Loading...
10-633Council File # �p' Green Sheet # 3114976 1 2 3 4 J 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 RESOLUTION 41NT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented by � � BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certiftes and approves the May 4, 2010 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals of Letters of Deficiency Lists for the following addresses: Property Appealed 842 Lafond Avenue Appellant Frank and Karen Gardner Decision: Grant a variance oo the ceiling height issue provided the property owner install built-in bookshelves to bring the ceiling height into compliance for the size of the room. 1351 Hague Avenue Ray Rapheal Decision: Grant a 7-inch variance on the openable height of the main floor bedroom egress window, and a 3-inch variance on the openable height and a 1-inch variance on the openable width of the upstairs bedroom egress windows; Deny the appeal on the wiring and grant an extension to June 20, 2010 to come into compliance for all the remaining items listed in the orders. 651 Sherburne Avenue David R. Busch, DRB #24 LLC Decision: Deny the appeal witt� respect Co Items 7, 8, 10, li, 14, and 16 as listed in the April 19, 2010 Deficiency List and grant an extension for one year to come into compliance; grant a partial appeal on the remaining items and grant an extension Yo June 30, 2010 to come into compliance. 292 Stinson Street Lewis Moore Decision: Deny the appeal with the following deadlines for the following deficiencies: June 11 - Item 6 guardrail, Items I S& 18 floor coverings; June 30 - Item 7 dryer duct, Item 9 vapor barrier in basement; July 15 -Item 12 water heater, Item 18 exit way obstrucrion; and July 30 - Item 11 gas line support. A new plan will be developed at the end of July far the remaining items. � /�- 6�3 �2 Bostrom Yeas Requested by Department of: � Stark Thune Adopted by Council: Date G Adoption Certified by Coun � Secretary By: � . Approved yo}� Date �iZ / By: Form Approved by City Attorney By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council B Approved by the Office of Financial Services � ♦ ��o-��� ♦ Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Department/Office/Council: Date Initiated: co- 09JUN2010 Green Sheet NO: 3114976 � Department SentToPerson InitiallDate � � Contact Person & Phone: � Marcia Moertnond 0 oonc� 0 1 oonctl De artmeotDirector Assign Z ' C/erk Q' Clerk I Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 3 0 For O Routing 4 Doc.Type:RESOLUTION Order 5 0 � E-Document Required: Y Document ConWct: ConWCtPhone: Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Resolution approvings the May 4, 2010 decision of the Legislative Heazing Officer for Appeals of Letters of Deficiency Lists at 842 Lafond Avenue, 1351 Hague Avenue, 651 Sherburne Avenue, and 292 Stinson Sheet. Recommendations� Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this person/i�rm ever worked under a contract for ihis department? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/frm ever been a city employee? Yes No . 3. Does ihis persoNfirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Enplain 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: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Totai Amount of Transaction: Cost/Revenue Budgeted: Funtling Source: Activity Number: Financial intormation: (6cplain) June 9, 2010 10:08 AM Page 1 c� i�-�.�3 MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OFFICER ON APPEALS OF LETTERS, LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, VACf�NT BUILDING REGISTRATION NOTICES & FEES, AND DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMITS Tuesday, May 4, 2010 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to arder at 135 pm. STAFF PRESENT: Mike Urmann, Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI) — Fire; Leanna Shaff, DSI — Fire; Matt Dornfeld, DSI — Code Enforcement; Steve Ubl, DSI — Building Inspections; Mai Vang, City Council Offices 4. Appeal of Frank and Karen Gazdner to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 842 Lafond Avenue. Appellant Frank Gardner (3109 E. 22" Street, Minneapolis, MN 55406) appeared. Ms. Moermond asked for the ceiling height measurements. Ms. Shaff read the measurements from an email sent by the Inspector Fish: The peak was 85 inches high over an area of 1 foot wide by 25 feet long, sloping to vertical sidewalls 2 feet high. The width of the room was 12 feet, and the area meeting the minimum 5-foot height was 6.5 feet wide by 25 feet long. Ms. Moermond and Mr. Gardner reviewed the photographs and Mr. Gardner described the layout. He said if he added a dormer 85 inches high to create adequate ceiling space, he would have a flat roof and it was not feasible. He had not been able to find anything about ceiling height in the code referenced in the recent orders. He had been ordered to replace the egress window in the room in 2009 and would not have replaced it if he'd known ceiling height was an issue as well. Ms. Moermond referred to the photographs and said the ceiling did seem low. Only about a quarter of it was 7 feet high, 40 % to 50% was 5 feet high, and the remainder was less than 5 feet high. Mr. Gardner acknowledged that a lot of the area was less than 5 feet high. Ms. Moermond suggested installing drawers or closets along the low walls to reduce the total floor space and