10-661Council File # 10-661
Green Sheet # 3ll5151
C{TY O
RESOLl7TtON
PAUL, MINNESOTA
[I
Presented by
1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the May 11,
2 2010 decision of the LegislaYive Hearing Officer for Appeals of Letters of Deficiency Lists and Vacant
3 Building Registration NoYice and Fee for the following addresses:
4
5 Propertv Appealed
6
7 1349 Murray Street
Aapellant
John Olcott and Kathleen Dauer
9 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant a 90-day extension to bring the awning windows in the west bedroom
10 into compliance (window size and sill height), and a 150-day extension to bring the awning windows in the
11 east bedroom into compliance.
12
13 1705 Ha�ue Avenue
14
Robert Wetterberg
15 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension to August 31, 2010 to bring the windows into
16 compliance.
17
18 896 Jenks Avenue Nou Vang and Mova Thor
19
20 Decision: Grant an 8-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the upper floor
21 bedrooms.
22
23 1642 Minnehaha Avenue West David Anderson, DMA Properties LLC
24
25 Decision: Deny the appeal on the heating service report and grant a six-week extension to provide the
26 report; grant a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in bedrooms 1& 2 at 1642
27 Minnehaha; grant a 2-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in bedroom 3 at 1642
28 Minnehaha; grant a 2-inch variance on tbe openable hei�t of the bedroom egress window at 717 Fry; and
29 deny the appeal on the parking slab and grant a six-month extension to come into compliance.
30
31 1372 Selbv Avenue Tom Gallagher, Dadders Estates
32
33 Decision: Deny the appeal conceming Item 2 on the deficiency list and grant an extension to July 30,
34 2010; grant an extension to June 18, 2010 for the balance of the items on the deficiency list; Fire also
35 reconsidered granting an`A-rating" due to the fact that there were no other violations found to the interior
36 of the property.
37
38 SIS Clavland Street William Barnett
39
40 Decision: Waive the vacant building fee for 60 days in order to reinstate the C of O; if the C of O is not
41 reinstated in 60 days, the property is referred to the vacant building program.
10-661
42
Bostrom
Carter
Harris
Helgen
Yeas
Requested by Department of:
�
Stark
Thune
Adopted by Council. Date
✓
✓
Adoption Certified b Coun � Secretary
By _____�� L?1•/fli'/ � /✓
Approved by Date ��Z- �
By:
Form Approved by City Attorney
By:
Form Approved by Mayot for Submission to Council
By:
Approved by the O�ce of Financial Services
�
10-661
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
DepartmenGOffice/Council: Date Initiated:
co-c°°"°'� 11JUN2010 Green Sheet NO: 3115151
Contact Pefson & Pho�e: Department Sent To Person InitiallDate
Marcia Moermond y o o��Gl 0
1 ouncil De artment Director
Assign Z ' Clerk CY Clerk
Must Be on Council Agenda by (pate): Number 3 0
For
Routing 4 �
Doc. Type: ftESOLUTfON Order 5 0
E-DOGUment Required: Y
Document ConWd:
Contact Phone:
Total # of Signature Pages _(qip All Locations for Signature)
Action Requested:
Resolufion approving the May l i, 2Q 10 decision of the Legislative Headng Officer for Appeals of Let[ers of Deficiency Lists and
Vacant Building Registration Notice and Fee at 1349 Muaay Street, 1705 Hague�Avenue, 896 Jenks Avenue, 1642 Min�ehaha
Avenue West, 1372 Selby Avenue, and 815 Clayland Avenue.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Perso�ai Service Contrects Must Answer the Following Questions:
Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contracl for this department?
CIB Committee Yes No
Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person�rm ever been a ciry employee?
Yes No
3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any
current ciry employee?
Yes No
Explai� all yes a�swe[s on separate sheet and attach to green sheef.
