Loading...
10-510Council File # 10-510 Green Sheet# 3111176 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Presented RESOLUTION SAINT PAUL, MINNES07A f� BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of 5aint Paul hereby certifies and approves the November 3, 2009 decision of the Legislative Heazing Officer for Appeal to Letter of Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for the following address: PYOpeI'ty Appealed 971 Case Avenue Decision: Crrant the appeal. Bostrom Carter Harris Yeas � Appellant Ahti Hujanen Requested by Department of: Stark Thune � Form Approved by City Attomey By: Adopted by Council: Date ����I�e2�//� Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council Adoption Certified by Coun il Secretary gy. BY� � Si1n Approve y. Date ��7i�/7�O1 o Approved by the Office of Financial Services �— By: By: 10-51 � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet DepartmenHOffice/Councfl: Date Initiated: co- 12MAY2010 Green Sheet NO: 3111176 Contact Person & Phone: Department Sent To Person InitiallDate Marcia Moermond � o ouncil � 6-8570 1 oancil De artment Direetor Assign Z ' Ckrk G1 lerk Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 3 � For 4 O Routing Doc. Type: RESOLUTION Order 5 � E-DOCUment Required: Y Document Contact: Mai Vang Contact Phone: 6-8563 Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Resolurion approving [he decision of the Legista[ive Hearing Officer on Appeal of a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency Lis[ for property at 971 Case Avenue. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Senice Contracts Must Mswer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department7 CIB CommiHee Yes Mo Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessetl by any current city employee? Yes No 6cplain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Probiem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): AdvanWges tfApproved; , DisadvantageslfApproved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: ToWI Amount of Transadion: CosVRevenue Budgeted: Funding Source: AM���y Number: Financial Information: (Explain) _ May 12, 2010 2:52 PM Page 1 10-510 November 3, 2009 Property Code Minutes Page 9 9. Appeal of Ahti Hujanen to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 971 Case Avenue. (Rescheduled from Oct. 6 and Oct. 27) Appellants Ahti and Hillary Hujanen (7545 43 Street N., Oakdale, MN 55128) appeared. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She stated that Inspector Thomas had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O on September 14 and reported 19 deficiencies, a11 of which were being appealed. Mr. Hujanen stated that they had been through one inspection and appeal. There had been 19 new items at the re-inspection and they were frustrated at having to go through the process twice. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Shaff how these circumstance would come about. Mr. Hujanen said Inspector Thomas indicated that a complete inspecrion was not done the first time because they had not been present, but they had not been notified of the inspection. Ms. Shaff asked whether the initial inspection had been a referral. Ms. Hujanen said that as far as they were able to determine, the initial inspection was from a PHA referraL Ms. Shaff said that typically the PHA referral would be addressed first and a full C of O inspection conducted when there was more time. Ms. Moermond asked about Item 1, dealing with gas cans in the basement. Ms. Hujanen said the gas cans had been removed while the inspector was present and shouldn't have been listed as a deficiency. Ms. Shaff said the item typically would be left on the report, especially in the case of something like a gas can, and that the report did note that it had been taken caze of at the time of the inspection. Ms. Hujanen addressed the second item, dealing with downstairs windows. She said no measurements had been given in the inspector's report and that they had measured the windows. She said the dimensions of the window in bedroom 1 were 29 inches wide by 30 inches high, in bedroom 2 were 25 inches wide by 30 inches high, and in bedroom 3 were 29 inches wide by 30 inches high. Mr. Hujanen said the dimensions were for the openable space. Ms. Moermond noted that the windows had been cited with no specifics. Ms. Shaff asked whether the windows had been sticking. Mr. Hujanen said he wasn't sure. Ms. Moermond said she would grant the appeal on that item. Mr. Hujanen addressed Item 3, ordering that they caulk azound the base of the toilet. He said caulking azound the toilet was not standard practice. Ms. Shaff said it was standazd practice; she read the applicable section of the code. Mr. Hujanen said