increase the ratio covered by the 7-foot ceiling; she asked Mr. Gardner to submit plans within two weeks for reducing the total open floor space. She said he would still need a variance and she would make her decision afrer reviewing the plans. On May 25, 2010, Ms. Moermond reviewed the proposed plan regarding the built-in bookshelves and based on the documentation, she recommended granting a variance on the proposed plan. Appeal of Ray Rapheal to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1351 H�a,ue Avenue Appellant Ray Rapheal (1910 Ridgewood Avenue, White Bear Lake, MN 55110) appeared. May 4, 2010 Property Code Minutes �y ��-�3� Page 2 Ms. Shaff stated that Inspector Beumer had conducted an inspection for the Fire C of O on Apri120 and reported that the openable dimensions of the egress windows in the main floor bedroom were 17 inches high by 27 inches wide, and the two upstairs bedrooms were 21.5 inches high by 19 inches wide. She said the other item being appealed involved the exposed wiring stapled to the underside of the joists in the basement; she also noted that there were no electrical permits that had been pulled. Mr. Rapheal stated that the wiring wasn't as bad as it looked. The wiring going to the range was stapled undemeath the joists but the other wiring wasn't. The wiring had not been cited in the property's TISH report although other wiring had. He suggested he could put the wiring through the joists. Ms. Shaff said a permit would be required and the work had to be done by a licensed contractor although he could pull the permit and do the work if he was living in the house. Mr. Rapheal responded that he hadn't been paid rent for four months and the tenant was being evicted; he said he wasn't sure what he was going to do. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 7-inch variance on the openable height of the main floor bedroom egress window, and a 3-inch variance on the openable height and a 1-inch variance on the openable width of the upstairs bedroom egress windows. She recommended denying the appeal on the wiring and granted an extension to June 20, 2010 to come into compliance for all the remaining items listed in the orders. 6. Appeal of David R. Busch, DRB #24 LLC, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 651 Sherburne Avenue. Appellant David R. Busch appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that a complaint was received on March 24 for pipes leaking in the basement and far mouse holes in the basement. Inspector Fish inspected the building and issued orders. The inspector's notes indicated that the owner had been court-ardered to provide extermination but had not done so, and the leak appeared to be from the waste line on the washer. Notes from an April 7 conversation with tbe owner indicaYed that The fenant was being evicted and the pipes were no longer leaking but the owner was going to wait to patch the holes until the tenant was gone. Ms. Shaff said that at the first inspection, Inspector Fish had written quite a list of things that were damaged. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Busch what he was looking for in the appeal. Mr. Busch stated that the property had been inspected at least five times in the previous six or eight months at the request of the tenant. He thought he had closed off the inspection wiYh Inspector Booker after five or ten visits because the tenant wouldn't allow maintenance workers in, but the tenant broke a pipe as she was being evicted and called another inspector. Inspections had taken place on April 1, 7 and 19 before he had a chance to attend to Yhe initial problem and new items were added at each inspection. The city was being used as a useful tool for disgruntled tenants and he was being charged for it; he had spent thousands of dollars on the property and hundreds of dollars on re-inspection fees because the tenant wouldn't let his workers in. �' /�� �.3� May 4, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 3 Ms. Shaff stated that the referral had come from the police; she provided documentation. Mr. Busch said he didn't believe the items on the list were important to the police. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Busch whether there were specific items he disagreed with. Mr. Busch said he disagreed with the whole thing; he disagreed with the authority ofthe city to re-inspect and find 20 additional items a week after the property had been cleared. Ms. Moermond stated that if the 20 items existed and Mr. Busch did not dispute them, they had to be corrected. It was not uncommon for police to make a referral and noted that Mr. Busch had said the tenant had caused new damage. Mr. $usch responded that some items were new and some were existing items that had not been called out by the first inspector. Ms. Moermond said it was not unexpected that a new set of eyes would see different things. Mr. Busch said items 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 had been cited by Inspector Fish but not by Inspector Booker. Items 10, 12, 13, 17 and 18 had been complied with to Inspector Booker's satisfaction. Inspector Booker had been to the property six times and they had complied with everything she had asked of them. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Mr. Busch that the tenant had been evicted. Mr. Busch said she had moved out on April 12. Ms. Moermond reviewed the orders and said the some items could be new damage caused by the tenant and if he believed other items were an oversight or invalid and he would like to be given a break. Mr. Busch said that was correct. He said the egress window order appealed in December had been complied with either by replacing the window or discontinuing use of the room as a bedroom; he said he couldn't recall. Ms. Moermond took a brief recess to review the orders. Ms. Moermond said it appeared some of the items should have been called the first time; she gave the deadbolts as an example. The orders for items like the carbon monoxide detector needed to be complied with in any case. Mr. Busch said there had to have been carbon monoxide detectors there. He would address the safety issues but wanted to be given a pass for the other items. He said he had inspections on April 1, 7 and 19 and hadn't received the orders from the first inspection until after the property was re- inspected. None of the items in the April 1 and 7 orders were life/safety issues; he hadn't had time to respond and felt the re-inspection fees were unfair. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Busch to provide documentation of the re-inspection fees for the correct address. She said some items could wait and some needed to be addressed whether or not they appeared on an earlier list. She said the police raid was justification for a new inspection and she would deal with the issue of the fees when they came up for assessment. Mr. Busch said he would find out just how much the city could force him to bring the property up to current code as he needed to understand the legal authority of the city to keep inspecting and making more requirements. He said he would challenge the city and he referenced limitations imposed by the Supreme Court decision. Ms. Moermond noted that Mr. Busch had not appealed the April 1 and 7 letters; she asked what had changed between then and the April 19 letter. Mr. Busch responded that the April 1 and 7 letter had May 4, 2010 Property Code Minutes �/� (,3� Page 4 only had two small items. Ms. Moermond stated that she would review the old orders and lay the matter over. On May 25, 2010, Ms. Moermond reviewed the appeal and accompanying documentation, and recommended denying the appeal with respect to Items 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, and 16 as listed in the April I9, 2010 Deficiency List and granted an extension for one year to come into compliance. She recommended granting a partial appeal on the remaining items and granted an extension to June 30, 2010 to come into compliance. Appeal of Lewis Moore to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 292 Stinson Street. Appellant Lewis Moore appeared. Ms. Moermond asked for darification of the ownership status. Mr. Moore said he transferred the deed to his niece because of concerns about his own health and the desire to keep the property in tbe family. Mr. Moore stated that he began building the house after several years of homelessness. He had obtained a permit for the work and had received help and support from a variety of sources. He said it appeared that Inspector Martin was focusing on blighted properties in his neighborhood, and the inspection process had started when Inspector Martin noticed missing siding on the back of his house while inspecting an adjacent property. His problem arose from not being well-enough informed about homestead requirements. The property was being treated like a rental property but he was not a renter and had lived there for eight years, mostly alone. He spent those eight years working on the house on weekends and Inspector Tank had been very accommodating and easy to work with. Ms. Moermond stated that the property did not have to be in the C of O program but there were still items that needed to be addressed. She asked for a staff report. Mr. Urmann stated that the property had been referred to the C of O program because it was non- owner occupied, not because it was a rental; he said they had been unable to contact the owner of record. Mr. Moore responded that Inspector Tank had been able to contact his niece. Mr. Urmann said they had tried to walk through the building with Mr. Moore and Inspector Tank, and most of the issues had to do with the fact that Mr. Moore was living in a space that was not completed in a professional work-like manner. Most of the orders were under the property maintenance code for the maintenance of an occupied space. He had offered to walk through the space with Mr. Moore to go over the orders but Mr. Moore had not responded. The building was non-owner occupied and work was being done without a permit by someone who was not the owner. He clarified the order related to the guazdrail. The order referred to the drop-off along the sidewalk to the public way, which went three feet down to some construction materials and then dropped an additional six to seven more feet. Ms. Moermond asked whether he was working with a social worker or unemployment counselor. Mr. Moore said he didn't feel that was necessary. Ms. Moermond said she wanted to make sure Mr. Moore was aware of available resources. May 4, 2010 Property Code Minutes �ia-�33 Page 5 Mr. Moore said he still didn't understand where the 12 foot drop-off was. Mr. Ubl said there wasn't a 12-foot drop-off per se, but there was a