Initiating Probtem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
Advantages If Approved:
Disadvantages If Approved:
DiSadvantages If Plot Approved:
Total Amount of
Tfansaction: CosURevenue Budgeted:
Funding Source: Activity Number:
Financia l Information:
(F�cPlain)
June 11, 2010 11:54 AM Page 1
10-661
MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OFFICER
ON APPEALS OF LETTERS, LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY,
VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION NOTICES & FEES,
AND DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMITS
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Room 330 City Hall, I S Kellogg Blvd. West
Marcia Moermond, Legislative Heazing Officer
The hearing was called to order at 135 p.m.
STAFF PRESENT: Mike Urmann, Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI) — Fire; Matt
Dornfeld, DSI — Code Enforcement; Steve Ubl — DSI — Building Inspections Supervisor; Margaret
Fuller — DSI; Mai Vang, Ciry Council Offices
2. Appeal of John Olcott and Kathleen Dauer to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for
property at 1349 Murray Street.
Appellant John Olcott (1343 Murray Street, St. Paul, MN 55116) appeared.
Mr. Urmann provided photographs of the windows. The issue was bedroom egress windows that
did not meet code compliance. The triple awning windows in front had adequate glazed area but
not adequate openable dimensions. The windows on the side had extreme sill height which the .
inspector had not been able to measure but guessed to be above 5 feet. The openable dimensions of
the front windows were 14 inches high by 38 inches wide and of Yhe side windows were 13.5 inches
high by 29 inches wide. Ms. Moermond confirmed that the west bedroom only had the two high
windows.
Mr. Olcott said the house was built in 1952 and the windows were original and it was a small house
with a front door and a back door. Replacing the windows would involve significant expense.
Ms. Moermond said the openings were too small and the sill height was too high for it to be
reasonable to expect someone to be able to get in or out. The width was okay but the height was the
issue. She said she would grant some time to come into compliance. Mr. Olcott asked whether the
work could be spread out. Ms. Moermond said she was most concerned about the west bedroom
windows that were small and had high sill height, but that she would like to see both sets of
windows done this construction season.
Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting a 90-day extension to bring the '
awning windows in the west bedroom into compliance (window size and sill height), and a 150-day
extension to bring the awning windows in the east bedroom into compliance.
Appeal of Robert Wetterberg to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at
1705 Hague Avenue.
Appellant Bob Wetterberg (1891 Bohland Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55116) appeared.
May 11, 2010 Property Code Minutes
10-661
Page 2
Mr. Urmann stated that the issue was a bedroom window with openable dimensions of 13 inches
high by 30 inches wide, and a glazed area of 6.5 feet.
Ms. Moermond asked about Unit 5. Mr. Wetterberg provided photographs with notes. He said he
wanted to maintain the appearance of the double-hung windows and was not appealing having to
replace the windows but wanted to know what woutd be acceptable replacements so he could get
the process started. The existing opening would accommodate a casement and Marvin made a•
double-hung tilt-out window which was part of what he was appealing. He would have to remove
both lower and upper sashes to replace the existing windows with double-hung windows that met
the glazed area requirement. He pointed out the photos showing the procedure for removing the tilt-
out windows; he said they were easy to remove and he could do it in about ten seconds. He referred
to a photograph of a casement window with the appearance of a double-hung and said that type of
window was acceptable to him, but he didn't know whether it would meet the glazed azea
requirement. He referred to another of the photographs and said the lintel might interfere with the
operation of a casement He was requesting consideration to use the tilt-out windows if a casement
couldn't be used.
Ms. Moermond said the tilt-out double-hung windows required too many steps to remove and the
department would not allow them. She commented on the differing interpretations of the code by
the state and the city. She preferred the casement and would grant a variance on the glazed area if
needed.
Mr. Urmann stated that a permit would be required and the replacement windows reviewed through
the usual process. He asked that a deadline be set.
Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Wetterberg how much time as needed. Mr. Wetterberg said he had
originally asked for an extension to the middle or end of August but hadn't anticipated how
complicated the window replacement would be.
Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting an extension to August 31, 2010 to
bring fhe windows into compliance.
4. Appeal of Nou Vang and Mova Thor to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for
property at 896 Jenks Avenue.
