Loading...
10-614Council File # � U " �O � �{ Green Sheet # 3113457 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PA1JL, MINNESOTA Presented by �� BE IT RESOLVEB, that the Council of the Ciry of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the April 27, 2010 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals of Letters, Deficiency Lists and Denial of Building Permits to Replace Egress Windows for the following addresses: Propertv Appealed 1832 Nebraska Avenue East Appellant Terry V an Atta Decision: Deny the appeal. 1050 Westeate Drive Patti Murnane, Impressions Inc. Decision: Grant a variance for the existing protective shields over the printing presses. 403 Fillmore Avenue Jeffrey Wittmann, Americraft Carton Decision: Grant an extension to August 1, 2010 to install the new sprinkler system. 1496 Chelmsford Street Andrew and Sylvia Oxenham Decision: Grant a 9-inch variance on the openable height and a 1-inch variance on the openable width of four replacement egress bedroom windows. 697 Hoyt Avenue East Window World Decision: Deny the appeal. 1651 Marvland Avenue East Sharon Gellert Decision: Grant a 2-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows on the first and second floors; deny the appeal concerning the driveway which will need to go through the site plan review for approval; the property owner can continue to use Class 5 but will need to put new Class 5 on the condition the "footprinY' is equal or less than the new guidelines. 1236 Seventh Street East Jeffrey DeLisle Decision: Deny the appeal. 10-614 � Bostrom Carter Harris Helgen Stark Thu�e Adopted by CounciC Date Adoption Certified by Counc B Date � Yeas � Nays � Absent Requested by Department of: i � y a��o Secretary �ivs.� ?v / /�/20�� � Form Approved by City Attorney By: Form Approved by Mayar for Submission to Council B Approved by the Office of Financial Services By: � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green�heet � DepartmenUpfficefCouncil: Datelnitiated: �o-�°°^��� 27MAY2010 Green Sheet NO: 3113457 Conqct Person 8 Phone: Department Sent To Person Initial/Date Marcia Moertnond � a o�oca 0 1 ouncil De artment Direcmr Assign Z ' Clerk Ci Clerk Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 3 0 For 4 � Routing Doc.Type:RESOLUTION Order 5 0 E-Document Required: Y Document Contact: ConWCt Phone: Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Resolu[ion approvings the Apri] 27, 2010 decision of the Legislative Heazing Officer for Appeals of Letters, Deficiency Lists and Denial of Building Pennits to Replace Egress Windows at 1832 Nebraska Avenue East, 1050 Westgate Drive, 403 Fillmore Avenue, 1496 Chelmsford Street, 697 Hoyt Avenue East, 1651 Maryland Averme East, and 1236 Seventh Street East. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): personal Service Contrects Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has fhis persoNfirm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/irm possess a skill not normally possessed by any curreni city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: Disadvan W ges If Approved: DisadvanWges If Not Approved: ToWI Amount of Transaction: Cost/Revenue Budgeted: Funtling Source: Activity Number: Financiallnformation: ' (Explain) May 27, 2010 1035 AM Page i 10-614 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 27, 2010 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 1:35 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Mike Urmann, DeparGnent of Safety and Inspections (DSI) — Fire; Leanna Shaff, DSI — Fire; Matt Dornfeld, DSI — Code Enforcement; Harold Robinson, DSI — Code Enforcement; Mai Vang, City Council Offices Appeal of Terry Van AtCa to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List fbr property at 1832 Nebraska Avenue East. Appellant Terry Van Atta (964 250`" Avenue, Luck, WI 54853) appeared. Mr. Urmann stated that several items were being appealed and asked whether they could be addressed point by point. Mr. V an Atta said some of the issues had been addressed since the appeal was filed. Mr. Urmann said the first item being appealed was Yhe downstairs door frame. He said he spoke with the inspector who had said the door was not weather tight. Mr. Van Atta said it hadn't been clear from the order and he had tried to reach the inspector on several occasions for clarification. The inspector refused to respond to his phone calls and told him that any problems should be addressed through the appeals process. Ms. Moermond said they would discuss the building issues first and then address concerns related to phone calls and inspector behavior. Mr. Van Atta said the next item he was appealing was also vague in that it did not specify where the painting was required. Mr. Urmann responded that his understanding of the order was that painting was required throughout the space. He said there was peeling and chipped paint that needed to be scraped down and resealed and maintained in a professional workman-like condition. Mr. Van Atta said painting was not needed throughout; and he would like a second opinion. Ms. Moermond asked whether there was peeling paint. Mr. Van Atta said there was not. He said it was a Section 8 apartment and was inspected carefully by PHA and the walls had not been cited. Ms. Moermond asked about Item 6 related to the dryer vent. Mr. Van Atta said he had removed the dryer from the lower unit. Mr. Urmann stated that in Item 8, addressing plumbing fixtures, the inspector had noted that the toilet was not secured to the