height of more than 30 inches at the point where the steps stepped down from the deck to the sidewalk, and anything greater than 30 inches required a guazdrail. Mr. Moore said he had a high-efficiency furnace that had never failed and had been installed by a reputable company, but one of the items on the list said it was an improper heating unit. He said Ryan Plumbing had installed a gas line and they were licensed and bonded, but he didn't remember the city having informed him he had to send in an affidavit regazding the heating facility. He said he suspected that the company that installed the furnace would be aware of the requirement and would send in the affidavit. Ms. Moermond asked for a recommendation from staff about which items were the most critical issues. Mr. Urmann and Mr. Ubl reviewed the orders. Mr. Urmann said removing the lawnmower from the basement was a priority (Item 10). Mr. Ubl said all life/safety issues should be addressed first and foremost. Mr. Moore said the lawmnower had been moved to the yard. Mr. Urmann said the unvented dryer (Item 7) was another priority issue. Mr. Moore said Inspector Martin had told him not to use it until it was fixed and he would comply with that. Mr. Urmann said the missing smoke detector (Item 8) and the plastic on the walls (Item 9) were priorities. He had no proof the plastic was a flame spread rated material, and the requirement for a non-flame spread rated material was that it be covered with a noncombustible material such as sheetrock or lath and plaster. Installing carbon monoxide detectors within ten feet of each sleeping room would address the order for a heating system test report (Item 21). Ms. Moermond deleted Items 21 and 22 from the list because they were related to C of O; carbon monoxide detectors were required and a heating service test was recommended but not required. Mr. Ubl said he felt the prioriYy items were the guardrail from the front steps to the public right-of- way (Item 6), the flights of stairs that were partially carpeted and presented a tripping hazard (Item I S& 18), and the unfinished second level. He said the unfinished bathroom should not be used (Item 20). Mr. Urmann said one additional life/safeTy issue would be providing proper supports for the gas lines (Item 11); he said the work might require a permit. Mr. Moore said Ryan Plumbing had installed the lines and a city inspector had signed off on them. Mr. Ubl said the order addressing the access door on the water heater was also a priority (Item 12). Mr. Moore said it was not clear that the water heater was what the inspector was referring to in the order. Mr. Urmann said the inspector should have been cleazer. Mr. Moore said he didn't understand the note about the red tags. Ryan had put the tags up and hadn't said they marked anything wrong. Mr. Ubl responded That the red tag identified the gas line. Mr. Urmann stated that the red tag may have been flagging the missing supports. Mr. Ubi noted an additional issue regarding putting a trim board along a main front door that was not weather tight (Item 5). May 4, 2010 Property Code Minutes r��o-�� Page 6 Ms. Moermond asked how much time would be needed to bring the guardrail into compliance. Mr. Moore acknowledged that it was an issue and the one he had there was makeshifr. He said it could be completed in one month along with the light fixtures. Ms. Moermond set a deadline of June 11 for the guardrail. She confirmed with Mr. Moore that the dryer would not be used until it was brought into compliance. Mr. Moore said he would not use it and could have it completed by the end of June. Ms. Moermond asked about the missing smoke detector. Mr. Moore asked why it had not been brought up by the electrical inspector. Mr. Ubl said there were two separate inspections for smoke detectors: one for the proper installation and one for proper function. He said the current issue was that a smoke detector was missing. Ms. Moermond asked how long was needed to conect the plastic wall coverings. Mr. Moore agreed that it needed to be done and asked for clarification of what was required. Mr. Urmann said the walls could be replaced or covered with sheetrock or lath and plaster. Mr. Moore said he could complete it by June 30. Mr. Ubl clarified that the plastic sheets should be covered or replaced and not just removed; he said building code required a vapor bazrier there. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Mr. Moore that the lawnmower was out of the building. She asked about the water heater access door. Mr. Moore asked for suggestions for compliance. Mr. Urmann said it wouldn't hold when he tried to latch it. Mr. Moore asked for a July 15 deadline. Ms. Moermond, Mr. Ubl and Mr. Urmann reviewed the remaining life/safety items. Mr. Moore said he could address the water heater and the trip hazards within the exit by July 15. He asked whether he was responsible for the gas line support; he said Ryan Plumbing had done the work under permit and it had been inspected. Ms. Moermond said Mr. Moore should work with those deadlines and a new plan would be developed at the end of July. The following deadlines were set: June 11 - Item 6 guardrail, Items 15 & 18 floor coverings; June 30 - Item 7 dryer duct, Item 9 vapor barrier in basement; July 15 - Item 12 water heater, Item 18 exit way obstruction; and July 30 - Item I 1 gas line support.