10-575Council File # �� ' S�Cj
Green Sheet# 3113257
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
RESOLUTION
OF,$AINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented by
��
BE �T RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the April 13,
2010 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals to Letters, Deficiency Lists, and Denial of
Building Permits to Replace Egress Windows for the following addresses:
Propertv Appealed
383 Hamline Avenue South
Decision: Grant the appeal on the egress bedroom windows.
790 AtlanYic Street
Appellant
Minnesota Rusco
Charles McCarty
Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension to April 16 to complete the remainder of the
deficiencies on the list.
415 Sherburne Avenue.
Decision: Grant the appeal.
1540 English Street
Dale Wobbe
Conrad Adams
Decision: Grant an 8-inch variance on the openable width of the bedroom egress windows in Units 2 and
3.
Adopted by Council: Date �p '�, -� ��
Adoptio ' ed y u il Secretary
By:
Approv�il�M Date tC/ Zblc7
By j0 � .
Requested by Department of:
�
Form Approved by Ciry Attorney
By:
Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
Approved by the Office of Financial Services
�
� Green Sheet Green Sheet
�O-S��
Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet
DepaRmenVOfficelCouncil: Date Initiated:
co-�°°°°�� 26MAY2010 Green Sheet NO: 3113257
CanWM Pecson & Phone: Department Sent To Person InitiallDate
Marcia Moermond � o 0000u �
1 uocil ➢e ac[ment Director
Assign Z ' Clerk G5 Clerk
Must Be on Council Agenda 6y (Date): Number 3 �
Fo� , o
Routing
Doc.Type:RESOLUTION Order 5 �
E•DOtument Required: Y
Document Gontact:
ConWct Phone:
Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature)
Action Requested:
Reso]ution approving t�e Apxil 13, 2010 decision of the Legislarive Hearing Officer for Appeals to Letteis, Deficiency Lists, and
Denial of Building Peanits to Replace Egress Windows at 383 Hamline Avenue South, 790 Atlantic Street, 415 Sherbume Avenue,
and 1540 English Street.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions:
Planning Commission i. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department?
CIB Committee Yes No
Civil Service Commission 2. Has this personlfirm ever been a cily empfoyee?
Yes No
� 3. Ooes this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any
current city employee?
Yes No
Explain ati 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:
DisadvanWges If Not Approvetl:
Total Amount Of
Transaction: CosURevenue Budgeted:
Funtling Source: Activity Number:
Fina�cia! Information:
(F-�cplain)
May 26, 2010 10:59 AM Page 1
�� - S�S
MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OFFICER
ON APPEALS OF LETTERS, LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY,
VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION NOTTCES & FEES,
AND DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMITS
Tuesday, April 13, 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: Mike Urmann, Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI) — Fire; Mai Vang,
Cify Council Offices ,
Appeal of Minnesota Rusco to the denial of building permit to replace egress windows for
property at 383 Hamline Avenue South.
Appellant Mel Hazelwood (5558 Smetana Drive, Minnetonka, MN 55343) and property owner
Dave Sapp appeared.
Mr. Urmann stated that the appeal was far a building code inspection regarding egress windows
with openable dimensions of 16 inches high by 23.75 inches wide.
Mr. Sapp stated that the building was a 1930 Tudor which he purchased in August 2009. He was
replacing the original windows to increase energy efficiency, they were severely rotted, and he
wanted to replace them with `like' windows that matched the architecture of the house.
Mr. Hazelwood said the building inspector had told him the windows met the state building code
but not the St. Paul code. He said a casement window in the existing opening would only be 16
inches wide and would not meet code. Ms. Moermond asked how much width would be lost. Mr.
Hazelwood said a casement window would be 40 3/4 inches high and 16 3/8 inches wide. He said it
was a pocket window with a thick frame. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Hazelwood whether he had a
photo of the window. Mr. Hazelwood said he did not.
Mr. Sapp said casement �vindows were harder to open, in his opinion, and the new windows could
be removed quickly and completely by squeezing tabs at tbe top.
Ms. Moermond asked whether all of the windows were being replaced. Mr. Sapp said four second
story windows were being replaced and it was a tall second story. One of the second floor rooms
did not have a door and wasn't being used as a bedroom.