floor. Mr. Van Atta said the toilet was secure when he was at the property and he couldn't imagine his tenants would have repaired it themselves. Ms. Moermond asked about Item 10 ordering installation of a deadbolt on the front entry door. Mr. Van Atta said the unit had never had a deadbolt but he would install one. 10-6�4 Apri127, 2010 Property Code Minutes age 2 Mr. Urmann said the next item related to the porch stairs. The inspector had reported that the guardrail was unsupported and started to move away from the stairs and there were several broken stairs. A permit was required for the repair because it was structural and not just maintenance. Mr. Van Atta responded that staff in the permit department indicated that a permit was not required for work that would cost less than $500. Mr. Urmann said that was true except when the work was structuralin nature. Ms. Moermond asked for clarification of what needed to be repaired. Mr. Urmann responded that the inspector said the guardrail was not secure, would not hold normal body weight, and might be dangerous structurally. Mr. Van Atta responded that it was not cleaz to him what needed to be repaired. He said he would secure the railing but would like to know exactly what was required so he did not get levied re-inspection fees. Ms. Moermond noted that the deadline for the work was April 28; she asked how much more time was needed. Mr. Van Atta asked for a couple more weeks. Ms. Moermond recommended granting an extension to May 17. She reviewed the requirement for bringing the doorframe into compliance. Mr. Van Atta said he wanted some assurance that weather stripping was what the inspector required. Mr. Urmann said it was standazd practice to have a responsible party accompany the inspector during inspections; he asked Mr. Van Atta who had met with the inspector. Mr. Van Atta stated that he hadn't received an appointment letter and that the inspector had called to inform him he was going to the property to investigate a report. He said the inspector had gained access at that time and had told the tenants he could access the property any time he wanted. He said he asked the inspector for a copy of the statute allowing access but hadn't gotten a response. Ms. Moermond reviewed the deficiency list. Ms. Shaff noted that there was a refenal letter dated April 1 about a business being run out of the garage. She said Inspectar Thomas had gone to the property to investigate that complaint and it was standard procedure for an inspector following up on a complaint to conduct a full inspection if the property had never had one or was due to have one. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. V an Atta to elabarate on what he said in the appeal about the inspector going through the tenants' personal items. Mr. Van Atta said the tenants told him the inspector had seazched tool boxes and jars of nuts and bolts, and when asked, the inspector said he was looking for something illegal and his upstairs tenant would testify to that. Ms. Moermond asked for the tenanYs contact information and said the tenant could submit something in writing. She said she could not conduct an investigation into the matter but could make a referral. She reviewed the items and deadlines. She said the guardrail could be repaired without a permit; if it was not in compliance at the reinspection, a permit would be required to complete the repair. She asked that the reinspection be conducted by a supervisor. On May 25, 2010, Ms. Moermond reviewed the email sent by Mr. Van Atta and his statement from the Apri127 hearing. She understood his concern about experiencing potentially a"retaliatory" inspection; however, she needed more specific information from the tenant(s) to refer this for further investigation. With respect to the items listed in the April 6, 2010 Deficiency List, an extension was granted at the Apri127 Legislative Hearing with a compliance of May 17, 2010. A 10-614 April 27, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 3 follow-up inspection was conducted which found that many of the items on the April 6, 2010 set of orders had not been addressed. Based on this information, Ms. Moermond denied the appeal as fire inspection staff established a compliance date of June 21, 2010. Appeal of Patti Murnane, Impressions Inc., to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 10�0 Westgate Drive. Appellant Patti Murnane (1050 Westgate Drive) appeared. Mr. Urmann stated that item being appealed concerned protective shields installed above the printing presses which obstructed the sprinklers. Ms. Murnane provided photographs. She said they had the shields for 20 years and it had never been an issue before in fire or insurance inspections. She said the printing equipment was worth a combined total of $3 million and was not explosive or flammable. Paper and chemicals were stored away from the machines and not under the shields, and every machine had a fire extinguisher. She said the machines required a two-person crew and were powered down when the crew was not present. Ms. Moermond and Ms. Murnane reviewed the photographs, Ms. Murnane described the size and configuration of the shields. Ms. Moermond asked how long they had the printers. Ms. Murnane responded that they had printers of that size for 20 years. She said they had been upgraded during that time but the size had not changed. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a variance for the existing protective shields over the printing presses. Appeal of Jeffrey Wittmann, Americraft Carton, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 403 Fillmore Avenue. Appellant 7eff Wittmann (14739 Chicago Avenue, Burnsville, MN 5530b) and Todd Butcher (10200 City Walk Drive, Woodbury, MN 55129) appeared. Mr. Urmann stated that the sprinkler system was inadequate for the hazard level of the materials being stored. The issue had been called out three times in the past, and Fire was now asking for installation of an adequate sprinkler system rather than removal of the materials. He said the problem had been abated in the past, but had been present again at subsequent inspections. Mr. Wittmann said he and Mr. Butcher were new to the building and didn't know about previous inspections. He said he installed new racking three weeks prior to the inspection and didn't know what had been there in the past. The finished goods had been removed, and the corrugated boxes had been organized onto rack storage. Ms. Moermond asked whether they were new owners. Mr. Wittmann said they were new managers. Ms. Moermond asked for assurance that business practices were being changed given that the owners had allowed the situation to persist in the past. Mr. Butcher said they were finding that the previous management had not followed through on things. They were working towards coming into compliance with the orders and would stay in compliance. 1U-614 April 27, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 4 Mr. Urmann said the storage was becoming more organized but the sprinkler system still needed to be adequate. He said rack storage presented more of a fire danger than stacked storage. He described the type of sprinkler that was required for rack storage. Mr. Wittmann said Inspector Neis had only recommended that there be no more than 36 inches between the sprinkler and the top area of storage. Mr. Urmann stated that the orders and his own conversation with Inspector Neis didn't reflect that. Ms. Moermond read from the appeal that Mr. Wittmann was asking for an extension to June 30 to come into compliance. Mr. Wittmann said a copy of the inspection report had been provided to the sprinkler engineer but the engineer had not reported back yet. He said they were being asked to install sgrinkler heads in azeas where there hadn't been any for 20 yeazs and they were witling to comply, but needed more time. Mr. Urmann said a written plan from a licensed contractor or engineer could be submitted by the deadline and more time would be provided to have the wark completed. Ms Moermond recommended granting 30 days for submitting a written plan from a sprinkler system contractor and an additiona160 days for bringing the sprinkler system into compliance. On May 25, 2010, Ms. Moermond reviewed the written plan provided by the property owner and based on the documentation, recommended granting an extension to August 1, 2010 to install the new spiinkler system. 4. Appeal of Andrew and Sylvia Oxenham to the denial of a building permit to replace egress windows for property at 1496 Chelmsford Street. Mr. Urmann stated that the openable dimensions of the window being appealed were 15 inches high by 19 inches wide and the glazed area was less than the required 5 feet. Mr. Oxenham stated that they were replacing the existing window with one of the exact same size and type and none of the conh�actors they had gotten quotes from had mentioned the size as an issue. It appeazed to be an issue only in St. Paul and even the information printed on the building permit stated that a window couid be replaced by one of the same size and type, which was an explicit exception to the egress rule. The exemption had been overruled since they obtained their permit but contractors apparently hadn't been informed in an appropriate manner. He said the windows flipped out for cleaning; he provided photographs. They couldn't replace the window with a larger one because of the roofline and the only other alternative was a crank-out window. He said they had small children and expressed concern about the possibility falling out a crank-out window. Changing the style of the windows would also cause them to lose the uniformity of the look of the house. The existing window could be flipped out more quickly than a crank-out window could be opened. He described the procedure for removing the window. Ms. Moermond asked for a copy of the language on the permit; Mr. Oxenham provided a copy. Mr. Urmann stated that a casement window in the existing opening would meet code, and a screen would address the safety concerns. April 27, 2010 Property Code Minutes 10-6�a e 5 g Ms. Moermond stated that the language on the permit wasn't suaightforward and she would like time to think about her decision. On May 5, Ms. Moermond reviewed the appeal and recommended granting a 9-inch variance on the openable height and a 1-inch variance on the openable width of four replacement egress bedroom windows. Appeal of Window World to the denial of a building permit to replace egress windows for property at 697 Hovt Avenue East. Appellant Esther Dahl (2211 11 ` Avenue E., N. St. Paul, MN 55109) appeared. Ms. Dahl stated that Window World would no longer be offering double-hung windows as an option for replacement bedroom egress windows. She said the window being appealed was to replace a double-hung window, and the property owner did not want to change the style. Ms. Moermond asked whether there were photos of the house or windows. Ms. Dahl said there were not. Ms. Moermond reviewed the dimensions and said there was no extra width to accommodate the shortfall in height therefore, she recommended denying the appeal. 