Loading...
10-459co���;� Fae # lfl - tsq Green Sheet# 3108576 Presented by RESOLUTION �JjJT PAUL, MiNNESOTA �5 I BE TT I2ESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the April 6, 2 2010 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals to Letters, Certificate of Occupancy 3 Deficiency Lists, Vacant Building Registration Notice and Fees, and Denial of Building Permits to Replace 4 Egress Windows for the following addresses: 5 6 Proaertv Apaealed Appellant 7 8 2242 University Avenue West Daniel Hartnett, 2242 Partnership 9 10 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant one year for replacement with a code-compliant altemative. I1 12 18 White Bear Avenue North John Higgs, Public Housing Agency 13 14 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant a 90-day extension to bring the egress windows in the northwest, 15 northeast and south bedrooms into compliance. 16 17 807 Idaho Avenue West John Higgs, Public Housing Agency 18 19 Decision: Grant a 1.5-inch vaziance on the ceiling height requirement in the second floor room; a 5-inch 20 variance on the openable height of the egress window in the second floor bedroom; a 5-inch variance on 21 the openable height of the egress window in the first floor, rear west bedroom; a 1-inch variance on the 22 openable height of the egress window in the first floor, reaz east bedroom; and a 1.5-inch variance on the 23 openable height of the egress window in the first floor, front bedroom. 24 25 691 Magnolia Avenue East John Higgs, Public Housing Agency 26 27 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant a 90-day extension for bringing the egress window in the upstairs 28 bedroom into compliance. 29 30 68 Jessamine Avenue West Jerry Morgan, Starbrite Properties 31 32 Decision: Grant the appeal on the arder to install a fire-rated door. 33 34 777 Sixth Street East Hank Cu 35 36 Decision: Grant a 4-inch vaziance on the openable width of the egress window in the south bedroom, Unit 37 1. 38 to - 45�1 39 1743 Minnehaha Avenue East Titus Contracting LLC 40 41 Decision: Grant a 3-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the south bedroom; 42 grant a 6-inch variance on the ceiling height requirement in the finished attic room. 43 44 748 Tatum Street Singer Group, o/b/o Roblyn Investments 45 46 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension for six months to bring the deadbolt locks and bedroom 47 egress windows into compliance. 48 49 2150 Wilson Avenue 50 51 Stephanie Bolger, oIb/o Goodman GroupBradley House 52 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension to September 1, 2010 to bring the interior stairwell 53 guardrails into compliance. 54 55 944 Woodbridge Street 56 Damon Hunter 57 Decision: Grant the appeal on the revocation witb all items being corrected by April 19, 2010. 58 59 365 Fuller Avenue Michael Bertrand 60 61 Decision: Grant the appeal with an extension granted to May 31, 2010 for completing the necessary 62 repairs. The inspection must be conducted by a supervisor. 63 64 28 Blizabeth Street West 65 66 Decision: Deny the appeal. 67 Window World Reqvested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney By: Adopted by Council: Date ��S ��Q/U Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council Adoption Certified by Counc' Secretary BY ��( i' clrJ Approved ate �CC Zolo By: �� � � Approved by the Office of Financial Services � 10- tS� � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � DepartmentlOfflce/Council: Date Initiated: co-�°°°��� 2gqpR2010 Green Sheet NO: 3108576 Contact Person & Phone: DepaRment Sent To Person InitiallDate Marcia Moermond y o C�ounca [� 1 oonc� De artment Dirx[or Assign 2 � Clerk ' Cierk Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 3 � Routing 4 � Doc.Type:RESOLUTION Order 5 � E-DocumentRequired: Y Document Contact: Contact Pho�: Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signaturej Action Requested: Reso]ution approving the Apri16, 2010 decisions of the Legislative Aearing Officer for Appeals to Letters, C of O Deficiency Lists, Vacan[ Building Fees, and Denial of Building Permits for properties at 2242 University W, 18 White Bear N, 807 Idaho W, 691 Magnolia E, 68 Jessamine W, 777 Sixth E, 1743 Minnehaha E, 748 Tatum, 2150 Wilson, 944 Woodbridge, 365 Fuller, and 28 Elizabeth W. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has ihis personlfirtn ever worked under a contracifor this depahment? CIB Committee Yes No Ctvil Service Commission 2. Has this personlfirm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Dces this personlfirm possess a skill not normafly possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answ¢rs on separate sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, IssUes, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): AdvanWges IfApproved: DisadvanWges If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: 7otai Amount of Trensaction: CosURevenue Budgeted: Funding Source: AGtivity Number: Fina�cial Information: (F�plain) Aprii 28, 2010 10:21 AM Page 1 1v• 4S q MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OFFICER ON APPEALS OF LETTERS, LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION NOTICES & FEES, AND DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMITS Tuesday, April 6, 2010 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at I:35 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Leanna Shaff, Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI) — Fire; Dennis Senty, DSI — Code Enforcement Mai Vang, City Council Offices Appeal of Daniel Hartnett, 2242 Partnership, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 2242 Universitv Avenue West. (Continued from March 23) Appellant Daniel Hartnett (2157 Stanford Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55105) appeazed. Mr. Hartnett provided a model of a lock option that had been suggested by one of his tenants. The option allowed the HASP to be locked in the open position when the unit was occupied. Ms. Moermond and Ms. Shaff reviewed the model and photographs that Mr. Hartnett had submitted. Mr. Hartnett said most of the tenants that had installed the new locks had signed an addendum to their leases which he believed solved the problem. Ms. Shaff noted that the doors had deadbolts and asked why an additional lock was needed. Mr. Hartnett said deadbolts had been kicked in and his tenants felt strongly about the need for the additional locks. Ms. Shaff asked what type of doors they were. Mr. Hartnett said the door in the photograph was a steel door. Ms. Shaff asked whether there was a bolt that secured the bottom of the door. Mr. Hartnett said some of the doors had that and again said that some of the deadbolts had been kicked in and not all tenants had steel double doors. Ms. Shaff asked what would happen if a tenant forgot to lock the HASP. Mr. Hartnett reiterated that it was important to the tenants; they had signed an addendum to their leases and they wouldn't forget. He said he had never appealed an order before but this order had caused an"uproar" among the tenants. Ms. Shaff said she understood the tenants' concerns but there were a lot of options for making a door more secure. She said codes were written in response to someone being hurt or killed, and one mistake witl� the proposed locks could create the potential for someone to be trapped. Ms. Moermond said she was not confidenY that the locks would address the situation in the case of an emergency and would not ask the council to sign off on something that was less safe. She recommended denying the appeal and granting one year to find a code-compliant alternative. �d � tsq Apri16, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 2 3. Appeal of dohn Higgs, Public Housing Agency, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 18 White Bear Avenue North. Appellant John Higgs (Public Housing Agency, 200 East Arch Street, St. Paul, MN 55130) appeared. He said the building was built in 1970 and he was asking for an extension to install code- compliant windows. Ms. Shaff stated that she had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O on February 26 and found that the openable dimensions of the egress window in the northwest bedroom were 14 inches high by 38 inches wide; the northeast bedroom were 9 inches high by 36 inches wide; and the south bedroom were 9 inches high by 36 inches wide. Mr. Higgs requested 90 days to bring the windows into compliance. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting a 90-day extension to bring the egress windows in the northwest, northeast and south bedrooms into compliance. 4. Appeal of John Higgs, Public Housing Agency, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 807 Idaho Avenue West. Appellant John Higgs (Public Housing Agency, 200 East Arch Street, St. Paul, MN 55130) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that she had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O on March 22 and found that the ceiling heig�t in the second floor room was 1.5 inches short of the required seven feet over half of the floor area. She described the ceiling configuration and room dimensions. She said the openable dimensions of the egress windows in the first floor, rear west bedroom were 19 inches high by 34 inches wide; the first floor, rear east bedroom were 23 inches high by 26 wide; the first floor, front bedroom were 22.5 inches high by 30 inches wide; and the second floor bedroom were 19 inches high by 22 inches wide. Ms. Moermond zecommended granting a 1.5-inch variance on the ceiling height requirement in the second floor room; a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the second floor bedroom; a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the first floor, reaz west bedroom; a 1-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the first floor, rear east bedroom; and a 1.5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the first floor, front bedroom. Appeal of John Higgs, Public Housing Agency, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 691 Maenolia Avenue East. Appellant John Higgs (Public Housing Agency, 200 East Arch Street, St. Paul, MN 55130) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that Tnspector Booker had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O on March 10 and reported that the openable dimensions of the egress window in the upstairs bedroom were 19.5 inches high by 21.5 inches wide. She said Mr. Higgs was requesting 90 days to bring the window into compliance. � e- 45 q Apri16, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 3 Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting a 90-day extension to bring the egress window in the upstairs bedroom into compliance. 