Loading...
10-511Council File # 10-511 Green Sheet # 3111177 Presented by RESOLUTION SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA /� 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the August 2 18, 2009 decision of the Legisiative Hearing Officer for Appeal to Letter of Certificate of Occupancy 3 Deficiency List for the following address: 4 S Property Appealed 6 7 633 Palace Avenue 8 9 Decision: Grant the appeal. 10 11 12 13 Boshom Carter Harris Helgen Stark Thune Yeas Adopted by CounciC Date °?� �G Appellant Ron Staeheli Absent Requested by Department of: � Adoption Certified by Cou il Secretary BY /! � c/!s�':2 Approved a ate � L7 7�! o By: Form Approved by City Attomey By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council B Approved by the Office of Financial Services By: 10-51 � Green Sheet Green Sheet Greer► Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � DepartmenUOffice/Council: Date Initiated: co-�°°°°�� ,Z�Y2o,o Green Sheet NO: 3111177 ConUd Person & Phone: Department Sent To Person InitiallDate Marcia Moermond y o oon�a [� 6-8570 1 oancil De arm�eutDirector Assign 2 'tvCterk Ci Clerk Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number � 19-AAAY-50 For 3 Routing < 0 Doc. Type: RESOLUTION Order 5 � E-DOCUment Required: Y DocumentConWCi: MaiVang Contact Phane: 6-8563 Toql # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Resolution approving the decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeal of a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for proper[y at 633 Palace Avenue. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planni�g Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this depaRment? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Se�vice Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a cily employee? Yes No � 3. Does this personlfirm possess a skili not normafly possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Euplain 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: Disadvan W ges If Not Approved: Total Amount of Tre�action: Cost/Revenue Budgeted: Funding Source: P.ctivity Number. Financial Infortnation: (Explain) May 12, 2010 2:54 PM Page 1 10-511 August 18, 2009 Properry Code Minutes Page 10 13. Appeal of Ron Staeheli to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 633 Palace Avenue. Appellant Ron Staeheli (43�� Blackhawk Road, Eagan, MN 55122) appeared. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She stated that Inspector Neis had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O on July 23 and reported ten deficiencies. She said Mr. Staeheli was refuting almost all of the items. Ms. Moermond and Mr. Staeheli reviewed the inspector's photographs of the exterior of the building. Ms. Shaff read Item 1 from the inspector's report regazding the venting of the water heater, and Mr. Staeheli's written response to that item. Mr. Staeheli's response stated that the dent in the vent hood support did not affect the functionality of the unit. He said the way the deficiency was called affected the way the property was scored, which in turn determined the frequency of required inspections. The inspector said the water heater vent didn't draft properly but had not done a draft test and had no evidence to support that. Mr. Staeheli referred to some notes from the property record and asked who had referred the property for an early C of O. He said statute stipulated that an early C of O could only be ordered by a Fire Marshal or someone in the direct employ of the Fire Masshal, and said it appeared that a police officer had requested the early C of �. He said there had been an armed officer present at the inspection. He felt iY was dangerous for the police to decide who was allowed to live at a property and there had been a sergeant from the St. Paul Police Department harassing one of the tenants over the behavior of the tenanYs children. He said they filed a complaint with internal affairs. He felt the early C oY Q was ordered because the police department didn't like his tenanYs family. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Shaff why there had been an early Fire C of O. Ms. Shaff read from the STAMP property record: `Behavioral complaints per Dean. Go out there with him and do an early C of O." NIr. Staeheli reiterated that it appeared the police wexe calling for an eazly C of O which was a violation of the statute. Ms. Moermond said that perhaps the police were requesting the Fire Marshal order the early C of O. Mr. Staeheli said that the request might have met the letter of the law but did not meet the spirit. He reiterated that he felt it was dangerous for the police to be able to determine who lived where and said his tenant had not had trouble with the law since 1994. Ms. Moermond asked how that related to the appeal. Mr. Staeheli acknowledged that it was off- point except as it related to his assertion Yhat the order for the early C of O violated the spirit of the law. He said that setting that assertion aside, the inspector had been granted access to the property and the inspection had occurred, and so the items found in the inspection were "allowable." He reiterated that the water heater vent was fine and that the way it was cited was unfair and scored him in a way that set him up for more frequent inspections. Ms. Moermond asked about the next item being appealed. Ms. Shaff read Ttem 2 regarding combustible materials in the gazebo; she referred to the photographs and Inspector Neis's notes. Mr. Staeheli asked what avidence there was that the items were combustible. Ms. Moermond stated that the theory was everything was combustible and the problem appeared to be one of excessive accumulation of items. Mr. Staeheli responded that excessive accumulation of combustible August 18, 2009 Property Code Minutes 10-511 Page 11 materials was only not allowed in a dwelling and the gazebo was a sepazate structure away from all dwelling units. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Shaff whether it was a dwelling consideration or a structure consideration; Ms. Shaff sald she would need to review the statute. Mr. Staeheli said the code refened specifically to combustibles. He added that the inspector had expressed concern about rodents. Ms. Moertnond said she felt the issue was the excessive accumulation; Mr. Staeheli reiterated that the code applied to excessive accumulation of combustible materials in a dwelling. Ms. Shaff read Item 3 on the appeal regarding repair and maintenance of window screens. Mr. Staeheli stated that the Supreme Court didn't allow for the city to enforce codes that were in conflict with the building codes from when the property was built. Ms. Shaff referred to photographs 1 and 2 and said that in photograph 2, it was possible to see stickers on the window where there were screen issues. She said maintenance issues weren't part of that Supreme Court decision. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Mr. Staeheli that he was contending the issue was covered by Sax v. Monis; she said that staff was contending that it was not covered. Mr. Staeheli said there was no reason to discuss the matter fizrther unless they wanted to talk only about the windows that had been replaced. Ms. Moermond asked whether there were any windows that had not been replaced. Mr. Staeheli said there were. Ms. Shaff read Item 4 regarding use of extension cards in the lower unit. She noted that the inspector had said the extension cord had been removed during the inspection. Mr. Staeheli said the code referred specifically to the use of extension cords in lieu of permanent wiring. He said the cord was being used to plug in a phone chazger for convenience, on a temporazy basis, and was not being used in lieu of permanent wiring. Ms. Shaff noted that the inspector's report indicated the cord went behind some furniture. Mr. Staeheli said it was plugged into a plug strip, which was allowed. He reiterated that it was noC being used in lieu of permanent wiring or an outlet on that side of the room, and was not plugging in a permanently installed item. Ms. Shaff read Item 5 relating to the ceiling tiles in the lower unit. Mr. Staeheli stated there was a good solid ceiling above the suspended ceiling and the suspended ceiling was aesthetia Ms. Shaff said the code did specifically require that supplied structures be maintained and intact. Mr. Staeheli said the ceiling was maintained and intact. He said the suspended ceiling was decorative and compaxed it to window treatments. Ms. Shaff read item 6 regazding obstruction of the egress window. Mr. Staeheli stated that the code used refened to furniture or structures blocking egress doors or corridors. He said in many cities, a dresser could be used as a means to comply with sili height requirements and that a 32-inch dresser could not block a window that only had to be 44 inches off the floor. Ms. Shaff said the orders could be amended to cite 10283. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Staeheli if he was satisfied with that amendment to the arders. Mr. Staeheli asked how the code read. Ms. Shaff said it required the exit be maintained and not blocked. Mr. Staeheli asked whether the code referred to exits or egress windows. Ms. Shaff said that semantics could be argued but that it was reasonable to assume that the code was referring to egress. Mr. Staeheli stated thai if the window had a sill that was the same depth as the dresser it would meet code. He said the dresser was not higher than the bottom of the window and didn't actually block the window. He asked at what point in the room was "in front of ' the window and said you had to be able to decorate the room. Ms. Moermond asked about item 7. Ms. Shaff said there was a hole in the wall. Mr. Staeheli stated that the hole had been cut in the wall for practical reasons to accommodate a doorknob. Ms. August 18, 2009 Property Code Minutes 10-511 Page 12 Moermond asked whether there was a way to finish the open azea. Mr. Staeheli said he had cut it with a knife, and while there wasn't a trim piece, it was a nice round even hole with dryv✓all on the other side. Ms. Moermond asked about item 8. Ms. Shaff read the item ordering that the window glass in the reaz porch be repaized and maintained. Mr. Staeheli said the pane of glass had been completely removed and cleaned up. He said it was an open porch at the rear of the house and the glass was not required. Ms. Shaff asked whether there had been a window sash there at one time. Mr. Staeheli said he didn't know. Mr. Staeheli asked how long the furnace inspections were good for. Ms. Shaff responded that they were good for 12 months. Mr. Staeheli asked that inspectors be encouraged to score items properly. Ms. Moermond noted that Mr. Staeheli had asked for a refund of the appeal fee. She denied the request and said she only refunded the fee in extremely rare circumstances. Ms. Moermond stated that she would issue her decision in a week or ten days. Mr. Staeheli asked whether the August 24 re-inspection could be cancelled so he wasn't charged for excessive consumption. Ms. Moermond said she would request that the re-inspection be rescheduled. 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.