6. Appeal of Sharon Gellert to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1651 Marvland Avenue East. Appellant Sharon Gellert and Dennis Gellert (8427 Chicago Avenue S., Bloomington, MN 55420) appeared. Mr. Urmann stated that it appeared Items 14 and 15 were being appealed; Item 14 was for a gravel driveway that was not being maintained and Item I S was for egress windows. Ms. Moermond reviewed the orders and said she was comfortable granting a 2-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows on the first and second floors. 5he asked about the driveway. Ms. Gellert stated that the inspector told her a gravel surface might be okay because the driveway didn't go to an alley. She said the driveway was currently part gravel and part paved. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Gellert what she wanted to do with the driveway. Ms. Gellert said they were hoping it could be gravel rather than paved. She said the inspector hadn't specified whether the whole driveway needed to be done or just the low area filled in. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Gellert whether a contractor had looked at the driveway. Ms. Gellert said they were working on the other items and hadn't consulted a contractor yet. Ms. Moermond noted that the driveway was gravel and fed into a paved street; she said she needed time to research the maintenance requirement as to what type of material could be used on the driveway and whether it needed to be repaved or repaired. Her decision on the driveway was forthcoming. 10-6�4 Apri127, 2010 Property Code Minutes age 6 On May 25, 2010, Ms. Moermond reviewed the aerial photos of the driveway submitted by the appellant and recommended denying the appeal. The driveway will need to go through the site plan review process for approval and that the property owner can continue to use Class 5 but will need to put new Class 5 in because of the bad condition only if the driveway "footprinY' is equal or less than the new guidelines. She also recommended granting a 2-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows on the first and second floors. 7. Appeal of Jeffrey DeLisle to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1236 Seventh Street East. Appellant Jeffrey DeLisle appeared. Ms. Moermond reviewed the items being appealed. She asked for a staff report on Item 1 relating to a commercial space being used as residential. Ms. Shaff stated that the property was a mixed commercial building with two commercial and two residential spaces. She said she had inspected on February 11, 2010 and found that both commercial spaces were being used as residential spaces. She said nothing had been submitted to the city to change the occupancy of the building. Mr. DeLisle stated that he had purchased the property in 2002 and put in four kitchens and four bathrooms assuming that all of the units might be used as residential at some time. He said inspectors had been aware the kitchens and bathrooms were being installed, and the work was done under permit. He had looked at the city's website and thought that residential units were permitCed. Ms. Moermond asked far clarification of when the issue had first come up. Ms. Shaff said she had conducted the inspection in 2008 and found that one of the main-floor commercial spaces was being used as a rooming-type situation without adequate egress. A building permit was obtained in 2008, and the building permit stated that the property was two residential and two commercial units. She said Mr. DeLisle had told her he assumed it could be used for either commercial or residential and asked why she thought he had put kitchens in. Mr. DeLisle asked for clarification of the circumstances under which multiple uses would be permitted and that the information he saw indicated the use was permitted. Ms. Moermond said Mr. DeLisle was refening to pyramid zoning, but the uses at his property represented a hybrid. Ms. Shaff said a change would need to be submitted to a building official and have a site plan review even if it were a permitted use. Ms. Moermond noted that it had been called out under zoning. Ms. Shaff said zoning also needed to approve a different use. Mr. DeLisle said it had passed inspections in 2005 and 2007. He had contacted zoning staff and no one knew what to do. Ms. Shaff said an application and siYe plan needed to be submitted. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. DeLisle how he would like to use the building. Mr. DeLisle responded that he would like to use them as residences with the option for using them as commercial. The two units were vacant now which was not what the ciTy wanted. Ms. Moermond said the fire, zoning and building codes all came into play and she would like some time to review them. Apri127, 2010 Property Code Minutes 10-6�a e 7 g Ms. Moermond confirmed that Ms. Shaff had been the inspector at the properiy for two inspection cycles. Ms. Shaff xesponded that there was a note from the 2Q08 file specifying the approved usage. Mr. DeLisle said there as a C of O for one unit from 2002. Ms. Moermond indicated that she needed to consult with the city attomey; therefore, her decision wasforthcoming. After consulting with the city attomey on May 25, 2010, Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal. Council File # � �" � � �{ Green Sheet # 3113457 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 RESOLUTfON CITY OF $AINT P�4UL, MINNESOTA Presented by lZ BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the April 27, 2010 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals of Letters, Deficiency Lists and Denial of Building Permits to Replace Egress Windows for the following addresses: Prouertv Appealed 1832 Nebraska Avenue East Appellant Terry V an Atta Decision: Deny the appeal. 