that caulking the base of the toilet would trap any water leaking through the wax ring and potentially cause the wood to rot. Ms. Shaff said she consulted with the senior plumbing inspector and that caulking azound the toilet was required. Ms. Hujanen said Items 4 and 5 had been taken care of at the time of the inspection. She said she wasn't sure which screens were being referred to in Item 6. Mr. Hujanen said that one screen had been askew but was now fixed. Ms. Hujanen said she wasn't sure about Items 7 and 8 dealing with window locks and window sashes. Ms. Shaff asked whether all of the windows locked. Ms. Hujanen said they did. She said Item 8 may have been refemng to the same window cited in Item 6 and that it had been corrected. November 3, 2009 Property Code Minutes 10-510 Page 10 Mr. Hujanen said he didn't feel the stairway cited in Item 10 was unsafe. He aiso questioned that the work would require a permit. Ms. Shaff referred to notes from the building inspector for the azea affirming that the work needed to be done and that it needed to be done under permit. Mr. and Ms. Hujanen reviewed the inspector's photographs showing rotted wood underneath the stairs. Mr. Hujanen said the stairs were stable and provided photographs and measurements of the steps indicating that the run, rise and railing were a11 correct. He provided a photograph showing Ms. Huj anen standing on one foot on the stairs indicating that they could support 100 pounds per square foot. Ms. Moermond noted that one of the codes cited had to do with insect and rodent infestation. Ms. Shaff said the first code citation was correct and the second was an error due to an Amanda issue. Ms. Moermond said she would grant the appeal on the insect and rodent infestation. Ms. Moermond asked about Item 11 dealing with the rear stairway. Ms. Hujanen said the situation was the same as with Item 10. Ms. Moermond asked what kinds of things the inspector would be looking for. Ms. Shaff said the inspector would look for rotted wood, protruding nails and whether the stairs were firmly attached to the structure. She asked whether the appellants had accompanied the inspector. Ms. Hujanen responded that she had accompanied the inspector and he had pointed out the rotting wood but had not stepped on the stairs. Mr. Hujanen said a visual inspection was not enough. Ms. Hujanen said Item 15 did not give the measurements of the noncompliant door hazdware. Ms. Shaff noted that the inspector's report did specify what was required so it could be assumed that the existing hardware was not within the required range. Ms. Moermond asked about Item 16. Ms. Hujanen stated that from what she could ascertain, the wood exterior surfaces were free from holes and deterioration. She said it was painted and well- maintained. Mr. Hujanen said that the last time they checked, there was cement-board siding and they had replaced some tiles a year ago and hadn't seen anything of concem at that time. Ms. Hujanen said they painted a good portion of it the previous spring per PHA requirements. She said she had been with the inspector and he had not pointed out any specific areas. Ms. Moermond asked about Item 17 pertaining to foundation elements. Mr. Hujanen said the previous owners had put a coating on the foundation and it was flaking off but it was not a problem with the foundation itsel£ Ms. Hujanen said the foundation was very solid. She said the inspector had pointed out cosmetic cracks in the cement surface and said they were foundation issues. Mr. Hujanen said they could remove the loose, cosmetic material. Ms. Moermond said Item 18 dealing with the eves appeazed to be a"heads up." Ms. Hujanen said the statute referenced talked about the roof and that the roof was fine. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Hujanen to provide some larger photographs and said she would like some better color photographs from staf£ She acknowledged the appellants' frustration but said that appealing every item on the deficiency list was counterproductive. Mr. Hujanen said the bottom line was that they fixed the windows and intended to continue to invest in the property but would like to wait until next year on the additional items. November 3, 2009 Property Code Minutes 10-510 Page 1I Ms. Moermond said she wanted to review the matter fiurther and asked the appellants to submit a work plan in addition to new photographs. She said she was not comfortable accepting the 100 pounds per square foot measurement because other factors could cause the stairs to fail at any time. On May 11, 2010, Ms. Moermond stated that she recommended granting the appeal because the recommendation was not reviewed in a timely manner. However, the Department may re-issue orders as they see fit.