Appellants Nou Vang and Mova Thor (1601 Demont Avenue, Maplewood, MN 55109) appeazed.
Mr. Urmann read from the inspector's report that the openable dimensions of the egress windows in
the upper level bedrooms were 14 inches high by 25 inches wide.
Mr. Thor said they purchased the house on December 23, 2009 and the windows were there at that
time. He wasn't familiar with the appeal process and hadn't provided photographs. He asked how
the non-compliant windows could have been installed without a permit or inspection.
Ms. Moermond and Mr. lirmann reviewed the permit history for the property. Mr. Urmann said
there was general repair permit that had been closed without an inspection. Ms. Moermond said-
there was a permit pulted on September 8, 2003 for window replacement. Mr. Thor asked whether
10-661 �
May 11, 2010 Property Code Minutes
Page 3
the windows had been inspected. She said the language on the permits at that time was vague and it
was much more common for permits to be closed without inspection.
Ms. Moermond asked whether the windows were double-hung. Mr. Thor said they were. Ms.
Moermond asked whether the windows had stoppers at the top. Mr. Urmann said the inspector
would have noted stoppers if they were there.
Ms. Moermond asked the appellants to provide photographs of the windows both closed and open
with a tape measure showing openable dimensions. She said the 14-inch openable height was tob
short and she would need at least Ywo more inches to grant a variance.
Ms. Moermond asked about the appeal of the item addressing the dryer venting. Mr. Thor said he
hadn't installed it and it had been that way when they purchased the property. Ms. Moermond said
it had to be repaired and a permit may be required. She said the appeal indicated that the form for
the fuel burning report had not been provided. Mr. Urmann said they were not mailed anymore and
were auailable online; he said all contractors licensed to do the test had also had the forms. Ms.
Moermond said the smoke detector affidavit was also available online. �
Mr. Urmann asked whether the dryer was gas or electric. Mr. Thor said it was gas. Mr. Urmann
said a permiY would be required for the venting.
Mr. Thor referred to Item 4 on the deficiency list and asked why extension cords could not be used
in place of permanent wiring. Mr. Urmann said extension cord wire was not rated for permanent
use but was acceptable for temporary use. He said a power strip was an acceptable alternative.
Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal on the dryer vent, the smoke detector affidavit,
and the heating facility repori. She asked that the appellants provide photographs and dimensions
of the windows and if the windows needed to be replaced, a five-month extension would be granted.
On May 19, 2010, Ms. Moermond reviewed the photographs of the egress windows provided by the
property owner and based on the documentation, she recommended granting an 8-inch variance on
the openable height of the egress windows in the upper floor bedrooms. ,
Appeal of David Anderson, DMA Properties LLC, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency
List for property at 1642 Minnehaha Avenue West.
Appellant David Anderson (P.O. Box 44504, Eden Prairie, MN 55344) appeazed.
Mr. Urmann stated that Item 1 was an issue of a guardrail for an elevated doorway leading onto a
story-higb pitched roof with no security or guazdrail. The item could be conected either by -
securing the door or providing a code-compliant platform and guazdrail. Item 10 on the orders
referred to egress windows which dimensions were listed on the inspector's report. Item 11
addressed the fuel burning report; he said the numbers on the report submitted by the contractor
were not within acceptable range and a contractor could probably make the adjustments needed to
bring it into compliance.
Mr. Anderson said he was requesting a 30-day extension for the fuel burning report. He said his
contractor could make the adjustments.
10-661
May 1 l, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 4
Mr. Urmann said the final issue was related to the parking platform at 717 Fry. The gazage
demolition permit had required an approved parking surface and what was there was not an
approved surface and appeared to be the old garage slab, He said it did not connect to the alley and
was not a solid surface. Mr. Anderson said it was the original surface under the gazage.