1050 Westgate Drive Patti Murnane, Impressions Inc. Decision: Grant a variance for the existing protective shields over the printing presses. 403 Fillmore Avenue Jeffrey Wittmann, Americraft Carton Decision: Grant an extension to August 1, 2010 to install the new sprinkler system. 1496 Chelmsford Street Andrew and Sylvia Oxenham Decision: Grant a 9-inch variance on the openable height and a 1-inch variance on the openable width of four replacement egress bedroom windows. 697 Hoyt Avenue East Window World Decision: Deny the appeal. 1651 Maryland Avenue East Sharon Gellert Decision: Grant a 2-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows on the first and second floors; deny the appeal concerning the driveway which will need to go through the site plan review for approval; the property owner can continue to use Class 5 but will need to put new Class 5 on the condition the "footprint" is equal or less than the new guidelines. 1236 Seventh Street East Jeffrey DeLisle Decision: Deny the appeal. 10-614 38 Bostrom Carter � Stark Thune Adopted by CounciC Date Adoption Certi_fied by Coun,il Secretary Absent I � Requested by Department of: Form Approved by City Attorney By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: By: Date 2010 Approved by the Office of Financial Services � � � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green�heet � DepartmenUOffiGelCounciL• Date Initiated: co -°oan�� 27 MAY 2010 Green Sheet NO: 3113457 ContaM Person 8 Phone: Department Sent To Person InitiaVDate Marcia Moermond � o oon�u 0 1 ouncit De artment Direc[or Assign Z ' Cierk Cti Clerk Must Be on Council Agenda 6y (Date): Number 3 � Routing 4 � Doc. Type: RESOLUTION Order 5 E-Document Required: Y Document Contact: Contact Phone: Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations tor Signature) Action Requested: Resolurion approvings the April 27, 2010 decision oFthe Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals of Letters, Deficiency Lis[s and Denial of Building Permits to Replace Egress Windows at 1832 Nebraska Avenue East, 1050 Westga[e Drive, 403 Fillmore Avenue, 1496 Chelmsford Street, 697 Hoyt Avenue East, 1651 Maryland Avenue East, and 1236 Seventh Street East. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Mswer the Pollowing Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a cily employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firtn possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (VYho, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: Disativantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of Transaction: CostlRevenue Budgeted: Funtling Source: Activity Number: Financiallnformation: ' (Explain) May 27, 2010 1035 AM Page 7 10-614 MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OFFICER ON APPEALS OF LETTERS, LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, VACANT BUILDTNG REGISTRATION NOTICES & FEES, AND DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMITS Tuesday, April 27, 2010 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 1:3� p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Mike Urmann, Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI) — Fire; Leanna Shaff, DSI — Fire; Matt Domfeld, DSI — Code Enforcement; Harold Robinson, DSI — Code Enforcement; Mai Vang, City Council Offices Appeal of Terry Van Atta to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency LisY for property at 1832 Nebraska Avenue East. Appellant Terry Van Atta (964 250` Avenue, Luck, WI 54853) appeared. Mr. Urmann stated that several items were being appealed and asked whether they could be addressed point by point. Mr. Van Atta said some of the issues had been addressed since the appeal was filed. Mr. Urmann said the first item being appealed was the downstairs door frame. He said he spoke with the inspector who had said the door was not weather tight. Mr. V an Atta said it hadn't been clear from the order and he had tried to reach the inspector on several occasions for clarification. The inspector refused to respond to his phone calls and told him that any problems should be addressed through the appeals process. Ms. Moermond said they would discuss the building issues first and then address concerns related to phone calls and inspector behavior. Mr. Van Atta said the next item he was appealing was also vague in that it did not specify where the painting was required. Mr. Urmann responded that his understanding of the order was that painting was required throughout the space. He said there was peeling and chipped paint that needed to be scraped down and resealed and maintained in a professional workman-like conditlon. Mr. Van Atta said painting was not needed throughout; and he would like a second opinion. Ms. Moermond asked whether there was peeling paint. Mr. Van Atta said there was not. He said it was a Section 8 apartment and was inspected carefully by PHA and the walls had not been cited. Ms. Moermond asked about Item 6 related to the dryer vent. Mr. Van Atta said he had removed the dryer from the lower unit. Mr. Urmann stated that in Item 8, addressing plumbing