Mr. Hazelwood said he didn't know of any alternative other than to cut a larger opening and he
didn't know whether the homeowner would allow that. He noted Inspector Palm's written comment
that the unusual circumstances would make it difficult to meet the St. Paul code. He reiterated that
the windows did meet the state code.
Mr. Sapp said they were requesting a variance; he said changing the windows would have a big cost
impact and change the faqade of the house.
�n - S�S
April 13, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 2
Ms. Moermond consulted STAMP to see whether any notes were attached to the permit application.
She read the inspector's comments that Mr. Hazelwood had referred to and said they did not
conectly reflect the concerns. This was an area in which there were inconsistencies between the
fire code, the exterior property maintenance code and the building code, and the department had
decided that the best approach was to enforce the fire code. She normally looked for an extra inch
of openable width for each inch in shortfall in height, but for windows in the 16 inch range for
openable height she looked for two extra inches in width for every inch in height shortfall. She
asked whether any of the windows were adjacent to one another. Mr. Sapp said there was a little
piece of wall between them. Ms. Moermond asked whether there was a way to work with a mullion
to get more width. Mr. Sapp said that would require reframing the window and would look odd.
Mr. Hazelwood said it would be very expensive.
Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Urmann whether he had additional comments. Mr. Urmann said he was
also surprised that installing a casement window would result in a loss of eight inches in width. He
asked whether the casement window with 16 inches in openable width had egress hardware. Mr.
Hazelwood said he had asked the manufacturer for the specs with egress hardwaze. Mr. Urmann
said egress hardware should allow the window to open to 90 degrees and give the full width. Mr.
Hazelwood said the height for a casement window would be 40 3(4 inches and would meet Ms.
Moermond's criteria for two accommodating inches in one direction for every inch in shortfall in
the other.
Ms. Moermond asked whether it would be possible to get more height out of the double-hung
windows and whether there w�ere stoppers at the top. Mr. Sapp said he didn't think so. Mr.
Hazelwood said he would check; he asked how much more would be needed for a variance to be
granted. Ms. Moermond said she would like at least one or two more inches. She asked Mr.
Hazelwood to provide photographs. She asked whether the measurements given were factory specs
or actual measurements. Mr. Hazelwood and Mr. Sapp said they were installed measurements taken
by the inspector. Mr. Hazelwood said he could re-measure.
Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Hazelwood to check the windows for stops and provide photographs of
the windows using a measuring tape showing the openable dimensions.
On May 25, 2010, Ms. Moermond reviewed the photographs provided by the property owner
showing the dimensions of the window openings. Based on the documentation, Ms. Moermond
recommended granting the appeal on the egress bedroom windows.
2. Appeal of Charles McCarty to a Revocation of Certificate of Occupancy for property at 790
Atlantic Street
Appellant Charlie McCarty (324 3` Street N., Hudson, WI 54016) appeared.
Mr. Urmann stated that the original hearing had been on December 22, 2009 and at that time, the
appeal had been denied and an extension granted to February 28, 2010 for all orders to be complied
with. Ali deficiencies had not been complied with by that time and the inspector had taken
appropriate enforcement action and revoked the Certificate of Occupancy. The most recent orders
were from March 19 and April 9; he provided Ms. Moermond a copy of the April 9 orders.
�o- S�S
April 13, 2010 Property Code Minutes
Page 3
Ms. Moermond reviewed the history, inspector's notes, and minutes from the December hearing.
She commented on the large number and severity of the problems. She said it appeared that the
cabinets were the only thing being appealed.
Mr. McCarty said the inspector had put a lot of the original items back on the list and he wasn't sure
why. He said that when there were several units, things were constantly breaking. He said he and
Inspector Thomas had butted heads; he asked whether he could request a different inspector for the
final inspection. Ms. Moermond said she did not assign inspectors but he could request a
supervisor.
Ms. Moermond listed the items being appealed. She asked whether the dog was licensed. Mr.
McCarty said it had been a roommate's dog and the roommate had moved out. He said the dog had
not been there at the time of the most recent inspection.
Ms. Moermond said the other items involved some carpentry work, and the having the heating
facility checked. Mr. McCarty said the Orsat test was done but he didn't have the results with him
and that the inspectar had left quickly before geYting the test results. He said he had modified the
kitchen cabinets in some of the units. Ms. Moermond asked when the modifications had been
made. Mr. McCarty said they were made at various times. He said it had started when a tenant had
asked to have shelves rather than a cabinet with a door, and he removed the door and hinges and
had puttied the holes. He said some of the modifications had been made before the inspection and
some after.