6. Appeal of Jerry Morgan, Starbrite Properties, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 68 7essamine Avenue West. Appellant Mr. J. Morgan (P. O. Box 7443, Minneapolis, MN 55407) appeazed. Ms. Shaff stated that Inspector Girling had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O on March 8 and written orders that the Unit 1 back door be replaced with a fire-rated door. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Morgan why he was appealing. Mr. Morgan stated that the building was a single-family home that had been converted to a duplex. He said he had looked up the code number referenced in the orders and it did not say what the orders indicated it said. He said the doors were 3-inch wooden doors and had never been cited before. Ms. Moermond reviewed SPLC 34.09 (3) referring to windows, doors and hatchways, and she read from subparts relating to the maintenance of exterior doors and hardware. Mr. Morgan said that was what he had read and it clearly didn't say anything about a fire-rated door being required. Ms. Shaff asked whether the door cited was the one that went to the basement. Mr. Morgan said that the inspector wanted him to change all the doors but the one in the order was a 3-inch exterior door. Ms. Shaff asked whether there was glass in the top. Mr. Morgan said there was and it had been approved. He clarified that it was the back door to the apartment, there was no common area, and there were sepazate entrances to the basement and upstairs. Ms. Shaff asked whether the glass was safety glass. She said that was a greater concern and might have been why the inspector cited it. Mr. Moxgan stated that in 2007, thexe had been a complaint by a tenant who was a relative of a fire department employee and he had worked with Inspector Thomas and Ms. Shaff to make the required corrections. He was just trying to make a living and felt that maybe he was being targeted. He had brought the code reference error to the attention of the inspector and she told him that sbe might have made a mistake; however, property owners were held liable for anything they did wrong. The inspector had made an appointment and had not shown up due to a family emergency. The department must have policies so that a property owner could be notified in a situation like that. Ms. Shaff said she didn't know what the specific circumstances were in that case. Ms. Moermond recommended granting the appeal on the order to install a fire-rated door. Appeal of Hank Cu to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List ior property at 777 Si�h Street East. Appellant Hank Cu (1119 East River Parkway, Minneapolis, MN 55407) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that Inspector Booker had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O on March 19 and reported that four windows were deficient. She confirmed with Mr. Cu that only one of the 10- 45°t Apri16, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 4 windows was being appealed. The openable dimensions of the window in the south bedroom of Unit 1 were 28.5 inches high by 16 inches wide. Mr. Cu stated that he was appealing the orders for the egress window in the south bedroom of Unit 1, and provided photographs. He said the framing of the window was part of the foundation of the house. Ms. Moermond, Ms. Shaff and Mr. Cu reviewed the photographs. Mr. Cu stated that the tenants were about his size and could squeeze through the window if necessary. He also noted that the building was on a historic site. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 4-inch variance on the openable width of the egress window in the south bedroom, Unit 1. Appeal of Titus Contracting LLC to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1743 Minnehaha Avenue East Appellant Scott Rajavouri (9765 172 Street, Lakeville, MN 55044) appeared. Mr. Rajavouri stated that Inspector Thomas had suggested he appeal the ordex related to the ceiling height requirement in the finished attic as well as the egress window order. He provided photographs which Ms. Moermond reviewed. Ms. Moermond reviewed the arders and recommended granting a 3-inch variance on tk�e openable height of the egress window in the south bedroom; grant a 6-inch variance on the ceiling height requirement in the finished attic room. Appeal of Singer Group, on behalf of Roblyn Investments, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 748 Tatum Street. Appellant Bruce Singer (57 Groveland Tenace, Minneapolis, MN 554Q3) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that Inspector Imbertson had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O on March 3 and reported that the egress windows were awning style with a scissor-type hinge and opened outward to 7.5 inches with standard force. Mr. Singer stated that the house was built in 1963, the windows appeared to be original, and had passed inspection before. He stated that they were also ordered to replace the roof and move the deadbolts and would like more time to bring the windows into compliance. He said the deadbolts had also been there for 40 yeazs and had always passed inspection. He said there was a long list of corrections and they were almost finished. Ms. Shaff noted that the orders refened only to the door lock on Unit 9. Mr. Singer said they were ail the same and he assumed they would have to lower them all. Ms. Moermond asked how much time was needed. Mr. Singer asked whether he could have six months. Ms. Moermond also noted that the deadbolt in Unit 9 was the only one cited in the orders. �o- 45q Apri16, 2010 Property Code Minutes She recommended denying the appeal and granting an extension for six months to bring the deadbolt locks and bedroom egress windows into compliance. Page 5 10. Appeal of Stephanie Bolger, Goodman GroupBradley House, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for properiy at 2150 Wilson Avenue. Appellant Stephanie Bolger (2150 Wilson Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55119) and Ron Price (3358 Library Lane, St. Louis Park, MN 55426} appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that Inspector Thomas had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O and cited the guardrails for all interior stairwells. Ms. Bolger said they were getting bids and she asked for more time. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting an extension to September I to bring the interior stairwell guardrails into compliance. 11. Appeal of Damon Hunter to a Certificate of Occupancy Revocation for property at 944 Woodbrid�e Street. Appellant Damon Hunter (1728 University Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55104) appeared. Ms Shaff stated that the C of O had been revoked and an order Co vacate was issued by Inspector Martin on Mazch 17. She said there were a lot of deficiencies. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Hunter whether he was the landlord. Mr. Hunter said he was. He said he rented the property as a single-family home but had had trouble with tbe tenants and decided to rent the rooms individually to some acquaintances from the barber shops he owned. He said someone in zoning told him that he could rent to up to four adults in separate rooms, but the fire inspector had said he wasn't zoned for it and couldn't have locks on the bedroom doors. Ms. Moermond said it was correct that he could rent to four adults but couldn't have locks on the doors; she could see how the misunderstanding with zoning staff might have occurred. Mr. Hunter said one of the renters had been moving out anyway and the inspector had told him not to rent the room again. The two people still living there had agreed to go under one lease and the locks would be taken off the doors. He said the other deficiencies would also be corrected. Ms. Shaff said the inspector's notes indicated that framing, sheet rocking, electrical and plumbing had been done in the basement without permits. Mr. Hunter said he had done the framing and sheet rocking and hadn't known a permit was required. He had hired a general contractor since then, and permits were being pulled for construction, electrical, and plumbing. The re-inspection date was April 19 and he believed everything would be taken care of by then. He said that the off-streeC parking spaces were no longer an issue since the house was no longer considered a rooming house. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Hunter what he was looking for in the appeal. He said he was looking to have the Certificate of Occupancy reinstated. Ms. Moermond noted that the reinspection was w - 4S°I April 6, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 6 scheduled for April 19; she asked when the work would be done. Mr. Hunter said everything but the basement would be done by April 19. Ms. Moermond recommended granting the appeal on the revocation; all items must be corrected by the April 19, 2010 reinspection. 