fixtures, the inspector had noted that the toilet was not secured to the floor. Mr. Van Atta said the toileY was secure when he was at the property and he couldn't imagine his tenants would have repaired it themselves. Ms. Moermond asked about Item 10 ordering installation of a deadbolt on the front entry door. Mr. Van Atta said the unit had never had a deadbolt but he would install one. 10-614 April 27, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 2 Mr. Urmann said the next item related to the porch stairs. The inspector had reported that the guardrail was unsupported and started to move away from the stairs and there were several broken stairs. A permit was required for the repair because it was structural and not just maintenance. Mr. Van Atta responded ttiat staff in the permit department indicated that a permit was not required for work that would cost less than $500. Mr. Urmann said that was true except when the work was struchual in nature. Ms. Moermond asked for clarification of what needed to be repaired. Mr. Urmann responded that the inspector said the guardrail was not secure, would not hold normal body weight, and might be dangerous structurally. Mr. Van Atta responded that it was not clear to him what needed to be repaired. He said he would secure the railing but would like to know exactly what was required so he did not get levied re-inspection fees. Ms. Moermond noted that the deadline for the work was Apri128; she asked how much more time was needed. Mr. Van Atta asked for a couple more weeks. Ms. Moermond recommended granting an extension to May 17. She reviewed the requirement for bringing the doorframe into compliance. Mr. Van Atta said he wanted some assurance that weather stripping was what the inspector required. Mr. Urmann said it was standard practice to have a responsible party accompany the inspector during inspections; he asked Mr. Van Atta who had met with the inspector. Mr. Van Atta stated that he hadn't received an appointment letter and that the inspector had called to inform him he was going to the property to investigate a report. He said the inspector had gained access at that time and had told the tenants he could access the property any time he wanted. He said he asked the inspector for a copy of the statute allowing access but hadn't gotten a response. Ms. Moermond reviewed the deficiency list Ms. Shaff noted that there was a referral letter dated April 1 about a business being run out of the garage. She said Inspector Thomas had gone to the property to investigate that complaint and it was standard procedure for an inspector following up on a complaint to conduct a full inspection if the property had never had one or was due to have one. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Van Atta to elaborate on what he said in the appeal about the inspector going through the tenants' personal items. Mr. Van Atta said the tenants told him the inspector had searched tool boxes and jazs of nuts and bolts, and when asked, the inspector said he was looking for something illegal and his upstairs tenant would testify to that. Ms. Moermond asked for the tenanYs contact information and said the tenant could submit something in writing. She said she could not conduct an investigation into the matter but could make a refenal. She reviewed the items and deadlines. She said the guardrail could be repaired without a permit; if it was not in compliance at the reinspection, a permit would be required to complete the repair. She asked that the reinspection be conducted by a supervisor. On May 25, 2010, Ms. Moermond reviewed the email sent by Mr. V an Atta and his statement from the Apri127 hearing. She understood his concern about experiencing potentially a"retaliatory" inspection; however, she needed more specific information from the tenant(s) to refer this for further invesrigaYion. With respect to the items listed in the April 6, 2010 Deficiency List, an extension was granted at the April 27 Legislative Hearing with a compiiance of May 17, 2010. A 10-614 Apri127, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 3 follow-up inspection was conducted which found that many of the items on the April 6, 2010 set of orders had not been addressed. Based on this information, Ms. Moermond denied the appeal as fire inspection staff established a compliance date of June 21, 2010. 2. Appeal of Patti Mumane, Impressions Inc, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1050 West�ate Drive. Appellant Patti Murnane (1050 Westgate Drive) appeared. Mr. Urmann stated that item being appealed concerned protective shields installed above the printing presses which obstructed the sprinklers. Ms. Murnane provided photographs. She said they had the shields for 20 yeazs and it had never been an issue before in fire or insurance inspections. She said the printing equipment was worth a combined total of $3 million and was not explosive or flammable. Paper and chemicals were stored away from the machines and not under the shields, and every machine had a fire extinguisher. She said the machines required a two-person crew and were powered down when the crew was not present. Ms. Moermond and Ms. Murnane reviewed the photographs; Ms. Mumane described the size and configuration of the shields. Ms. Moermond asked how long they had the printers. Ms. Murnane responded that they had printers of that size for 20 years. She said they had been upgraded during that time but the size had not changed. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a variance for the existing protective shields over the printing presses. 3. Appeal of Jeffrey Wittmann, Americraft Carton, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 403 Fillmore Avenue. Appellant Jeff WiYtmann (14739 Chicago Avenue, Burnsville, MN 55306) and Todd Butcher (10200 City VJalk Drive, Woodbury, MN 55129) appeared. Mr. Urmann stated that Yhe sprinkler system was inadequate for the hazard level of the materials being stored. The issue had been called out three times in the past, and Fire was now asking for installation of an adequate spTinkler system rather than removal of the materials. He said the problem had been abated in the past, but had been present again at subsequent inspections. Mr. Wittmann said he and Mr. Butcher were new to the building and didn't know about previous inspections. He said he installed new racking three weeks prior to the inspection and didn't know what had been there in the past. The finished goods had been removed, and the corrugated boxes had been organized onto rack storage. Ms. Moermond asked whether they were new owners. Mr. Wittmann said they were new managers. Ms. Moermond asked for assurance that business practices were being changed given that the owners had allowed the situation to persist in the past. Mr. Butcher said they were finding that the previous management had not followed through on things. They were working towards coming into compliance with the orders and would stay in compliance. 10-614 Apri127, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 4 Mr. Urmann said the storage was becoming more organized but the sprinkler system still needed to be adequate. He said rack storage presented more of a fire danger than stacked storage. He described the type of sprinkler that was required for rack storage. Mr. Wittmann said Inspector Neis had only recommended that there be no more than 36 inches between the sprinkler and the top area of storage. Mr. Urmann stated that the orders and his own conversation with Inspector Neis didn't reflect that. Ms. Moermond read from the appeal that Mr. Wittmann was asking for an extension to June 30 to come into compliance. Mr. Wittmann said a copy of the inspection report had been provided to the sprinkler engineer but the engineer had not reported back yet. He said they were being asked to install sprinkler heads in azeas where there hadn't been any for 20 years and they were willing to comply, but needed more time. Mr. Urmann said a written plan from a licensed contractor or engineer could be submitted by the deadline and more time would be provided to have the work completed. Ms Moermond recommended granting 30 days for submitting a written plan from a sprinkler system contractor and an additiona160 days for bringing the sprinkler system into compliance. On May 25, 2010, Ms. Moermond reviewed the written plan provided by the property owner and based on the documentation, recommended granting an extension to August 1, 2010 to install the new sprinkler system. 4. Appeal of Andrew and Sylvia Oxenham to the denial of a building permit to replace egress windows for property at 1496 Chelmsford Street. Mr. Urmann stated that the openable dimensions of the window being appealed were 15 inches high by 19 inches wide and the glazed area was less than the required 5 feet. Mr. Oxenham stated that they were replacing the existing window with one of the exact same size and type and none of the contractors they had gotten quotes from had mentioned the size as an issue. It appeared to be an issue only in St. Paul and even the information printed on the building permit stated that a window could be replaced by one of the same size and type, which was an explicit exception to the egress rule. The exemption had been overruled since they obtained their permit but contractors apparently hadn't been informed in an appropriate manner. He said the windows flipped out for cleaning; he provided photographs. They couldn't replace the window with a lazger one because of the roofline and the only other altemative was a crank-out window. He said they had small children and expressed concern about the possibility falling out a crank-out window. Changing the style of the windows would also cause them to lose the uniformity of the look of the house. The existing window could be flipped out more quickly than a crank-out window could be opened. He described the procedure for removing the window. Ms. Moermond asked For a copy of the language on the permit; Mr. Oxenham provided a copy. Mr. Urmann stated that a casement window in the existing opening would meet code, and a screen would address the safety concerns. April 27, 2010 Property Code Minutes 10-6�a 5 g Ms. Moermond stated that the language on the permit wasn't straightforward and she would like time to think about her decision. On May 5, Ms. Moermond reviewed the appeal and recommended granting a 9-inch variance on the openable height and a 1-inch variance on the openable width of four replacement egress bedroom windows. Appeal of Window World to the denial of a building permit to replace egress windows for property at 697 Hovt Avenue East. Appellant Esther Dahl (2211 ll` Avenue E., N. St. Paul, MN 55109) appeared. Ms. Dahl stated that Window Warld would no longer be offering double-hung windows as an option for replacement bedroom egress windows. She said the window being appealed was to replace a double-hung window, and the property owner did not want to change the style. Ms. Moermond asked whether there were photos of the house or windows. Ms. Dahl said there were not. Ms. Moermond reviewed the dimensions and said there was no extra width to accommodate the shortfall in height; therefore, she recommended denying the appeal. 