Loading...
10-576Counci{ File # �Q � S �b Green Sheet # 3113280 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ]3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Presented CITY RESOLUTION 41N� PAUL, M{NNESOTA �co BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the Apri120, 2010 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals of Letters and Deficiency Lists for the following addresses: Propertv Appealed 294 Stinson Street Appellant James Davis, 2401 Ventures LLC Decision: Delete Item 6 relating to egess windows and grant an extension to May 4 for al1 other items listed on the orders. 939 Greenbrier Street Erik Dillard Decision: Deny the appeal and grant a four-month extension to bring the window into compliance or discontinue use of the upstairs north room for sleeping. 1440 Arcade Street Decision: Grant the appeal of Item 3 related to zoning. 679 Cotta�e Avenue David Benshoof Tim Carlson Decision: Grant an extension to June 1 for completing the window replacement. Requested by Department ofl � Form Approved by City Attomey By: Adopted by Council: Date �p � � ��_ Ad�ieA-Eegti �ed .et} cil Secretary BY � / � 7 /- Appro�ed � L�atE lc�'Zo(O B Y' � � Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: Approved by the Office of Financial Services � to - S��o � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � DepaRmenUOffipelCounci{: Date {nRiated: co-�°°°°�� 26MAY2010 Green Sheet NO: 3113280 Department SentToPerson Initial/Date Cortact Person & Phone: 0 oancil Marcia Moermond y �� S ooncil D artmentDireclor Assign Z • Clerk G1 Clerk Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date}: Number 3 � For 4 � Routing Doc.Type:RESOLUTION Order 5 0 E•DocumentRequired: Y Document Contact: Contact Phone: Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Resolution approves the Apri120, 2010 decision of [he Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals of Letters and Deficiency Lists at 294 Stinson Street, 939 Greenbrier Street, 1440 Arcade Street, and 679 Cottage Avenue. Recommenda4ons: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this depadment? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Senice Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a ciry employee? Yes fVo 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any arrent ciry employee? Yes No Explain ail yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Probiem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Approved: Disadvantages ifi Not Approved: ToWI Amount of Transaction: CostlRevenue Butlgeted: Funding SoUrce: Activity Number: Financial lnforma[ion: (Explain) May 26, 2010 11:16 AM Page 1 to -S�v MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OFFICER ON APPEALS OF LETTERS, LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION NOTICES & FEES, AND DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMITS Tuesday, Apri120, 2010 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 1:40 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Leanna Shaff, Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI) — Fire; Mai Vang, City Council Offices Appeal of 7ames Davis, 2401 Ventures LLC, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for properiy at 294 Stinson Street. Appellant J. Darius Davis (3227 Girard Avenue S., Minneapolis, MN 55408) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that Inspector Martin had conducted a Fire C of O inspection on February 5, 2010 and the egress windows throughout the building were not adequate size. She had received an email at the time the appeal was filed saying that the window measurements were being appealed and an inspection needed to be scheduled so window measurements could be taken. That had not yet taken place. Ms. Moermond asked why the measurements hadn't been taken at the initiai inspection. Ms. Shaff said she didn't know. She said Inspector Martin had tried unsuccessfully to gain entry on three occasions since then, including on the previous day, and the notes stated that the property owner had been a no-show on March 4 and had rescheduled on April I5. The original complaint was that the windows would not stay open. Inspector Martin had taken measurements from the outside on April 19 and noted that the windows were in very poor condition and some wouldn't open. She provided photographs. Ms. Moermond reviewed the photographs. Ms. Shaff read from Inspector Martin's notes from the previous day that some of the windows measured 27 inches high by 24 inches wide but would not open, and other windows measured 20 inches high and 28 inches wide. The notes reported excessive peeling and the majority of the windows wouldn't open. She noted that those measurements and observations had been made from outside. Mr. Davis disputed that the windows wouldn't open. He said he had been at the property the previous Sunday and had opened all of the windows and taken measurements and photographs. He said he had electronic versions of the photographs and would email them. Ms. Moermond said she would need to see the photographs and have inspector's measurements before making a decision. Mr. Davis stated that he tried unsuccessfully to connect with Inspector Martin. He hadn't received her phone message in time to meet her at the property the previous day and had not been able to reach her during her office hours that morning. At the time of the original