12. Appeal of Michael Bertrand to a Vacant Building Registration Notice and Fee and C of O Revocation for property at 365 Fuller Avenue. Appellant Michael Bertrand and Doug Turner (33 South 6 Street #4040, Minneapolis, MN 55402) appeared. Mr. Senty stated that the property had been referred from the C of O program with a 15-item deficiency list and a Category 2 recommendation. He said he had inspected and posted the property on Mazch 3 and opened the file as a Category 2. Ms. Shaff said this was a referral from Xcel on August 19, 2009 for a gas and/or electric shut off in Unit 2 as of May 5, 2009. She said Inspector Cummings had responded to the referral on August 31 and noted that the electrical be restored or the unit vacated. Ms. Shaff stated that issues with the property continued through the fall and into March 2010. She said Unit 2 had been unoccupied at the time of the original Teferral and the rest of the building had been vacated since then. She refened Ms. Moermond to the photographs. Ms Moermond asked whether Unit 2 had been vacated earlier due to the electrical shut-off, or if the electrical had been restared and other deficiencies were identified as part of the refenal process. Ms. Shaff stated that per DSI policy, the Xcel referral triggered the C of O inspection and other deficiencies were noted in the inspection at the end of August. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Bemand whether he had been present far any of the inspections. Mr. Bertrand said he had. Ms. Moermond, Mr. Bertrand and Mr. Turner reviewed the photographs in the inspector's report. Mr. Tumer stated that they were asking that the property be taken out of the Vacant Building Program and returned to the C of O program. He said Mr. Bertrand had started getting permits and making wttections as soon as he received Inspector Martin's December 29 revocation letter and everything except the final inspection of the electrical wark was done as of January I S when Greg Johnson had re-inspected. He said it had not been communicated to Mr. Bertrand that there was a deadline for making the corrections or that the property might be refened to the Vacant Buildings Program. He said Unit 2 was not occupied and had never been occupied and he was told by Inspector Cumi�nings thaY Unit 2 was not an issue as long as no combustibles were stored there. Mr. Bertrand stated that on August 20, he received the letter about the power shut-off in Unit 2. He said he had explained to Inspector Cummings that it was an upstairs, unoccupied unit, and was told that an inspection was not necessary. He said the C of O inspection was scheduled by Inspector Martin in October and he had taken care of smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and the furnace report prior to the inspection. Unit 1 had just been vacated at the time of the inspection and there was some damage. He said Inspector Martin had measured egress windows in both bedrooms of Unit 1 and had told him that the egress window in the second bedroom should have been installed to- 45a1 Apri16, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 7 under permit and the sill height was too high. She also told him the room was too small to be used for sleeping but that he still needed to pull a permit for the window. Inspector Martin started to look at Unit 2 and told him either she could complete the inspection and write everything up that needed to be done, or he could fix everything in both units and potentially be eligible for five-yeaz inspections if the building passed on the first inspection. He said he initially agreed to try to get on the five-yeaz reinspection cycle, and Inspector Martin told him they were short-staffed and he should call to schedule the inspection when he was done. He said he had changed his mind a few days later and called Inspector Martin to tell her that he hadn't rented Unit 2 in ten years and had no intentions of renting it. He said Inspector Martin had told him that leaving Unit 2 as it was not an option and he had to get both units done. He said he called Ms. Shaff at that point and she said he didn't have to fix Unit 2 unless it was going to be occupied. He said he had also spoken with Ms. Shaff about the small bedroom and she indicated that the room was too small but he could appeal, although the appeal would probably not be granted. He said it was never conveyed to him that if the work wasn't done in a timely manner he would be a candidate for the vacant building list. He said a family had contacted him at the end of December about renting and he had called to request an inspection. He said that in the past, he was allowed to have the building occupied even if a few deficiencies remained. Ms. Moermond asked how long he would need to complete everything. Mr. Bertrand said he could be finished by the end of April. Mr. Bertrand said Inspector Martin had conducted an inspection on December 29 and cited additional items. He said he pulled a permit and started the wark that Inspector Martin had indicated at the inspection, but then received the orders in the mail two days later with an additional order related to the stairway. Ms. Moermond asked whether there were any written orders prior to December 29 other than the one-item revocation letter. Ms. Shaff listed appoinhnent letters dated August 20 and September 22, a revocation letter dated October 5, and an appointment letter dated November 6. Ms. Moermond asked what the revocation had been based on. Ms. Shaff said she wasn't sure. Mr. Tumer said they didn't have a copy the OcYOber 5 letter. Ms. Shaff provided a copy. Ms. Moermond noted that there were no orders leading to the revocation. Ms. Shaff agreed; she said there were inspector's notes about cancelled and rescheduled appointments, but no previous orders. Mr. Bertrand said he pulled a permit far the stairway and tried unsuccessfully to contact Inspector Martin for clarification of what was wrong with the stairway. He said Inspector Greg Johnson had come out and inspected the stairway and found a variation in the rise. Mr. Bertrand said he had replaced the stairway and Inspector Jot�nson had signed off on that and on other items. The only work not signed off on was the electrical but he was unable to finish that because of a stop work order that had been put in place when the vacant building file was opened. Mr. Turner said Mr. Bertrand had fallen and been unable to work on the house for a few weeks and had not been aware there was a deadline. Ms. Moermond asked when the conversation with Inspector Martin about inspection options had taken place. Mr. Bertrand said it had taken place on October 5. to - 4Sa1 April 6, 2010 Property Code Minutes � Ms. Moermond recommended that the properiy be removed from the Vacant Building Program as she didn't believe this case was handled very we11 and was disappointed in the way the orders were written. She recommended granting the appeal and granting an extension to May 31 to complete the necessary repairs as outlined in the C of O deficiency list. She also requested the inspection be conducted by a supervisor. Appeal of Window World to the denial of building permit to replace egress windows for property at 28 Elizabeth Street West. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal. co���;� Fae # lfl - tsq Green Sheet# 3108576 Presented by RESOLUTION �JjJT PAUL, MiNNESOTA �5 I BE TT I2ESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the April 6, 2 2010 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals to Letters, Certificate of Occupancy 3 Deficiency Lists, Vacant Building Registration Notice and Fees, and Denial of Building Permits to Replace 4 Egress Windows for the following addresses: 5 6 Proaertv Apaealed Appellant 7 8 2242 University Avenue West Daniel Hartnett, 2242 Partnership 9 10 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant one year for replacement with a code-compliant altemative. I1 12 18 White Bear Avenue North John Higgs, Public Housing Agency 13 14 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant a 90-day extension to bring the egress windows in the northwest, 15 northeast and south bedrooms into compliance. 16 17 807 Idaho Avenue West John Higgs, Public Housing Agency 18 19 Decision: Grant a 1.5-inch vaziance on the ceiling height requirement in the second floor room; a 5-inch 20 variance on the openable height of the egress window in the second floor bedroom; a 5-inch variance on 21 the openable height of the egress window in the first floor, rear west bedroom; a 1-inch variance on the 22 openable height of the egress window in the first floor, reaz east bedroom; and a 1.5-inch variance on the 23 openable height of the egress window in the first floor, front bedroom. 24 25 691 Magnolia Avenue East John Higgs, Public Housing Agency 26 27 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant a 90-day extension for bringing the egress window in the upstairs 28 bedroom into compliance. 29 30 68 Jessamine Avenue West Jerry Morgan, Starbrite Properties 31 32 Decision: Grant the appeal on the arder to install a fire-rated door. 33 34 777 Sixth Street East Hank Cu 35 36 Decision: Grant a 4-inch vaziance on the openable width of the egress window in the south bedroom, Unit 37 1. 38 to - 45�1 39 1743 Minnehaha Avenue East Titus Contracting LLC 40 41 Decision: Grant a 3-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the south bedroom; 42 grant a 6-inch variance on the ceiling height requirement in the finished attic room. 43 44 748 Tatum Street Singer Group, o/b/o Roblyn Investments 45 46 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension for six months to bring the deadbolt locks and bedroom 47 egress windows into compliance. 48 49 2150 Wilson Avenue 50 51 Stephanie Bolger, oIb/o Goodman GroupBradley House 52 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension to September 1, 2010 to bring the interior stairwell 53 guardrails into compliance. 54 55 944 Woodbridge Street 56 Damon Hunter 57 Decision: Grant the appeal on the revocation witb all items being corrected by April 19, 2010. 58 59 365 Fuller Avenue Michael Bertrand 60 61 Decision: Grant the appeal with an extension granted to May 31, 2010 for completing the necessary 62 repairs. The inspection must be conducted by a supervisor. 63 64 28 Blizabeth Street West 65 66 Decision: Deny the appeal. 