters, Deficiency Lists, and Denial of 3 Building Permits to Replace Egress Windows for the following addresses: 4 5 Property Appealed Appellant 6 7 905 White Bear Avenue North Rod Beseman 8 9 Decision: Grant an 8-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows throughout the 10 building; deny the appeal and grant an extension to May 1, 2010 to repair the window glass in Unit 3 and 11 Unit 6. 12 13 2020 Worcester Avenue Bryan Horton, Renewal by Anderson 14 15 Decision: Deny the appeal. 16 17 1796 Ivy Avenue East Window World 18 19 Decision: Deny the appeal. 20 21 1748 Marvland Avenue East WindQw World 22 23 Decision: Deny the appeal. 24 25 609 Sims Avenue Heu Lang Chuyangheu 26 27 Decision: Grant a 3.5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in bedroom 2. The 28 fumiture blocking the egress window in bedroom 1 must be moved so the window can be measured at re- 29 inspection. The appellant must pull a permit for the work done on the railing at the rear of the house and 30 have the railing inspected (the permit fee will not be doubled). 31 32 1807 Stillwater Avenue TrusYees Donald & Beverly Glaser 33 34 Decision: Grant a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows in all units; deny 35 the appeal and grant an extension to August 1, 2010 to bring the deadbolt heiUht into compliance in all 36 units. 37 38 250 Birminaham Street Abby Barber, EIG Fund LLC 39 40 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension to June 1, 2010 for the retaining wall and exterior items. 41 �o-�too 42 43 44 45 536 Lexington Pkwv Decision: Deny the appeal. Doug Palbicki, Portfolio Real Estate Services Bostrom Cartec Harris Helgen Stark Thune Adopted by Council: Date Absent I Requested by Deparhnent of: � ✓ ✓ 'Y� Adoption Certified by Coun �1 Secretary By: � Approved May! . Date � li7 ZL'!J g � � � � Form Approved by Ciry Attomey By: Form Approved by vIayor for Submission to Council By: Approved by the Office of Financial Services � � Green Sheet Green Sheet �o- �oo Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � DepartmenUOfficelCouncil: Da[e Initiated: �o-�°�°°�' 12qpR2010 Green Sheet NO: 3106336 Con[act Person & Phone: Department Sent To Person InitiallDate Marcia Moermond y o o���u � 1 ounc� De artnentDirecmr Assign Z ' Clerk CY Clerk Mus[ Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 3 0 For Routing 4 0 Doc.Type:RESOLUTION Order 5 0 E-DOCUment Required: Y Document Contact: Contact Phone: Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signatuce) Action Requested: Resolution approving the Mazch 16, 2010 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals of Letters, Deficiency Lists, and Denial of Building Permits to Replace Egress Windows for properties at 905 White Bear Ave N, 2020 Worcester Ave, 1796 Ivy Ave E, 1748 Maryland Ave E, 609 Sims Ave, 1807 Stillwater Ave, 250 Birmingham St, and 536 Lexington Pkwy. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contrects Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? Cl8 Gommittee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/frm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, IssUes, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: I ToWlAmountof Transactio�: CosNRevenue Budgeted: Funding Source: Ac[iviTy Number: Financial Infortnation: (Explain) April 12, 2010 11:01 AM Page 1 10-�to� MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATNE HEARING OFFICER ON APPEALS OF LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION NOTICES & FEES, AND DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMITS Tuesday, March 16, 2010 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 135 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Leanna Shaff, Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI) — Fire; Jim Seeger, DSI — Code Enforcement; Steve Ubl, DSI— Building Inspections; Mai Vang, City Council Offices 1. Appeal of Rod Beseman to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 905 White Bear Avenue North. Appellant Rod Beseman (9114 Princeton Court Woodbury, MN 55125) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated taht Inspector Skow-Fiske conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O on February 19 and reported double-hung egress windows with openable dimensions of 16.25 inches high by 30.25 inches wide, and window glass in need of repair in Units 3 and 6. Ms. Moermond noted that the inspector's report gave a glazed area of 3.4 ft for the double-hung egress window. Ms. Shaff clarified; Ms. Moermond stated for the record that the correct glazed area was approximately 7 ft. Mr. Beseman stated that he was asking for more time to replace the broken glass and was requesting a variance on the egress window size. Ms. Moermond said that for windows with an openable height in the 16 inch range she looked for two additional inches in width for every inch in height shortfall. Mr. Beseman said it was a six-unit stucco and brick building, and replacing the windows would involve considerable expense. He said he owned the building for over 10 years and had been trying to sell it for three years. The building had a negative cash flow, and replacing the windows would be a financial hazdship. Ms. Moermond asked whether there were stoppers at the tops of the windows. Mr. Beseman said he didn't think there were. He said the building had passed four or five other inspections. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Shaff what class the building was. Ms. Shaff said it was mixed. Mr. Beseman said he'd gone throu�h the state and had the class changed to all residential but the city still had it listed as mixed. He said he was working on having it changed. Ms. Moermond recommended granting an 8-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows throughout the building; deny the appeal and �rant an extension to May 1, 2010 to repair the window glass in Unit 3 and Unit 6. io- �t o0 March 16, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 2 2. Appeal of Bryan Horton, Renewal by Anderson, to the denial of building permit to replace egress windows for property at 2020 Worcester Avenue. Appellant Bryan Horton (1920 County Road C West, Roseville, MN 55113) and Bob Snyder appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that the egress windows met the size requirements but the sill height was 54 inches. She said the inspector's report gave options for addressing sill height. Mr. Snyder said the options were to alter the opening and install a different window, or install a step. He said installing a step was not desirable but the homeowner was not opposed to altering the opening. He said he was not encountering enforcement of this ordinance in any other municipality and asked why it was being enforced now in St. Paul. Ms. Moermond said the requirement had been part of the Minnesota Fire Code for a long time and she didn't lrnow why it was not being enforced in other municipalities. Mr. Snyder said it seemed as like homeowners were paying the bill for the discrepancies between the fire code and building code. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal. 3. Appeal of Window World to the denial of building permit to replace egress windows for property at 1796 Ivy Avenue East. Appellant Patrick Hoy (2211 East 11"' Avenue, N. St. Paul, MN 55109) and Esther Daul appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that the appeal was for a building permit denial for double-hung egress windows with openable dimensions of 15.93 inches high by 27.21 inches wide. Ms. Moermond said that for windows with an openable height in the 16 inch range she looked for two additional inches in width for every inch in height shortfall, and the windows being appealed did not meet those criteria. Mr. Hoy said the windows met three of the four requirements. He said it was hard to get an adequate openable size with double-hung windows, and homeowners were reluctant to change window style or take on the additional expense of changing the windows. He asked for a variance. Ms. Moermond clarified the square footage requirement with Mr. Ubl. Mr. Ubl confirmed that the minimum requirement was 5 ft. Ms. Moermond stated that there was too much of a shortfall in openable height and she could not recommend a variance. Mr. Hoy said he didn't understand why building inspectors were enforcing the fire code. He said the state code required that replacement windows installed in rental units comply with egress requirements, but windows in owner-occupied homes could be replaced with like windows. He said the inconsistencies were cause for aggravation and expense. Ms. Moermond said both codes covered egress windows and St. Paul building inspectors were choosing to err on the side of safety. �o- 4 00 March 16, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 3 Mr. Ubl said the Fire Marshal had deemed sleeping areas to be a potential hazard and had established a policy to minimize the hazard. He said building inspectors enforced the building code and a number of other codes, including the fire code. He said if Mr. Hoy disagreed with the code the appropriate venue for addressing that was the legislature. Mr. Hoy asked why St. Paul couldn't be on the same page as other municipalities in following the February 2009 state building code requirements for escape and egress windows. He said it was frustrating as a licensed contractor to have to spend time and money appealing the fire code. Ms. Shaff noted that Chapter 1 of the building code required compliance with all other codes and ordinances, and the fire code was referenced along with others. Mr. Ubl said the City of St. Paul was required by law to enforce the fire code; he said other municipalities chose not to. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal. 4. Appeal of Window World to the denial of building permit to replace egress windows for property at 1748 Marvland Avenue East. Appellant Patrick Hoy (22ll East ll` Avenue, N. St. Paul, MN 55109) and Esther Daul appeared. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal. Appeal of Heu Lang Chuyangheu to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 609 Sims Avenue Appellant Heu Lang Chuyangheu (1639 Gervais Avenue, Maplewood, MN 55109) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that Inspector Booker had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O on February 22 and reported that the openable dimensions of the egress window in Bedroom 2 Unit 1 were 20.5 inches high by 28.5 inches wide, and the egress window in Bedroom 1 was obstructed by furniture. She said there were other life/safety issues but the windows were the only items being appealed. Mr. Chuyangheu said the windows were built with the property over 100 years ago but the counci] had changed the code. He said the windows were 28 inches wide and 44 inches high, or 22 inches for each panel. Ms. Moermond said she was comfortable recommending a variance for the window in Bedroom 2 but was more concemed about the furniture blocking the window in the other bedroom. She asked whether the furniture could be moved. Mr. Chuyangheu said the fumiture could be moved. He said the windows measured 28 by 44 inches and met code, and he wasn't sure why they had been cited. He provided photos of the windows. Ms. Moermond asked whether there were notes about the dimensions of the other bedroom window. Ms. Shaff said nothing was mentioned. Ms. Moermond reviewed the photographs and window order. Ms. Moermond asked whether the windows in Bedroom 1 were the same as those in Bedroom 2. Mr. Chuyangheu said the windows in Bedroom 1 were larger. He said tenant had the bed close to to - 4 00 March 16, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 4 the window. Ms. Moermond told Mr. Chuyangheu that he needed to tell the tenant to move the bed before the reinspection. Mr. Chuyangheu asked whether a permit was required to repair the guardrail. He said he repaired it but had not gotten a permit. Ms. Moermond and Ms. Shaff said the orders stated that a permit may be required. Ms. Shaff and Mr. Ubl reviewed the photograph of the railing. Mr. Ubl said it appeared that the railing had been replaced and a permit should have been pulled. Mr. Chuyangheu asked why permit was required. He said he knew about the requirements relating to the spacing of slats. Mr. Ubl clarified the requirement for permits for life-safety items and asked that he pull a permit and have the railing inspected. He said the railing did not appear to meet code, and indicated a specific area that concemed him. Ms. Moermond asked whether the double-fee penalty for a permit pulled after the work was done could be waived. Mr. Ubl said it could. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 3.5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in bedroom 2. The fumiture blocking the egress window in bedroom 1 must be moved so the window can be measured at re-inspection. The appellant must pull a permit for the work done on the railing at the rear of the house and have the railing inspected. The permit fee will not be doubled. 6. Appeal of Paul Fanning, attorney representing Trustees Donald & Beverly Glaser, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1807 Stillwater Avenue. (Continued from March 9) Sonya Glaser (2048 East County Road F#9, White Bear Lake, 55110) appeared. Ms. Moermond reviewed her decision from the previous week a - anting a variance on the windows and laying over the appeal of the deadbolt height. She asked for a staff report. Ms. Shaff said the deadbolt height was 53 inches and the maximum allowed by code was 48 inches. Ms. Glaser said her father had asked whether the issue concerned handicapped accessibility. She said the house was not otherwise handicapped accessible. Ms. Moermond said she had a conversation with Mr. Fanning about why the requirement could not be varied and told him that a lot of people, including those in wheelchairs, would have trouble with a lock that high. Ms. Moermond, Ms. Shaff and Mr. Ubl said the code was also there to protect children and shorter adults. Ms. Moermond said people expected deadbolts to be at a certain level and having it higher could slow someone's escape in an emergency. Ms. Glaser said the locks had been that way for 25 years. Ms. Moermond asked for additional comments from staff. Mr. Ubl said handicapped accessibility meant more than just being accessible to someone in a wheelchair. Ms. Glaser asked how high the locks should be and whether she could have more time. Ms. Moermond said she would grant more time. lo- 4 00 March 16, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 5 Ms. Moermond asked whether there were 18 units with the same lock height. Ms. Glaser said there were 17 units and a laundry room. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows in all units; deny the appeal and granting an extension to August 1, 2010 to bring deadbolt height into compliance in all units. 7. Appeal of Abby Barber, EIG Fund LLC, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 250 Birmineham Street. (Continued from Feb. 2) Appellant Abby Barber appeared. Ms. Moermond said there had been disagreement at the February 2 hearing about what did and did not need to be done, and Ms. Barber and the inspector were going to visit the site together to discuss the items and take photos. Ms. Barber confirmed that was conect. Ms. Moermond said she had seen the photos; she asked Ms. Barber where things stood. Ms. Barber stated that Inspector Westenhofer had re-inspected the property on February 11 for the items that had been agreed upon and completed, and had told her that everything looked fine, but then had sent a letter listing some of the original deficiencies along with new ones. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Barber whether she disagreed with the items that had been called out. Ms. Barber stated that she did not and all items had been completed. She said there was to have been another re-inspection on or after February 16 and she hadn't received another letter and wasn't sure whether it had taken place. She questioned whether the brick work needed to be done since there was only a small area that was cracked. She said she and the inspector had looked at it together; she reviewed the photographs with Ms Moermond. Ms. Shaff provided photographs and orders frotn the February 11 re-inspection which were reviewed by Ms. Moermond and Ms. Barber. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Barber whether there were any other items she wanted to discuss. Ms. Barber stated that the brick was the only item remaining from the original orders, but there were new orders dated February 12 including one relafed to the electrical service. She said they did not intend to hire an electrician. Ms. Moermond noted photographs showing exposed wiring. Ms. Barber said the item had not been on the original orders. Ms. Moermond said the item was on the January 11 orders. Ms. Shaff stated that inspectors were directed to write orders for any additional items found at re-inspecrion. Ms. Moermond read the order from the January 11 inspector's letter. Ms. Barber reiterated that Inspector Westenhofer had conveyed verbally that there were no problems. Ms. Moermond said her concem was that the house was not �oing to be fixed and she emphasized to Ms. Barber that the repairs needed to be done. She said she was concemed about the retaining wall. Ms. Barber said she thought that was the lssue the hearing was about. She asked whether it needed to be fixed. �o- 4vo March 16, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 6 Ms. Moermond read from the minutes from the February 2 hearing stating that Ms. Barber had disagreed entirely that the work on the orders needed to be done, and the matter was laid over so the exterior items could be reviewed and deadlines established for all items. A deadline of March 11 had been established for all other items. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting an extension to June l, 2010 for the retaining wall and exterior items. 8. Appeal of Doug Palbicki, Portfolio Real Estate Services, to a Code Compliance Inspection Report for property at 536 Lexin�ton Pkwy. Appellant Doug Palbicki (3141 Webster Avenue S., St. Louis Park, MN 55416) and James Clucadsky (phonetic spelling) appeared. Mr. Seeger said he was at the property on February 20, 2010 for a Code Compliance inspection. He said he hadn't been able to see the exterior grading because of the snow but there had been water running into the basement from a downspout. He said the house was moved to the current site in 1924 and would have met the 1921 building code. There was a 1988 addition, and an earlier addition that was deteriorating and needed repair. He said there were non-compliant egress window wells on the newer addition. He noted problems with the deck; the gutters and downspouts, the flashing and fascia; the garage and an attached structure; and the floor, door-swing and railing in the basement. Ms. Moermond reviewed the reports from the other inspectors. She asked Mr. Palbicki what he was appealing. Mr. Palbicki stated that the house had been occupied by tenants prior to becoming a bank owned property and had been secured and maintained since that time. He said they were asking to have the Category 2 status changed back to Category 1. He said the future buyer planned to be an owner occupant. He said the Code Compliance list was extensive and non-specific; he asked whether all of the items on it were required or whether it was mare of a"wish list." Ms. Moermond confirmed with Mr. Palbicki that the property had been a rentaL Mr. Palbicki stated that it had been a rental but was now bank owned. He said he was the realtor representing the seller. He reiterated that they would like to have the property be Category 1, and said they were willing to address the basic items that were FHA guidelines and were standard in other cities. He asked again whether all of the items on the Code Compliance list were required and whether the list superseded the state law. He cited Morris v Saac. He said requiring the full list represented an undue burden and might take some people out of the housing market. Mr. Clucadsky said they had an executed a purchase agreement with a closing date. He said they wanted to live in St. Paul and first saw and were interested in the property in September but had decided not to purchase it at that time because of the code compliance issues. He stated that after looking at other properties for a few months they had come back to this one. He said the property had potential and had sold for �316,000 in 2005 in a strong market. He said he gave notice at his cunent residence and had 45 days to find housing or he and his children would be on