6. Appeal of Sharon Gellert to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1 b51 Marvland Avenue East. Appellant Sharon Gellert and Dennis Gellert (8427 Chicago Avenue S., Bloomington, MN 55420) appeared. Mr. Urmann stated that it appeared Items 14 and I S were being appealed; Item 14 was for a gravel driveway that was not being maintained and Item I S was for egress windows. Ms. Moermond reviewed the orders and said she was comfortable granting a 2-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows on the first and second floors. She asked about the driveway. Ms. Gellert stated that the inspector told her a gravel surface might be okay because the driveway didn't go to an alley. She said the driveway was currently part gravel and part paved. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Gellert what she wanted to do with the driveway. Ms. Gellert said they were hoping it could be gravel rather than paved. She said the inspector hadn't specified whether the whole driveway needed to be done or just the low area filled in. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Gellert whether a contractor had looked at the driveway. Ms. Gellert said they were warking on the other items and hadn't consulted a contractor yet. Ms. Moermond noted that the driveway was gravel and fed into a paved street; she said she needed time to reseazch the maintenance requirement as to what type of material could be used on the driveway and whether it needed to be repaved or repaired. Her decision on the driveway was forthcoming. 10-6�4 April 27, 2010 Property Code Minutes age 6 On May 25, 2010, Ms. Moermond reviewed the aerial photos of the driveway submitted by the appellant and recommended denying the appeal. The driveway will need to go through the site plan review process for approval and that the property owner can continue to use Class 5 but will need to put new Class 5 in because of the bad condition only if the driveway "footprinY' is equal or less than the new guidelines. She also recommended granting a 2-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows on the first and second floors. Appeal of Jeffrey DeLisle to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1236 Seventh Street East. Appellant Jeffrey DeLisle appeazed. Ms. Moermond reviewed the items being appealed. She asked for a staff report on Item 1 relating to a commercial space being used as residential. Ms. Shaff stated that the property was a mixed commercial building with two commercial and two residential spaces. She said she had inspected on February 11, 2010 and found that both commercial spaces were being used as residential spaces. She said nothing had been submitted to the city to change the occupancy of the building. Mr. DeLisle stated that he had purchased the property in 2002 and put in four kitchens and four bathrooms assuming that all of the units might be used as residential at some time. He said inspectors had been aware the kitchens and bathrooms were being installed, and the work was done under permit. He had looked at the city's website and thought that residential units were permitted. Ms. Moermond asked for clarification of when the issue had first come up. Ms. Shaff said she had conducted the inspection in 2008 and found that one o£ the main-floor commercial spaces was being used as a rooming-type situation without adequate egress. A building permit was obtained in 2008, and the building permit stated that the properry was two residential and two commercial units. She said Mr. DeLisle had told her he assumed it could be used for either commercial or residential and asked why she thought he had put kitchens in. Mr. DeLisle asked for clazification of the circumstances under which multiple uses would be permitted and that the information he saw indicated the use was permitted. Ms. Moermond said Mr. DeLisle was referring to pyramid zoning, but the uses at his property represented a hybrid. Ms. Shaff said a change would need to be submitted to a building official and have a site plan review even if it were a permitted use. Ms. Moermond noted that it had been called out under zoning. Ms. Shaff said zoning also needed to approve a different use. Mr. DeLisle said it had passed inspections in 2005 and 2007. He had contacted zoning staff and no one knew what to do. Ms. Shaff said an application and site plan needed to be submitted. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. DeLisle how he would like to use the building. Mr. DeLisle responded that he would like to use them as residences with the option for using them as commercial. The two units were vacant now which was not what the city wanted. Ms. Moermond said the fire, zoning and building codes all came into play and she would like some time to review them. April 27, 2010 Property Code Minutes 10-6�a e 7 g Ms. Moermond confirmed that Ms. Shaff had been the inspector at the property for two inspection cycles. Ms. Shaff responded that there was a note from the 2008 file specifying the approved usage. Mr. DeLisle said there as a C of O for one unit from 2002. Ms. Moermond indicated that she needed to consult with the city attomey; therefore, her decision was forthcoming. Afrer consulting with the city attorney on May 25, 2010, Ms. Moermond recoznmended denying the appeal.