67 Window World Reqvested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney By: Adopted by Council: Date ��S ��Q/U Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council Adoption Certified by Counc' Secretary BY ��( i' clrJ Approved ate �CC Zolo By: �� � � Approved by the Office of Financial Services � 10- tS� � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � DepartmentlOffice/Council: Date Initiated: co-�°°°��� 2gqpR2010 Green Sheet NO: 3108576 Contact Person & Phone: DepaRment Sent To Person InitiallDate Marcia Moermond y o C�ounca [� 1 oonc� De artment Dirx[or Assign 2 � Clerk ' Cierk Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 3 � Routing 4 � Doc.Type:RESOLUTION Order 5 � E-DocumentRequired: Y Document Contact: Contact Pho�: Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signaturej Action Requested: Reso]ution approving the Apri16, 2010 decisions of the Legislative Aearing Officer for Appeals to Letters, C of O Deficiency Lists, Vacan[ Building Fees, and Denial of Building Permits for properties at 2242 University W, 18 White Bear N, 807 Idaho W, 691 Magnolia E, 68 Jessamine W, 777 Sixth E, 1743 Minnehaha E, 748 Tatum, 2150 Wilson, 944 Woodbridge, 365 Fuller, and 28 Elizabeth W. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has ihis personlfirtn ever worked under a contracifor this depahment? CIB Committee Yes No Ctvil Service Commission 2. Has this personlfirm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Dces this personlfirm possess a skill not normafly possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answ¢rs on separate sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, IssUes, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): AdvanWges IfApproved: DisadvanWges If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: 7otai Amount of Trensaction: CosURevenue Budgeted: Funding Source: AGtivity Number: Fina�cial Information: (F�plain) Aprii 28, 2010 10:21 AM Page 1 1v• 4S q MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OFFICER ON APPEALS OF LETTERS, LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION NOTICES & FEES, AND DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMITS Tuesday, April 6, 2010 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at I:35 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Leanna Shaff, Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI) — Fire; Dennis Senty, DSI — Code Enforcement Mai Vang, City Council Offices Appeal of Daniel Hartnett, 2242 Partnership, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 2242 Universitv Avenue West. (Continued from March 23) Appellant Daniel Hartnett (2157 Stanford Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55105) appeazed. Mr. Hartnett provided a model of a lock option that had been suggested by one of his tenants. The option allowed the HASP to be locked in the open position when the unit was occupied. Ms. Moermond and Ms. Shaff reviewed the model and photographs that Mr. Hartnett had submitted. Mr. Hartnett said most of the tenants that had installed the new locks had signed an addendum to their leases which he believed solved the problem. Ms. Shaff noted that the doors had deadbolts and asked why an additional lock was needed. Mr. Hartnett said deadbolts had been kicked in and his tenants felt strongly about the need for the additional locks. Ms. Shaff asked what type of doors they were. Mr. Hartnett said the door in the photograph was a steel door. Ms. Shaff asked whether there was a bolt that secured the bottom of the door. Mr. Hartnett said some of the doors had that and again said that some of the deadbolts had been kicked in and not all tenants had steel double doors. Ms. Shaff asked what would happen if a tenant forgot to lock the HASP. Mr. Hartnett reiterated that it was important to the tenants; they had signed an addendum to their leases and they wouldn't forget. He said he had never appealed an order before but this order had caused an"uproar" among the tenants. Ms. Shaff said she understood the tenants' concerns but there were a lot of options for making a door more secure. She said codes were written in response to someone being hurt or killed, and one mistake witl� the proposed locks could create the potential for someone to be trapped. Ms. Moermond said she was not confidenY that the locks would address the situation in the case of an emergency and would not ask the council to sign off on something that was less safe. She recommended denying the appeal and granting one year to find a code-compliant alternative. �d � tsq Apri16, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 2 3. Appeal of dohn Higgs, Public Housing Agency, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 18 White Bear Avenue North. Appellant John Higgs (Public Housing Agency, 200 East Arch Street, St. Paul, MN 55130) appeared. He said the building was built in 1970 and he was asking for an extension to install code- compliant windows. Ms. Shaff stated that she had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O on February 26 and found that the openable dimensions of the egress window in the northwest bedroom were 14 inches high by 38 inches wide; the northeast bedroom were 9 inches high by 36 inches wide; and the south bedroom were 9 inches high by 36 inches wide. Mr. Higgs requested 90 days to bring the windows into compliance. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting a 90-day extension to bring the egress windows in the northwest, northeast and south bedrooms into compliance. 4. Appeal of John Higgs, Public Housing Agency, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 807 Idaho Avenue West. Appellant John Higgs (Public Housing Agency, 200 East Arch Street, St. Paul, MN 55130) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that she had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O on March 22 and found that the ceiling heig�t in the second floor room was 1.5 inches short of the required seven feet over half of the floor area. She described the ceiling configuration and room dimensions. She said the openable dimensions of the egress windows in the first floor, rear west bedroom were 19 inches high by 34 inches wide; the first floor, rear east bedroom were 23 inches high by 26 wide; the first floor, front bedroom were 22.5 inches high by 30 inches wide; and the second floor bedroom were 19 inches high by 22 inches wide. Ms. Moermond zecommended granting a 1.5-inch variance on the ceiling height requirement in the second floor room; a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the second floor bedroom; a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the first floor, reaz west bedroom; a 1-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the first floor, rear east bedroom; and a 1.5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the first floor, front bedroom. Appeal of John Higgs, Public Housing Agency, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 691 Maenolia Avenue East. Appellant John Higgs (Public Housing Agency, 200 East Arch Street, St. Paul, MN 55130) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that Tnspector Booker had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O on March 10 and reported that the openable dimensions of the egress window in the upstairs bedroom were 19.5 inches high by 21.5 inches wide. She said Mr. Higgs was requesting 90 days to bring the window into compliance. � e- 45 q Apri16, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 3 Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting a 90-day extension to bring the egress window in the upstairs bedroom into compliance. 6. Appeal of Jerry Morgan, Starbrite Properties, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 68 7essamine Avenue West. Appellant Mr. J. Morgan (P. O. Box 7443, Minneapolis, MN 55407) appeazed. Ms. Shaff stated that Inspector Girling had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O on March 8 and written orders that the Unit 1 back door be replaced with a fire-rated door. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Morgan why he was appealing. Mr. Morgan stated that the building was a single-family home that had been converted to a duplex. He said he had looked up the code number referenced in the orders and it did not say what the orders indicated it said. He said the doors were 3-inch wooden doors and had never been cited before. Ms. Moermond reviewed SPLC 34.09 (3) referring to windows, doors and hatchways, and she read from subparts relating to the maintenance of exterior doors and hardware. Mr. Morgan said that was what he had read and it clearly didn't say anything about a fire-rated door being required. Ms. Shaff asked whether the door cited was the one that went to the basement. Mr. Morgan said that the inspector wanted him to change all the doors but the one in the order was a 3-inch exterior door. Ms. Shaff asked whether there was glass in the top. Mr. Morgan said there was and it had been approved. He clarified that it was the back door to the apartment, there was no common area, and there were sepazate entrances to the basement and upstairs. Ms. Shaff asked whether the glass was safety glass. She said that was a greater concern and might have been why the inspector cited it. Mr. Moxgan stated that in 2007, thexe had been a complaint by a tenant who was a relative of a fire department employee and he had worked with Inspector Thomas and Ms. Shaff to make the required corrections. He was just trying to make a living and felt that maybe he was being targeted. He had brought the code reference error to the attention of the inspector and she told him that sbe might have made a mistake; however, property owners were held liable for anything they did wrong. The inspector had made an appointment and had not shown up due to a family emergency. The department must have policies so that a property owner could be notified in a situation like that. Ms. Shaff said she didn't know what the specific circumstances were in that case. Ms. Moermond recommended granting the appeal on the order to install a fire-rated door. Appeal of Hank Cu to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List ior property at 777 Si�h Street East. Appellant Hank Cu (1119 East River Parkway, Minneapolis, MN 55407) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that Inspector Booker had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O on March 19 and reported that four windows were deficient. She confirmed with Mr. Cu that only one of the 10- 45°t Apri16, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 4 windows was being appealed. The openable dimensions of the window in the south bedroom of Unit 1 were 28.5 inches high by 16 inches wide. Mr. Cu stated that he was appealing the orders for the egress window in the south bedroom of Unit 1, and provided photographs. He said the framing of the window was part of the foundation of the house. Ms. Moermond, Ms. Shaff and Mr. Cu reviewed the photographs. Mr. Cu stated that the tenants were about his size and could squeeze through the window if necessary. He also noted that the building was on a historic site. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 4-inch variance on the openable width of the egress window in the south bedroom, Unit 1. Appeal of Titus Contracting LLC to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1743 Minnehaha Avenue East Appellant Scott Rajavouri (9765 172 Street, Lakeville, MN 55044) appeared. Mr. Rajavouri stated that Inspector Thomas had suggested he appeal the ordex related to the ceiling height requirement in the finished attic as well as the egress window order. He provided photographs which Ms. Moermond reviewed. Ms. Moermond reviewed the arders and recommended granting a 3-inch variance on tk�e openable height of the egress window in the south bedroom; grant a 6-inch variance on the ceiling height requirement in the finished attic room. Appeal of Singer Group, on behalf of Roblyn Investments, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 748 Tatum Street. Appellant Bruce Singer (57 Groveland Tenace, Minneapolis, MN 554Q3) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that Inspector Imbertson had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O on March 3 and reported that the egress windows were awning style with a scissor-type hinge and opened outward to 7.5 inches with standard force. Mr. Singer stated that the house was built in 1963, the windows appeared to be original, and had passed inspection before. He stated that they were also ordered to replace the roof and move the deadbolts and would like more time to bring the windows into compliance. He said the deadbolts had also been there for 40 yeazs and had always passed inspection. He said there was a long list of corrections and they were almost finished. Ms. Shaff noted that the orders refened only to the door lock on Unit 9. Mr. Singer said they were ail the same and he assumed they would have to lower them all. Ms. Moermond asked how much time was needed. Mr. Singer asked whether he could have six months. Ms. Moermond also noted that the deadbolt in Unit 9 was the only one cited in the orders. �o- 45q Apri16, 2010 Property Code Minutes She recommended denying the appeal and granting an extension for six months to bring the deadbolt locks and bedroom egress windows into compliance. Page 5 10. Appeal of Stephanie Bolger, Goodman GroupBradley House, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for properiy at 2150 Wilson Avenue. Appellant Stephanie Bolger (2150 Wilson Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55119) and Ron Price (3358 Library Lane, St. Louis Park, MN 55426} appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that Inspector Thomas had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O and cited the guardrails for all interior stairwells. Ms. Bolger said they were getting bids and she asked for more time. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting an extension to September I to bring the interior stairwell guardrails into compliance. 11. Appeal of Damon Hunter to a Certificate of Occupancy Revocation for property at 944 Woodbrid�e Street. Appellant Damon Hunter (1728 University Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55104) appeared. Ms Shaff stated that the C of O had been revoked and an order Co vacate was issued by Inspector Martin on Mazch 17. She said there were a lot of deficiencies. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Hunter whether he was the landlord. Mr. Hunter said he was. He said he rented the property as a single-family home but had had trouble with tbe tenants and decided to rent the rooms individually to some acquaintances from the barber shops he owned. He said someone in zoning told him that he could rent to up to four adults in separate rooms, but the fire inspector had said he wasn't zoned for it and couldn't have locks on the bedroom doors. Ms. Moermond said it was correct that he could rent to four adults but couldn't have locks on the doors; she could see how the misunderstanding with zoning staff might have occurred. Mr. Hunter said one of the renters had been moving out anyway and the inspector had told him not to rent the room again. The two people still living there had agreed to go under one lease and the locks would be taken off the doors. He said the other deficiencies would also be corrected. Ms. Shaff said the inspector's notes indicated that framing, sheet rocking, electrical and plumbing had been done in the basement without permits. Mr. Hunter said he had done the framing and sheet rocking and hadn't known a permit was required. He had hired a general contractor since then, and permits were being pulled for construction, electrical, and plumbing. The re-inspection date was April 19 and he believed everything would be taken care of by then. He said that the off-streeC parking spaces were no longer an issue since the house was no longer considered a rooming house. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Hunter what he was looking for in the appeal. He said he was looking to have the Certificate of Occupancy reinstated. Ms. Moermond noted that the reinspection was w - 4S°I April 6, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 6 scheduled for April 19; she asked when the work would be done. Mr. Hunter said everything but the basement would be done by April 19. Ms. Moermond recommended granting the appeal on the revocation; all items must be corrected by the April 19, 2010 reinspection. 12. Appeal of Michael Bertrand to a Vacant Building Registration Notice and Fee and C of O Revocation for property at 365 Fuller Avenue. Appellant Michael Bertrand and Doug Turner (33 South 6 Street #4040, Minneapolis, MN 55402) appeared. Mr. Senty stated that the property had been referred from the C of O program with a 15-item deficiency list and a Category 2 recommendation. He said he had inspected and posted the property on Mazch 3 and opened the file as a Category 2. Ms. Shaff said this was a referral from Xcel on August 19, 2009 for a gas and/or electric shut off in Unit 2 as of May 5, 2009. She said Inspector Cummings had responded to the referral on August 31 and noted that the electrical be restored or the unit vacated. Ms. Shaff stated that issues with the property continued through the fall and into March 2010. She said Unit 2 had been unoccupied at the time of the original Teferral and the rest of the building had been vacated since then. She refened Ms. Moermond to the photographs. Ms Moermond asked whether Unit 2 had been vacated earlier due to the electrical shut-off, or if the electrical had been restared and other deficiencies were identified as part of the refenal process. Ms. Shaff stated that per DSI policy, the Xcel referral triggered the C of O inspection and other deficiencies were noted in the inspection at the end of August. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Bemand whether he had been present far any of the inspections. Mr. Bertrand said he had. Ms. Moermond, Mr. Bertrand and Mr. Turner reviewed the photographs in the inspector's report. Mr. Tumer stated that they were asking that the property be taken out of the Vacant Building Program and returned to the C of O program. He said Mr. Bertrand had started getting permits and making wttections as soon as he received Inspector Martin's December 29 revocation letter and everything except the final inspection of the electrical wark was done as of January I S when Greg Johnson had re-inspected. He said it had not been communicated to Mr. Bertrand that there was a deadline for making the corrections or that the property might be refened to the Vacant Buildings Program. He said Unit 2 was not occupied and had never been occupied and he was told by Inspector Cumi�nings thaY Unit 2 was not an issue as long as no combustibles were stored there. Mr. Bertrand stated that on August 20, he received the letter about the power shut-off in Unit 2. He said he had explained to Inspector Cummings that it was an upstairs, unoccupied unit, and was told that an inspection was not necessary. He said the C of O inspection was scheduled by Inspector Martin in October and he had taken care of smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and the furnace report prior to the inspection. Unit 1 had just been vacated at the time of the inspection and there was some damage. He said Inspector Martin had measured egress windows in both bedrooms of Unit 1 and had told him that the egress window in the second bedroom should have been installed to- 45a1 Apri16, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 7 under permit and the sill height was too high. She also told him the room was too small to be used for sleeping but that he still needed to pull a permit for the window. Inspector Martin started to look at Unit 2 and told him either she could complete the inspection and write everything up that needed to be done, or he could fix everything in both units and potentially be eligible for five-yeaz inspections if the building passed on the first inspection. He said he initially agreed to try to get on the five-yeaz reinspection cycle, and Inspector Martin told him they were short-staffed and he should call to schedule the inspection when he was done. He said he had changed his mind a few days later and called Inspector Martin to tell her that he hadn't rented Unit 2 in ten years and had no