Mr, Anderson stated that the adjustments to the windows might be made to the pulleys and stoppers
to get one more inch in height. The doorway to the roof was an extra means of egress and he didn't
think sealing the door was a good option and he had talked to his handyman about installing a
guardrail. Mr. Urmann said there were specific design guidelines that a platform and guardrail
would have to meet. The door onto the story-high sloped roof was not a safe means of egress. ,
Ms. Moermond confirmed with Mr. Anderson that he was clear about what was required for the
guardrail. She recommended denying the appea] on the heating service report and granting a six-
week extension for providing a report with acceptable results. She recommended granting a 4-inch
variance on the openable height of the egress windows in bedrooms 1& 2 at 1642 Minnehaha, a 2-
inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in bedroom 3 at 1642 Minnehaha, and a
2-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress window at 717 Fry.
Mr. Anderson asked how much time would be allowed for the parking slab. Ms. Moermond asked
whether it was used for parking. Mr. Anderson said it was. Ms. Moermond asked how it was
accessed. Mr. Anderson said it was accessed from the alley and there was about two feet of dirt and
grass between the alley and parking area. Mr. Urmann said the inspector had described the surface
was cracked and broken up. The biggest issue was that the parking surface was a condition of the
open gazage demolition permit.
Ms. Moermond said it seemed like the inspector was calling out a zoning issue. She said he wou9d
need to have a site plan review to continue the parking use and she would have expected it to be
called out under zoning rather than property maintenance which required a durable, dustless surface.
On May 25, 2010, Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal on the parking siab and
granting a six-month extension to come into compliance. The property owner must get site plan
approval from Zoning.
6. Appeal of Tom Gallagher, Dadders Estates, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency LisY
for property at 1372 Selby Avenue.
Appellant Tom Gallagher (461 West Maryland #2Q3, St. Paul, MN 55117) appeazed.
Mr. Urmann stated that this was a referral and several violations were found including a structural
issue with the retaining wall in the back and the supports for the upper porcheslbalconies. They had
asked Mr. Gallagher to have a licensed engineer prepaze a report and pull permits for the repair. He
said that because the orders related to structural problems, the gas piping and gas shutoff valve and
other issues, the inspector decided to pull the C of O for life/safety and habitability issues.
Mr. Gallagher said the inspector had been concerned about one pillaz that had deteriorated. Mr.
Urmann said the issue involved the pillar and the foundation underneath the pillaz. Mr. Gallagher
stated that he had had a masonry contractor look at it.
10-661
May 11, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 5
Mr. Urmann and Mr. Gallagher reviewed the inspector's photographs. Mr. Urmann said he had also
reviewed the photographs with buiiding inspector Steve Ubl, and Mr. Ubl had agreed with the Fire
inspector's assessment. `
Ms. Moermond asked why the inspector had done a revocation of the C of O rather than a
condemnation. Mr. Urmann clarified that the C of O had not been revoked yet but they were
requesting a full inspection of the building to ensure that the other portions of the stnzcture were not
affected.
Ms. Moermond reviewed the photographs. She asked what the masonry contractor had said. Mr.
Gallagher said the pillar needed to be replaced and replacing it would involve taking out the
stairwell to access the footing. He referred to the photograph of the retaining wall and said the
weight-bearing was on the corner pillars and foundation on the east and west sides of the building
and not on the two-by-fours. He agreed that it needed to be addressed, but the property had been
inspected on May 8, 2008 and was a Class A property and the inspection was closed. There was
another inspection on March 18, 2010. He said he was holding the security deposit of the tenant in
Unit 5 who had moved out owing $1,700 and the tenant was calling in complaints on all of his
properties. He gave examples of the unfounded complaints and damage by the tenant. He agreed
that something needed to be done with the porch, but the fact that the stucco in the back was not
cracked showed there were no major structural defects. The masonry contractor had said the same
thing about the stucco and had said only one pillar needed to be replaced. He provided
photographs.
Mr. Urmann said he understood the structural significance of the wall as well as the pillars. Part of
the weight was distributed to the retaining wall which held back the fill which supported the wall.
They were reyuesting a report from a qualified engineer as a licensed masonry contractor was noT
adequate. Mr. Gallagher said the orders didn't specify that and he had spent money on the masonry
contractor. Mr. Urmann said the report had to come from a qualified structural engineer.
Mr. Gallagher said he was willing to make the necessary repairs but expressed frustration at having
to spend money to have a new C of O done when the previous inspection had just closed in May
2008. He didn't believe a different inspector would have ordered a full inspection. The Unit 5
tenant had met with the inspector. Ms. Moermond said there were no orders for the items in the
referraL Mr. Urmann said the inspector had only accessed the common areas. •
Mr. Gallagher said he was concerned about further retaliation on other buildings. The other items
in the orders were not relaYed to the complaint and the complaint was not valid. Mr. Urmann said
the building was referred for a full inspection because of the structural issues.
Ms. Moermond said an inspection was needed. She acknowledged Mr. Gallagher's concerns about
the grade of the building and costs associated with doing the repairs. She said she would like to
take time to look into the policy for ordering a full inspection and asked that an inspection of Unit 5
be scheduled. Mr. Gallagher said a full lnspection was already scheduled for May 13.
Ms. Moermond said she would hold her decision on the property classification. She asked Mr.
Urmann to estimate the grade based on current information. Mr. Urmann said it was hazd to
estimate. He stressed that the retaining wall was a problem as well as the pillaz and gave a rough
estimate of 8.6 points and a B grade for the property.
10-661
May 11, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 6
On May 25, 2010, Ms. Moermond considered your request to clarify the orders and her
recommendations. There was a complaint on the interior which needed to be investigated; however,
Fire staff now believes this complaint should not trigger a full C of O inspection and they have
changed the orders. The problems related to the pillars and foundation (Item #2) needed to be
addressed and she recommended granting an extension for the completion of this item to July 30,.
2010. The balance of the items on the April 26, 2010 deficiency letter have a deadline of June 18,
2010. Fire also reconsidered granting an"A-rating" due to the fact that there were no other
violations found to the interior of the house.
Appeal of William Barnett to a Vacant Building Registration Notice and Fee for property at
815 Clayland Street. (Rescheduled from April 27 and May 4)
Appellant Bill Barnett (2901 E. 22 Street, Minneapolis, MN 55106) appeazed.
Mr. Dornfeld stated that a category 2 Vacant Building file had been opened on April 8, 2010 based
on a March 30 C of O revocation with 25 code deficiencies.
Mr. Barnett said he owned the property for 25 years and had rented it to family members on and off
during that time. He received a notice for a C of O inspection in 2007 and obtained a C of O in
2008, received another notice on October 16, 2009 and had the initial inspection. He completed the
items on the deficiency list but the re-inspection had never taken place due to separate cancellati6ns
by himself and the inspector. He said when he had to cancel, the inspector had not received the
message and had inspected and developed a new set of orders. He complied with the new orders
but received notice in March that the C of O was denied and the property was being referred to
vacant buildings. He had called for clarification and found out that someone had inspected the
property, found multiple deficiencies, and the property was being referred to vacant buildings.
Everything had been conected and the house had been occupied except since September when a
tenant had moved out leaving damage. He provided photographs. He had prospective tenants but
needed the C of O and was asking that an inspector come to the property to confirm that everything
was done. The property did not fall under the category of a vacant building, the $1,100 fee
represented two months rent and he had already lost five months rent.
Ms. Moermond reviewed the timeline of the inspection appointments and orders. Mr. Urmann read
the inspector's notes related to attempts to gain entry to the property and no-shows on the part of the
property owner. Mr. Barnett said there was only one no-show on his part.
Ms. Moermond stated that they had a shared goal of getting the building fixed and reoccupied. She
acknowledged that there had been scheduling problems but noted that the property had been
unoccupied for a long time and the inspector had waited a long time before revoking the C of O.
She asked Mr. Barnett how much time was needed to complete everything on the list. Mr. Barnett
said it wouldn't take long at all if he had an accurate up-to-date list.
Ms. Moermond recommended waiving the vacant building fee for 60 days to allow time to reinstate
the C of O; if the C of O is not reinstated in 60 days, the property is referred to the vacant building
program.