Ms. Moermond asked for clarification of what the code required. Mr. Urmann said the requirement
was for the cabinets to be maintained the way they were manufactuxed and installed. Mr. McCarty
said some cabinets were repaired but some doors were missing because the tenants had requested
that they be removed.
Ms. Moermond took a brief recess to review the original orders.
Ms. Moermond stated that some of the items on the new orders had also been on the original orders
and could not be appealed again. She said Item 1 addressing the kitchen cabinets in Unit 782 was a
new order, and Item 6 related to the ceiling tiles in Unit 784 was also a new order. Mr. McCarty
said the ceiling tiles were done. Ms. Moermond asked whether tl�ey had been done at the time of
the Apri19 re-inspection and asked Mr. Urmann whether the Apri19 re-inspection had taken place.
She noted that the appeal had been received in the Caty Clerk's office and communicated to Fire on
April 5. Mr. McCarty said the re-inspection had not taken place as far as he knew. Ms. Moermond
said she didn't see an appointment letter. Mr. Urmann said the inspector's process was done on
April 9.
Ms. Moermond said there should be no charge for the April 9 re-inspection. She said the items she
was looking at appeared on both the March 19 and Apri191ists.
Ms. Moermond and Mr. McCarty reviewed the orders. Ms. Moermond said Item 1 regarding
kitchen cabinets in Unit 782 had already been called out and appealed and had to be taken care of.
She said the cabinet doors did have to be replaced. She confirmed with Mr. McCarty that the
ceiling tiles in Item 4 had been addressed. Regazding item 5, the bedroom door in Unit 784 had
already been appealed. Mr. McCarty said it had been fixed and he had appealed it because it was
In- Sa
April 13, ZO10 Property Code Minutes Page 4
still on the list. Ms. Moermond asked when it had been fixed. Mr. McCarty said it had been fixed
in November or December. Ms. Moermond noted that the item was still on the Mazch orders. Mr.
McCarry said the ceiling tiles, handrail and dog license were also on the March orders but had been
taken care o£ Mr. Urmann stated that if there were any signs of a dog, such as a food dish or dog
toys, the order would be left open.
Ms. Moermond asked about Item 9 relating to the handrail in Unit 786. Mr. McCarty said it had
been fixed in November and again in March.
Ms. Moermond asked about Item 12 dealing with the cabinets in Unit 790. Mr. McCarty stated that
the door had been removed to conveft the cupboard to shelves. Ms. Moermond said she would like
to see a photograph of a cabinet without the door to see whether it looked like shelves rather than a
broken cabinet. She said it appeared that Mr. McCarty was saying everything was done and asked
what was being appealed.
Mr. McCarty said everything was done and the inspector had cited things that were done. He said
again that he'd like a different inspector. Mr. Urmann said Mr. McCarty could contact a supervisor
to request a different inspector and the request would be accommodated if possible. He stressed
that it might not be possible. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Urmann to communicate the request.
Ms. Moermond noted that the reinspection date for the March 19 orders had been Apri19; she
recommended denying the appeal and granting an extension to April 16 to complete the remainder
of the deficiencies on the list.
3. Appeal of Dale Wobbe to a C of O Deficiency List for property at 415 Sherburne Avenue.
Appellant Dale Wobbe (1112 Selby Avenue, St. Paul Park, MN 55071) appeared.
Mr. Urmann said the appeal involved a room that was just short of the required 70 feet for a
bedroom. The dimensions of the room were 6' 11" by 9' 11".
Mr. Wobbe said Inspector Cummings had done the initial inspection and written the orders, and
when Inspector Martin had re-inspected, she had questioned why it had been written up. He asked
whether the requirement was new as he had inspection six previous times and the size of the room
had not been mentioned. Ms. Moermond said it was not a new requirement.
Ms. Moermond said it was a very small room and was smaller than the minimum allowed by the
code and calculated the shortfall to be about 1.5 feet. She was not entirely comfortable with it;
however, recommended granting the appeal.
1540 English Street (follow-up from February 2}
Ms. Moermond recommended granting an 8-inch variance on the openable width of the bedroom
egress windows in Units 2 and 3. No fee will be charged for the second appeal.