intentions of renting it. He said Inspector Martin had told him that leaving Unit 2 as it was not an option and he had to get both units done. He said he called Ms. Shaff at that point and she said he didn't have to fix Unit 2 unless it was going to be occupied. He said he had also spoken with Ms. Shaff about the small bedroom and she indicated that the room was too small but he could appeal, although the appeal would probably not be granted. He said it was never conveyed to him that if the work wasn't done in a timely manner he would be a candidate for the vacant building list. He said a family had contacted him at the end of December about renting and he had called to request an inspection. He said that in the past, he was allowed to have the building occupied even if a few deficiencies remained. Ms. Moermond asked how long he would need to complete everything. Mr. Bertrand said he could be finished by the end of April. Mr. Bertrand said Inspector Martin had conducted an inspection on December 29 and cited additional items. He said he pulled a permit and started the wark that Inspector Martin had indicated at the inspection, but then received the orders in the mail two days later with an additional order related to the stairway. Ms. Moermond asked whether there were any written orders prior to December 29 other than the one-item revocation letter. Ms. Shaff listed appoinhnent letters dated August 20 and September 22, a revocation letter dated October 5, and an appointment letter dated November 6. Ms. Moermond asked what the revocation had been based on. Ms. Shaff said she wasn't sure. Mr. Tumer said they didn't have a copy the OcYOber 5 letter. Ms. Shaff provided a copy. Ms. Moermond noted that there were no orders leading to the revocation. Ms. Shaff agreed; she said there were inspector's notes about cancelled and rescheduled appointments, but no previous orders. Mr. Bertrand said he pulled a permit far the stairway and tried unsuccessfully to contact Inspector Martin for clarification of what was wrong with the stairway. He said Inspector Greg Johnson had come out and inspected the stairway and found a variation in the rise. Mr. Bertrand said he had replaced the stairway and Inspector Jot�nson had signed off on that and on other items. The only work not signed off on was the electrical but he was unable to finish that because of a stop work order that had been put in place when the vacant building file was opened. Mr. Turner said Mr. Bertrand had fallen and been unable to work on the house for a few weeks and had not been aware there was a deadline. Ms. Moermond asked when the conversation with Inspector Martin about inspection options had taken place. Mr. Bertrand said it had taken place on October 5. to - 4Sa1 April 6, 2010 Property Code Minutes � Ms. Moermond recommended that the properiy be removed from the Vacant Building Program as she didn't believe this case was handled very we11 and was disappointed in the way the orders were written. She recommended granting the appeal and granting an extension to May 31 to complete the necessary repairs as outlined in the C of O deficiency list. She also requested the inspection be conducted by a supervisor. Appeal of Window World to the denial of building permit to replace egress windows for property at 28 Elizabeth Street West. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal. co���;� Fae # lfl - tsq Green Sheet# 3108576 Presented by RESOLUTION �JjJT PAUL, MiNNESOTA �5 I BE TT I2ESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the April 6, 2 2010 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals to Letters, Certificate of Occupancy 3 Deficiency Lists, Vacant Building Registration Notice and Fees, and Denial of Building Permits to Replace 4 Egress Windows for the following addresses: 5 6 Proaertv Apaealed Appellant 7 8 2242 University Avenue West Daniel Hartnett, 2242 Partnership 9 10 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant one year for replacement with a code-compliant altemative. I1 12 18 White Bear Avenue North John Higgs, Public Housing Agency 13 14 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant a 90-day extension to bring the egress windows in the northwest, 15 northeast and south bedrooms into compliance. 16 17 807 Idaho Avenue West John Higgs, Public Housing Agency 18 19 Decision: Grant a 1.5-inch vaziance on the ceiling height requirement in the second floor room; a 5-inch 20 variance on the openable height of the egress window in the second floor bedroom; a 5-inch variance on 21 the openable height of the egress window in the first floor, rear west bedroom; a 1-inch variance on the 22 openable height of the egress window in the first floor, reaz east bedroom; and a 1.5-inch variance on the 23 openable height of the egress window in the first floor, front bedroom. 24 25 691 Magnolia Avenue East John Higgs, Public Housing Agency 26 27 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant a 90-day extension for bringing the egress window in the upstairs 28 bedroom into compliance. 29 30 68 Jessamine Avenue West Jerry Morgan, Starbrite Properties 31 32 Decision: Grant the appeal on the arder to install a fire-rated door. 33 34 777 Sixth Street East Hank Cu 35 36 Decision: Grant a 4-inch vaziance on the openable width of the egress window in the south bedroom, Unit 37 1. 38 to - 45�1 39 1743 Minnehaha Avenue East Titus Contracting LLC 40 41 Decision: Grant a 3-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the south bedroom; 42 grant a 6-inch variance on the ceiling height requirement in the finished attic room. 43 44 748 Tatum Street Singer Group, o/b/o Roblyn Investments 45 46 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension for six months to bring the deadbolt locks and bedroom 47 egress windows into compliance. 48 49 2150 Wilson Avenue 50 51 Stephanie Bolger, oIb/o Goodman GroupBradley House 52 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension to September 1, 2010 to bring the interior stairwell 53 guardrails into compliance. 54 55 944 Woodbridge Street 56 Damon Hunter 57 Decision: Grant the appeal on the revocation witb all items being corrected by April 19, 2010. 58 59 365 Fuller Avenue Michael Bertrand 60 61 Decision: Grant the appeal with an extension granted to May 31, 2010 for completing the necessary 62 repairs. The inspection must be conducted by a supervisor. 63 64 28 Blizabeth Street West 65 66 Decision: Deny the appeal. 67 Window World Reqvested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney By: Adopted by Council: Date ��S ��Q/U Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council Adoption Certified by Counc' Secretary BY ��( i' clrJ Approved ate �CC Zolo By: �� � � Approved by the Office of Financial Services � 10- tS� � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � DepartmentlOffice/Council: Date Initiated: co-�°°°��� 2gqpR2010 Green Sheet NO: 3108576 Contact Person & Phone: DepaRment Sent To Person InitiallDate Marcia Moermond y o C�ounca [� 1 oonc� De artment Dirx[or Assign 2 � Clerk ' Cierk Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 3 � Routing 4 � Doc.Type:RESOLUTION Order 5 � E-DocumentRequired: Y Document Contact: Contact Pho�: Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signaturej Action Requested: Reso]ution approving the Apri16, 2010 decisions of the Legislative Aearing Officer for Appeals to Letters, C of O Deficiency Lists, Vacan[ Building Fees, and Denial of Building Permits for properties at 2242 University W, 18 White Bear N, 807 Idaho W, 691 Magnolia E, 68 Jessamine W, 777 Sixth E, 1743 Minnehaha E, 748 Tatum, 2150 Wilson, 944 Woodbridge, 365 Fuller, and 28 Elizabeth W. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has ihis personlfirtn ever worked under a contracifor this depahment? CIB Committee Yes No Ctvil Service Commission 2. Has this personlfirm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Dces this personlfirm possess a skill not normafly possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answ¢rs on separate sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, IssUes, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): AdvanWges IfApproved: DisadvanWges If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: 7otai Amount of Trensaction: CosURevenue Budgeted: Funding Source: AGtivity Number: Fina�cial Information: (F�plain) Aprii 28, 2010 10:21 AM Page 1 1v• 4S q MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OFFICER ON APPEALS OF LETTERS, LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION NOTICES & FEES, AND DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMITS Tuesday, April 6, 2010 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at I:35 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Leanna Shaff, Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI) — Fire; Dennis Senty, DSI — Code Enforcement Mai Vang, City Council Offices Appeal of Daniel Hartnett, 2242 Partnership, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 2242 Universitv Avenue West. (Continued from March 23) Appellant Daniel Hartnett (2157 Stanford Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55105) appeazed. Mr. Hartnett provided a model of a lock option that had been suggested by one of his tenants. The option allowed the HASP to be locked in the open position when the unit was occupied. Ms. Moermond and Ms. Shaff reviewed the model and photographs that Mr. Hartnett had submitted. Mr. Hartnett said most of the tenants that had installed the new locks had signed an addendum to their leases which he believed solved the problem. Ms. Shaff noted that the doors had deadbolts and asked why an additional lock was needed. Mr. Hartnett said deadbolts had been kicked in and his tenants felt strongly about the need for the additional locks. Ms. Shaff asked what type of doors they were. Mr. Hartnett said the door in the photograph was a steel door. Ms. Shaff asked whether there was a bolt that secured the bottom of the door. Mr. Hartnett said some of the doors had that and again said that some of the deadbolts had been kicked in and not