inspection in February, it Apri120, 2010 Property Code Minutes �u-Sa'tv Page 2 would have been difficult for him to replace the windows because of the weather and because of financial constraints caused by a tenant who was not paying rent. He said the tenant had since found assistance for catching up on the rent so there was now working capital to replace the windows. Ms. Moermond said she was frustrated with the Fire inspection staff, but the windows were in poor enough condition that it was obviously not a new problem. She asked Mr. Davis whether he was a new owner. Mr. Davis stated that he had the property under a contract for deed for 18 months. Ms. Moermond asked who the seller was. Mr. Davis said the holding company was Black Sands, Inc. Ms. Moermond asked whether the other items had been corrected. Mr. Davis said they had not been, and he was waiting for �vorking capital and better weather. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Mr. Davis that the hearing had originally been scheduled for Apri16 and he had Tequested that it be rescheduled. Mr. Davis said he was not trying to duck or dodge anything and was completely okay with remedying the issues, but he was hoping to avoid having to replace bedroom windows. Ms. Moermond recommended deleting Ttem 6 relating to egress windows, and granting an extension to May 4 for all other items. She said the windows could be re-inspected and measured and new orders written at the time of the re-inspection for the other items. She asked that the re-inspection be scheduled for as soon after May 4 as possible, and gave Mr. Davis contact information for Inspector Martin's supervisor far assistance in scheduling the reinspection. She said she would like to have a follow-up hearing on May 18. Appeal of Erik Dillard to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 939 Greenbrier Street Appellant Erik Dillazd (14358 Wintergreen Street N.W., Andover, MN 55304) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that Inspector Booker had conducted a Fire C of O inspection on March 25 and reported that the openable dimensions of the window in the north bedroom were 16.5 inches high by 18 inches wide. Ms. Moermond asked where the room was. Mr. Dillard said the room was upstairs and was a sitting room off of a larger bedroom. It had a closet and window and was 20 feet from two larger windows in the adjacent bedroom. Ms. Shaff noted that the building had been a Category 2 vacant building and the Code Compliance Inspection report dated June 25, 2008 included the requirement to install an egress window in the north second floor bedroom if it was going to be used for sleeping. Mr. Dillard said it was not initially intended to be a bedzoom but the currenY tenant was using it as one. Ms. Moermond asked how many bedrooms there were. Mr. Dillard said there were three including the one being appealed. Ms. Moermond asked how many tenants there were and whether they were adults or children. Mr. Dillard said there was one adult and two children, and a child was using the small room. He said that they had invested a lot of money in the house and as they were rehabbing and painting it, he had used the small window to go in and out. He said the neighbor's house was very close and it was possible to step onto their roof from the window. 10- S}� Apri120, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 3 Ms. Moermond said the window was just too small. She said the openable height was 8 inches short and the openable width did not accommodate. She said she would be willing to work with the shortfall in width if a different type of window could be put in to get more height. Ms. Moermond, Ms. Shaff and Mr. Dillard discussed the constraints associated with installing a casement window in the existing opening given the roofline and configuration of the room. Ms. Shaff said another option would be to open up 50 percent of the wall between the rooms. She noted that a casement window in the existing opening would not meet the requirement for glazed area. Ms. Moermond said that was also appealable. She said she would consider openable width and/or glazed area variances for another window type if Mr. Dillazd provided manufacturer's specifications. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting a four-month extension for bringing the window into compliance or discontinuing use of the upstairs north room for sleeping. 1440 Arcade Street— update info on appeal (originally heard 4/21/2009) Ms. Moermond recommended granting the appeal of Item 3 related to zoning. 679 Cottage Avenue (update from January 19) Appellant Tim Carlson (3370 Rolling Hills Drive, Eagan, MN 55121) appeared. Mr. Carlson stated that the building was not currently occupied and a single 48-inch by 48-inch slider window was being installed by a licensed contractor to replace the two double-hung windows. He said Inspector Fish's assistant had told him that she did not need to re-inspect until the building was ready to be occupied again, and Inspector Fish had said the only thing she was waiting for was the final sign-off of the window permit. He said they had received their certificate of occupancy in the mail but were completely xedoing the house. Ms. Moermond asked how much time was needed. Mr. Cazlson said it would be done in a couple of weeks. Ms. Moermond granted an extension to June 1 for completing the window replacement.