the street. Ms. Moermond asked how much the purchase agreement was for. Mr. Clucadsky said it was for S160,000. Ms. Moermond asked for comments from staf£ Mr. Seeger said it was a nice property and looked better than it had initially. Mr. Clucadsky said the addition was well-constructed. Mr. Ubl said there were a number of inechanical, heating, plumbing and electrical items on the list in addition to the building issues cited by Mr. Seeger. �o- �to0 March 16, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 7 Mr. Palbicki said the house was winterized. He said the water had been shut off because the tenants hadn't paid their bills, and that had been one of the triggers for the Category 2 vacant building file. He stated that after the water had been shut off, they brought in the sheriff to do a forced eviction, and the house was fully secured and re-keyed. He said they kept the property maintained since then. He acknowledged that there were deficiencies but questioned whether they represented majar safety or health issues. Mr. Seeger and Mr. Ubl reviewed some items on the code compliance list. Mr. Palbicki noted that it was an older building and asked whether the city could change the state building code and force someone to make the corrections. Mr. Clucadsky said the bottom line was that he was interested in upgrading the property if the city was interested in working with him. Mr. Ubl said life/safety issues needed to be addressed before anyone could move in. Mr. Seeger said some second floor wark had been done by a previous owner and there was no record of permits being pulled. He said he had concerns about life/safety issues there, particularly related to venting. He said there was also a flue going up from the basement to the second floor, and he hadn't been able to determine where it went. Mr. Clucadsky said there was a wood-burning fireplace in a corner of the addition. Mr. Seeger said there were two chimneys and he had some concerns about the venting. Mr. Clucadsky asked how that work could be checked at this point. Mr. Ubl said they would need to have licensed contractars submit proposals addressing the code compliance requirements in each area. Ms Moermond took a short recess to review her notes and property records. She said there had been a sheriff's sale December 16, 2008, and Everbank had repurchased the mortgage. She said the water had been shut off on June 26, 2009 which would have been at the end of the redemption period. The house was condemned for lack of basic services, the vacant buildin� file was opened a couple of weeks later, and a TISH inspection was done on September 18, 2009. She said the property had been condemned and was a vacant building under Chapter 43.027, and clearly met the definitions for a Category 2 since it was also unoccupied and had multiple code violations. She said she was not comfortable changing it to a Category 1. She said Morris v Sas did not apply, and cited a section of the code requiring full code compliance before a vacant, Category 2 building could be occupied. Ms. Moermond recommended that the appeal be denied and all items be addressed. She reviewed the requirements for the purchase of a Category 2 property and said Mr. Clucadsky could buy the property but would need to demonstrate he had the resources to bring it up to code. She estimated at least S 15,000 in contractors' work if Mr. Clucadsky did the building items himself. Mr. Clucadsky said his purchase agreement stipulated that the seller pay for improvements required for FHA financing. He said he was asking the city to let him move in when the property had met FHA requirements. Mcermond said the policy was clear that the property could not be occupied until it was code compliant Mr. Clucadsky asked whether FHA was code compliant. Ms. Moermond said she wasn't familiar with what the mort�age company required. �o-�too March 16, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 8 Mr. Clucadsky said the Code Compliance list was not definitive on what needed to be fixed. He asked whether there would be another inspection to go through the Code Compliance report line by line. Mr. Seeger clarified some of the items on the building list. Mr. Palbicki said the city was denying access to affordable housing and placing an undue burden on property owners. He expressed frustration over the differences in the TISH and Code Compliance inspection criteria. He said the decision would result in the house staying on the market longer and a loss of tax revenue for the city. Ms. Moermond said the city's goal was to get the house fixed and to get the seller to take responsibility for the fixes before the house was put on the market. Mr. Palbicki said HUD's guidelines for Safe, Secure and Sanitary were adequate. He noted an item on the Code Compliance inspection that he felt was unrelated to safety. He said Mr. Clucadsky would make improvements to the property and take care of it. Ms. Moermond invited Mr. Palbicki to testify before the City Council if he disagreed with her recommendation. She estimated that it would be on the agenda for April 7, and said any additional materials could be submitted by the end of the day on March 26.