all tenants had steel double doors. Ms. Shaff asked what would happen if a tenant forgot to lock the HASP. Mr. Hartnett reiterated that it was important to the tenants; they had signed an addendum to their leases and they wouldn't forget. He said he had never appealed an order before but this order had caused an"uproar" among the tenants. Ms. Shaff said she understood the tenants' concerns but there were a lot of options for making a door more secure. She said codes were written in response to someone being hurt or killed, and one mistake witl� the proposed locks could create the potential for someone to be trapped. Ms. Moermond said she was not confidenY that the locks would address the situation in the case of an emergency and would not ask the council to sign off on something that was less safe. She recommended denying the appeal and granting one year to find a code-compliant alternative. �d � tsq Apri16, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 2 3. Appeal of dohn Higgs, Public Housing Agency, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 18 White Bear Avenue North. Appellant John Higgs (Public Housing Agency, 200 East Arch Street, St. Paul, MN 55130) appeared. He said the building was built in 1970 and he was asking for an extension to install code- compliant windows. Ms. Shaff stated that she had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O on February 26 and found that the openable dimensions of the egress window in the northwest bedroom were 14 inches high by 38 inches wide; the northeast bedroom were 9 inches high by 36 inches wide; and the south bedroom were 9 inches high by 36 inches wide. Mr. Higgs requested 90 days to bring the windows into compliance. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting a 90-day extension to bring the egress windows in the northwest, northeast and south bedrooms into compliance. 4. Appeal of John Higgs, Public Housing Agency, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 807 Idaho Avenue West. Appellant John Higgs (Public Housing Agency, 200 East Arch Street, St. Paul, MN 55130) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that she had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O on March 22 and found that the ceiling heig�t in the second floor room was 1.5 inches short of the required seven feet over half of the floor area. She described the ceiling configuration and room dimensions. She said the openable dimensions of the egress windows in the first floor, rear west bedroom were 19 inches high by 34 inches wide; the first floor, rear east bedroom were 23 inches high by 26 wide; the first floor, front bedroom were 22.5 inches high by 30 inches wide; and the second floor bedroom were 19 inches high by 22 inches wide. Ms. Moermond zecommended granting a 1.5-inch variance on the ceiling height requirement in the second floor room; a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the second floor bedroom; a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the first floor, reaz west bedroom; a 1-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the first floor, rear east bedroom; and a 1.5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the first floor, front bedroom. Appeal of John Higgs, Public Housing Agency, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 691 Maenolia Avenue East. Appellant John Higgs (Public Housing Agency, 200 East Arch Street, St. Paul, MN 55130) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that Tnspector Booker had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O on March 10 and reported that the openable dimensions of the egress window in the upstairs bedroom were 19.5 inches high by 21.5 inches wide. She said Mr. Higgs was requesting 90 days to bring the window into compliance. � e- 45 q Apri16, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 3 Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting a 90-day extension to bring the egress window in the upstairs bedroom into compliance. 6. Appeal of Jerry Morgan, Starbrite Properties, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 68 7essamine Avenue West. Appellant Mr. J. Morgan (P. O. Box 7443, Minneapolis, MN 55407) appeazed. Ms. Shaff stated that Inspector Girling had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O on March 8 and written orders that the Unit 1 back door be replaced with a fire-rated door. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Morgan why he was appealing. Mr. Morgan stated that the building was a single-family home that had been converted to a duplex. He said he had looked up the code number referenced in the orders and it did not say what the orders indicated it said. He said the doors were 3-inch wooden doors and had never been cited before. Ms. Moermond reviewed SPLC 34.09 (3) referring to windows, doors and hatchways, and she read from subparts relating to the maintenance of exterior doors and hardware. Mr. Morgan said that was what he had read and it clearly didn't say anything about a fire-rated door being required. Ms. Shaff asked whether the door cited was the one that went to the basement. Mr. Morgan said that the inspector wanted him to change all the doors but the one in the order was a 3-inch exterior door. Ms. Shaff asked whether there was glass in the top. Mr. Morgan said there was and it had been approved. He clarified that it was the back door to the apartment, there was no common area, and there were sepazate entrances to the basement and upstairs. Ms. Shaff asked whether the glass was safety glass. She said that was a greater concern and might have been why the inspector cited it. Mr. Moxgan stated that in 2007, thexe had been a complaint by a tenant who was a relative of a fire department employee and he had worked with Inspector Thomas and Ms. Shaff to make the required corrections. He was just trying to make a living and felt that maybe he was being targeted. He had brought the code reference error to the attention of the inspector and she told him that sbe might have made a mistake; however, property owners were held liable for anything they did wrong. The inspector had made an appointment and had not shown up due to a family emergency. The department must have policies so that a property owner could be notified in a situation like that. Ms. Shaff said she didn't know what the specific circumstances were in that case. Ms. Moermond recommended granting the appeal on the order to install a fire-rated door. Appeal of Hank Cu to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List ior property at 777 Si�h Street East. Appellant Hank Cu (1119 East River Parkway, Minneapolis, MN 55407) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that Inspector Booker had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O on March 19 and reported that four windows were deficient. She confirmed with Mr. Cu that only one of the 10- 45°t Apri16, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 4 windows was being appealed. The openable dimensions of the window in the south bedroom of Unit 1 were 28.5 inches high by 16 inches wide. Mr. Cu stated that he was appealing the orders for the egress window in the south bedroom of Unit 1, and provided photographs. He said the framing of the window was part of the foundation of the house. Ms. Moermond, Ms. Shaff and Mr. Cu reviewed the photographs. Mr. Cu stated that the tenants were about his size and could squeeze through the window if necessary. He also noted that the building was on a historic site. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 4-inch variance on the openable width of the egress window in the south bedroom, Unit 1. Appeal of Titus Contracting LLC to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1743 Minnehaha Avenue East Appellant Scott Rajavouri (9765 172 Street, Lakeville, MN 55044) appeared. Mr. Rajavouri stated that Inspector Thomas had suggested he appeal the ordex related to the ceiling height requirement in the finished attic as well as the egress window order. He provided photographs which Ms. Moermond reviewed. Ms. Moermond reviewed the arders and recommended granting a 3-inch variance on tk�e openable height of the egress window in the south bedroom; grant a 6-inch variance on the ceiling height requirement in the finished attic room. Appeal of Singer Group, on behalf of Roblyn Investments, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 748 Tatum Street. Appellant Bruce Singer (57 Groveland Tenace, Minneapolis, MN 554Q3) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that Inspector Imbertson had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O on March 3 and reported that the egress windows were awning style with a scissor-type hinge and opened outward to 7.5 inches with standard force. Mr. Singer stated that the house was built in 1963, the windows appeared to be original, and had passed inspection before. He stated that they were also ordered to replace the roof and move the deadbolts and would like more time to bring the windows into compliance. He said the deadbolts had also been there for 40 yeazs and had always passed inspection. He said there was a long list of corrections and they were almost finished. Ms. Shaff noted that the orders refened only to the door lock on Unit 9. Mr. Singer said they were ail the same and he assumed they would have to lower them all. Ms. Moermond asked how much time was needed. Mr. Singer asked whether he could have six months. Ms. Moermond also noted that the deadbolt in Unit 9 was the only one cited in the orders. �o- 45q Apri16, 2010 Property Code Minutes She recommended denying the appeal and granting an extension for six months to bring the deadbolt locks and bedroom egress windows into compliance. Page 5 10. Appeal of Stephanie Bolger, Goodman GroupBradley House, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for properiy at 2150 Wilson Avenue. Appellant Stephanie Bolger (2150 Wilson Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55119) and Ron Price (3358 Library Lane, St. Louis Park, MN 55426} appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that Inspector Thomas had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O and cited the guardrails for all interior stairwells. Ms. Bolger said they were getting bids and she asked for more time. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting an extension to September I to bring the interior stairwell guardrails into compliance. 11. Appeal of Damon Hunter to a Certificate of Occupancy Revocation for property at 944 Woodbrid�e Street. Appellant Damon Hunter (1728 University Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55104) appeared. Ms Shaff stated that the C of O had been revoked and an order Co vacate was issued by Inspector Martin on Mazch 17. She said there were a lot of deficiencies. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Hunter whether he was the landlord. Mr. Hunter said he was. He said he rented the property as a single-family home but had had trouble with tbe tenants and decided to rent the rooms individually to some acquaintances from the barber shops he owned. He said someone in zoning told him that he could rent to up to four adults in separate rooms, but the fire inspector had said he wasn't zoned for it and couldn't have locks on the bedroom doors. Ms. Moermond said it was correct that he could rent to four adults but couldn't have locks on the doors; she could see how the misunderstanding with zoning staff might have occurred. Mr. Hunter said one of the renters had been moving out anyway and the inspector had told him not to rent the room again. The two people still living there had agreed to go under one lease and the locks would be taken off the doors. He said the other deficiencies would also be corrected. Ms. Shaff said the inspector's notes indicated that framing, sheet rocking, electrical and plumbing had been done in the basement without permits. Mr. Hunter said he had done the framing and sheet rocking and hadn't known a permit was required. He had hired a general contractor since then, and permits were being pulled for construction, electrical, and plumbing. The re-inspection date was April 19 and he believed everything would be taken care of by then. He said that the off-streeC parking spaces were no longer an issue since the house was no longer considered a rooming house. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Hunter what he was looking for in the appeal. He said he was looking to have the Certificate of Occupancy reinstated. Ms. Moermond noted that the reinspection was w - 4S°I April 6, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 6 scheduled for April 19; she asked when the work would be done. Mr. Hunter said everything but the basement would be done by April 19. Ms. Moermond recommended granting the appeal on the revocation; all items must be corrected by the April 19, 2010 reinspection. 12. Appeal of Michael Bertrand to a Vacant Building Registration Notice and Fee and C of O Revocation for property at 365 Fuller Avenue. Appellant Michael Bertrand and Doug Turner (33 South 6 Street #4040, Minneapolis, MN 55402) appeared. Mr. Senty stated that the property had been referred from the C of O program with a 15-item deficiency list and a Category 2 recommendation. He said he had inspected and posted the property on Mazch 3 and opened the file as a Category 2. Ms. Shaff said this was a referral from Xcel on August 19, 2009 for a gas and/or electric shut off in Unit 2 as of May 5, 2009. She said Inspector Cummings had responded to the referral on August 31 and noted that the electrical be restored or the unit vacated. Ms. Shaff stated that issues with the property continued through the fall and into March 2010. She said Unit 2 had been unoccupied at the time of the original Teferral and the rest of the building had been vacated since then. She refened Ms. Moermond to the photographs. Ms Moermond asked whether Unit 2 had been vacated earlier due to the electrical shut-off, or if the electrical had been restared and other deficiencies were identified as part of the refenal process. Ms. Shaff stated that per DSI policy, the Xcel referral triggered the C of O inspection and other deficiencies were noted in the inspection at the end of August. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Bemand whether he had been present far any of the inspections. Mr. Bertrand said he had. Ms. Moermond, Mr. Bertrand and Mr. Turner reviewed the photographs in the inspector's report. Mr. Tumer stated that they were asking that the property be taken out of the Vacant Building Program and returned to the C of O program. He said Mr. Bertrand had started getting permits and making wttections as soon as he received Inspector Martin's December 29 revocation letter and everything except the final inspection of the electrical wark was done as of January I S when Greg Johnson had re-inspected. He said it had not been communicated to Mr. Bertrand that there was a deadline for making the corrections or that the property might be refened to the Vacant Buildings Program. He said Unit 2 was not occupied and had never been occupied and he was told by Inspector Cumi�nings thaY Unit 2 was not an issue as long as no combustibles were stored there. Mr. Bertrand stated that on August 20, he received the letter about the power shut-off in Unit 2. He said he had explained to Inspector Cummings that it was an upstairs, unoccupied unit, and was told that an inspection was not necessary. He said the C of O inspection was scheduled by Inspector Martin in October and he had taken care of smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and the furnace report prior to the inspection. Unit 1 had just been vacated at the time of the inspection and there was some damage. He said Inspector Martin had measured egress windows in both bedrooms of Unit 1 and had told him that the egress window in the second bedroom should have been installed to- 45a1 Apri16, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 7 under permit and the sill height was too high. She also told him the room was too small to be used for sleeping but that he still needed to pull a permit for the window. Inspector Martin started to look at Unit 2 and told him either she could complete the inspection and write everything up that needed to be done, or he could fix everything in both units and potentially be eligible for five-yeaz inspections if the building passed on the first inspection. He said he initially agreed to try to get on the five-yeaz reinspection cycle, and Inspector Martin told him they were short-staffed and he should call to schedule the inspection when he was done. He said he had changed his mind a few days later and called Inspector Martin to tell her that he hadn't rented Unit 2 in ten years and had no intentions of renting it. He said Inspector Martin had told him that leaving Unit 2 as it was not an option and he had to get both units done. He said he called Ms. Shaff at that point and she said he didn't have to fix Unit 2 unless it was going to be occupied. He said he had also spoken with Ms. Shaff about the small bedroom and she indicated that the room was too small but he could appeal, although the appeal would probably not be granted. He said it was never conveyed to him that if the work wasn't done in a timely manner he would be a candidate for the vacant building list. He said a family had contacted him at the end of December about renting and he had called to request an inspection. He said that in the past, he was allowed to have the building occupied even if a few deficiencies remained. Ms. Moermond asked how long he would need to complete everything. Mr. Bertrand said he could be finished by the end of April. Mr. Bertrand said Inspector Martin had conducted an inspection on December 29 and cited additional items. He said he pulled a permit and started the wark that Inspector Martin had indicated at the inspection, but then received the orders in the mail two days later with an additional order related to the stairway. Ms. Moermond asked whether there were any written orders prior to December 29 other than the one-item revocation letter. Ms. Shaff listed appoinhnent letters dated August 20 and September 22, a revocation letter dated October 5, and an appointment letter dated November 6. Ms. Moermond asked what the revocation had been based on. Ms. Shaff said she wasn't sure. Mr. Tumer said they didn't have a copy the OcYOber 5 letter. Ms. Shaff provided a copy. Ms. Moermond noted that there were no orders leading to the revocation. Ms. Shaff agreed; she said there were inspector's notes about cancelled and rescheduled appointments, but no previous orders. Mr. Bertrand said he pulled a permit far the stairway and tried unsuccessfully to contact Inspector Martin for clarification of what was wrong with the stairway. He said Inspector Greg Johnson had come out and inspected the stairway and found a variation in the rise. Mr. Bertrand said he had replaced the stairway and Inspector Jot�nson had signed off on that and on other items. The only work not signed off on was the electrical but he was unable to finish that because of a stop work order that had been put in place when the vacant building file was opened. Mr. Turner said Mr. Bertrand had fallen and been unable to work on the house for a few weeks and had not been aware there was a deadline. Ms. Moermond asked when the conversation with Inspector Martin about inspection options had taken place. Mr. Bertrand said it had taken place on October 5. to - 4Sa1 April 6, 2010 Property Code Minutes � Ms. Moermond recommended that the properiy be removed from the Vacant Building Program as she didn't believe this case was handled very we11 and was disappointed in the way the orders were written. She recommended granting the appeal and granting an extension to May 31 to complete the necessary repairs as outlined in the C of O deficiency list. She also requested the inspection be conducted by a supervisor. Appeal of Window World to the denial of building permit to replace egress windows for property at 28 Elizabeth Street West. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal.