Loading...
10-691Council File # � Green Sheet # 3115317 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 38 39 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented by � • BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the May 18, , 2010 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals of Letters and Deficiency Lists for the following addresses: Propertv Anpealed 294 Srinson Street Appellant James Davis, 2401 Ventures LLC Decision: Deny the appeal and grant a 90-day extension to bring the windows into compliance. 735 Cook Avenue East James Swartwood Decision: Deny the appeal and grant a 90-day extension for installing a hand sink in the upstairs bathroom or discontinuing the use of the room as a bathroom. If the use was discontinued, the plumbing fixtures must be removed and capped. • 697 Western Avenue North James Swartwood Decision: Deny the appeal. 1448 Goodrich Avenue Sandra Shirek Decision: Grant a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in two second flooi bedrooms; grant a 3-inch variance on the ceiling height in the basement; if and when owner-occupancy documentation is provided, the property will be removed from the Fire C of O program. 1927 Fremont Avenue John Higgs, PHA Decision: Grant a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the northwest, northeast and southeast bedrooms. 1177 Fairmount Avenue Hilde Lindquist-Holan Decision: Grant a 7.5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the south bedroom; grant a 30-day extension from the June 10 deadline for completing all items. 1657 Selbv Avenue Gary Kreb Decision: Deny the appeal. >o ��t 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 2027 Cottaee Avenue East Merle Biggs Decision: Grant an 8-inch vaziance on the openable height of the bedroom egress window. 314 R�an Avenue Kurt Schwichtanberg Decision: Grant the appeal. Yeas Nays Absent Bostrom � Carter Harris Helgen � Lantry Stark Thune � Adopted by Council: Date ��7��G/D Adoption Certified by Counci] Secretary By: � Approve b a or: Date � �J /o By: (� �� Requested by Department oE � Form Approved by City Attomey By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: Approved by the Office of Financial Services � l 0 -�`31 � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � GO - Contact Person ffi Phone: Marcia Moermond Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Doc.Type:RE 17 JUN 2010 I Green Sheet NO: 3115317 � Assign Number For Routing Order 0 i 2 3 4 5 E-DOCUment Required: Y Document Contact: ConWCt Ptwne: Total # of Signature Pages _(qip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Resolution approving the May 18, 2010 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals of Letters and Deficiency Lists at 294 Stinson Street, 735 Cook Avenue East, 697 Wes[em Avenue North, 1448 Goodrich Avenue, 1927 Fremont Avenue, 1177 Fairznount Avenue, 1657 Selby Avenue, 2027 Cottage Avenue East, and 314 Ryan Avenue. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Planning Commission CIB Committee Civil Service Commission Personal Service Contrects Must Answer the Following Questions: t. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? Yes No 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet antl attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportuniry (Who, What, When, Where, Why�: Advantages If Approved: DisadvanWges If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of Tronsaction: Funding Source: Financial Infortnation: (6cplain) CosURevenue Budgeted: AttivRy liumber: June 17, 2010 1227 PM Page 1 10-691 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 18, 2010 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Heazing Officer The heazing was called to order at 135 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Leanna Shaff, Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI) — Fire; Joel Essling, DSI — Code Enforcement; Margazet Fuller — DSI; Mai Vang, City Council Offices Appeal of James Davis, 2401 Ventures LLC, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 294 Stinson Street. (Continued from Apri120) Jenny Anderson (3227 Girard Avenue S., Minneapolis, MN 55408) appeared on behalf of the appellant. Ms. Shaff read from Inspector Martin's inspection letter that the majority of windows throughout the building were very old with flaking paint and were very difficult to open, and replacement of the windows in the kitchen and living room of Unit 1 had been ordered. The bedroom egress window dimensions said some met egress requirements but might not continue to if maintenance continued to be deferred. Ms. Moermond asked whether Mr. Davis had sent photographs of the windows as had been requested at the previous hearing. Ms. Anderson said the photographs had been sent to Inspector Martin along with the fire sheet and smoke alarm affidavit. Ms. Moermond said she had not seen them. Ms. Anderson said they received bids for $11,000 and for $4,100 for replacing all of the windows in the house. She said the work could not be completed until July 15 if they took the $4,100 bid and they were asking for more time to allow for that. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Ms. Anderson that all of the windows were being replaced. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting a 90-day extension to bring the windows into compliance. 2. Appeal of James Swartwood to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 735 Cook Avenue East. (Continued from May 4) Appellant James Swar[wood appeared. Mr. Swartwood provided photographs of the bathroom; he and Ms Moermond reviewed the photographs. He said the smallest sink he could find was about 19 by 18 inches and would be difficult to fit into the bathroom and be usable. 669-06 May 18, 2010 Property Code Minutes 10-691 Page � Ms. Moermond asked if the room was originally a bathroom. Mr. Swartwood said he didn't know whether it was and both bathrooms in the house were small. Ms. Moermond reviewed the orders. She recommended denying the appeal and granting a 90-day extension for installing a hand sink in the upstairs bathroom or discontinuing the use of the room as a bathroom. She said that if the use was discontinued the plumbing fixtures must be removed and capped. 3. Appeal of James Swartwood to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 697 Western Avenue North. (Continued from May 4) Appellant James Swartwood appeared and provided photographs. Ms. Moermond reviewed the photographs and said she was not comfortable granting a variance and recommended denying the appeal. 4. Appeal of Sandra Shirek to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1448 Goodrich Avenue. (Rescheduled from May 11) Appellant Sandra Shirek (17151 Creek Ridge pass, Minnetonka, MN 55345) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that the openable dimensions of the existing double-hung windows in the two second floor bedrooms were 20 inches high by 30.5 inches wide. The height of the flat finished ceiling in the basement living azea was 6'9", and there was exposed insulation in the basement that was not rated to be exposed. The residential heating report requirement was also being appealed, but ihe appellant had said the fixrnace had been serviced by a licensed contractor. , Ms. Shirek stated that her son lived at the house and was on the deed so the house was owner- occupied, but the inspector had advised her to proceed with the appeal anyway. She said the windows had all been replaced under permit and finaled within the last couple of days. She provided a copy of the signed permit. The exposed insulation was in the laundry room and would be covered by a drop ceiling and everything else was being addressed except the ceiling height. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the egress - windows in two second floor bedrooms, but noted that the permit should not have been signed off. She recommended granting a 3-inch variance on the ceiling height in the basement. The house will be removed from the Fire C of O program when owner-occupancy documentation is provided. The heating facility report will no longer be required after that time. 5. Appeal of John Higgs, PHA, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1927 Fremont Avenue. • Appellant John Higgs, Public Housing Agency (555 N. Wabasha, St. Paul, MN 55102) appeazed. Ms. Shaff stated that the openable dimensions of the double-hung windows in the northeast and northwest bedrooms were 20 inches high by 25 inches wide; the southeast bedroom were 20 inches 669-06 10-691 May 18, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 3 high by 37 inches wide. There appeared to be a discrepancy related to Item 3; the inspector had ordered repair of the chain link fence but the PHA said the fence was not theirs. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the northwest, northeast and southeast bedrooms. Ms. Moermond asked about the situation with the fence. Mr. Higgs said the address to the west, 1923 Fremont, had a fence on its west boundary, alley, and east boundary which was the common property line. He said the property was currently vacant. Ms. Moermond checked the property records for fence permits and said there were no records on file. She said the inspector had appazently thought the fence belonged to 1927 Fremont and asked whether there were any mazkers at the property line. Mr. Higgs said there weren't. Ms. Moermond asked that a determination about the ownership of the fence be made at the time of the reinspection; she said the orders would be withdrawn from 1927 Fremont and the issue referred to vacant buildings if necessary. She said she would hold her decision on the fence until she , received a report from staff. On May 25, 2010, Fire staff reported that they had determined the fence does not belong to PHA's property but was on the property of the registered vacant building next door which was referred to the vacant building inspector. Based upon this determination, Ms. Moermond recommended granting the appeal on the fence and requested DSI re-issue orders to the correct owner. 6. Appeal of Hilde Lindquist-Holan to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1177 Fairmount Avenue. Appellant Brunhilde Lindquist-Holan (25153 County 17, Preston, MN 55965) appeazed. Ms. Shaff stated that the inspector ordered the bathroom walls be maintained in a professional manner. The appellant was also requesting more time for the handrail and was appealing the order addressing the south bedroom egress window with openable dimensions of 16.5 inches high by 34.5 inches wide. She confirmed with Ms. Lindquist that it was a double-hung window. � Ms. Lindquist-Holan stated that the windows were from 1955 and could be pulled out using compression from the sides. She said her daughter lived there and the property was not a rental per se. The stove gas shut-off and dryer venting were being updated the next day; she was having trouble finding a contractor to do the bathroom walls; Item 4, the faucet was working; there was nothing wrong with the bathtub faucet and that might have been a misunderstanding, but the wall did need to be repaired. Ms. Moermond asked which items could not be completed by the June 10 deadline and about the handrail. Ms. Lindquist-Holan said only the bathroom walls could not be completed by that time. The basement handrail was not a big deal; there was no handrail along the steps up to the front da�-- Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 7.5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the south bedroom and granted a 30-day extension from the June 10 deadline for complering a11 items. li�'Y�7! 10-691 May 18, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 4 7. Appeal of Gary Kreb to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1657 Selby Avenue. Appellants Gazy and Roberta Kreb (7980 Ranchview Lane N, Maple Grove, MN 55311) appeazed. Ms. Shaff stated that the property owners were appealing whether the property should be in the Fire C of O program. Mr. Kreb stated they bought the house in 2007 for his daughter and her roommates to live there while she attended school at St. Thomas. It was a six-bedroom house with two full baths and was well kept. The windows were all taken care of and would be ordered; he confirmed that oniy onP window in each bedroom needed to comply with egress requirements. Everything else on the list had been done other than the windows. Ms. Shaff said the window replacement would need to be done under permit. Ms. Moermond stated that the property had to remain in the C of O program until his daughter was on the deed. The zoning code occupancy limit of no more than four unrelated adults was an issue which she had no jurisdiction and suggested he contact the Board of Zoning appeals. She clarified for Mr. Kreb that the occupancy limit applied whether or not the property was owner-occupied and that his daughter would be included in the total. 8. Appeal of Merle Biggs to a CertificaYe of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 2027 Cottage Avenue East. Appellant Merle and Mrs. Biggs (6445 Pheasant Hills Drive, Lino Lakes, MN 55062) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that the openable dimensions of the bedroom egress window on the 2025 side were 15 inches high by 31 inches wide. Ms. Moermond asked whether there was any way to open the window further. Mr. Biggs said it . was a double-hung window and he didn't see how it could be opened further. The house was built in 1972 and they were the original windows. Ms. Shaff asked whether the window in the other unit was the same. Mrs. Biggs said it was. Ms. Shaff noted that only the window on the 2025 side was cited; she asked how the window on the other side opened more. Ms. Moermond asked the appellants to provide photographs and measurements of ihe window, and said a variance would be granted if the window could be made to open to a height of at least 16 inches. If the window must be replaced, a 90-day extension will be granted. On May 25, 2010, Ms. Moermond reviewed the photographs of the egress window provided by the property owner and based on the documentation, recommended granting an 8-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress window for 2025. 669-04 10-691 May 18, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 5 12. Appeal of Kurt Schwichtenberg to a Correction Notice for property at 314 Rpan Avenue. (Rescheduled from May 11) Appellant Kurt Schwichtenberg (314 Ryan Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55102) appeazed. Mr. Essling stated that the property was inspected on Apri127, 2010 for a large, unfinished addition to a single-family dwelling. There were five items on the correction notice all related to exterior maintenance under Chapter 34. Permits had been pulled in 2005 and 2006, and the work was started but never finished. The Iazge addition was sitting without siding, windows, doors, stairs, and guardrails. The department was looking for a timeframe and commihnent to bring the structure into compliance under Chapter 34. Ms. Moermond asked about the status of the wark. Mr. Schwichtenberg said the work on the addition was ongoing and he worked on it every week. It had been slow over the past year because his wife was undergoing cancer treatment. The permit rules had apparently changed and his understanding now was that activity referred to inspection acrivity and not activity on the building, and that the inspector had to be out at least every six months for the permit to remain active. The building inspector had last been out in July 2009 and everything was being done under a building permit. He felt work should be regulated through the permit process and not by neighbors. He was on jury duty the day the inspection had taken place and leamed from his wife that the inspector had been at the property; he said he had renewed the permit that day. Since then, he had finished the trim and roofing on the addition and installed the siding on the addition; the windows had been , ordered from Marvin and some of the siding materials were on site; the porch guardrails were needed but could not be installed before the siding; he was going to make the door himself; and he believed he could finish everything within a year by postponed the reroofing, but might be able to do the reroofing in that time as well. Ms. Moermond, Mr. Essling and Mr. Schwichtenberg reviewed and discussed photographs from the inspection, and drawings provided by Mr. Schwichtenberg. , Ms. Moermond asked whether the windows for the basement were on order. Mr. Schwichterberg said they were not. He said he was going to be revising one of the openings to accommodate an egress window. Ms. Moermond asked whether all of the windows except the basement were coming with the Marvin order. Mr. Schwichtenberg said the double-hungs on the back of the addiUon had been ordered earlier and a couple of others were being changed from double-hung to another style whicn he hadn't ordered yet because he needed HPC approval. Ms. Moermond asked whether he could complete all of the exterior items other than the roof of the main building within a year. Mr. Schwichtenberg said he could complete everything except possibly some of the painting. The siding would need to be primed before it was put on and the trim was already primed, but they would be painted after they were installed. Ms. Moermond said it looked like he had started in 2005. Mr. Schwichtenberg responded that they had dug the foundation in October 2005 and had begun drawings and approvals before that. He said he received a long list of things to fix on the 1910 house that were going to be torn ofF in a few months, in addition to an order related to the back fence. He had been working on the fence but had 669-OL 10-691 � May 18, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 6 to wait for an adjacent electrical pole to be re-secured. He expressed frustration that his record showed he had not complied with orders given those circuxnstances. Ms. Moermond said she would like to see a work plan including a timeline. Mr. Schwichtenberg responded that he believed the work should be regulated by the building permit. Ms. Moermond said it was long-term incomplete construction and was covered under the property maintenance code and there needed to be an end-game plan to complete the project. Mr. Schwichtenberg said he was interested in completing the project as well and didn't have any disagreement about what needed to be done. Ms. Moermond asked how much time would be required for the windows. Mr. Schwichtenberg said he bought the windows without trim or subsill and they would require about six hours each to build and install. Ms. Moermond asked how much time was needed for the doors. Mr. Schwichtenberg said one was missing and he was building it himself which was a wintertime project. Ms. Moermond asked about the eves and soffits. Mr. Schwichtenberg said he would do the soffit boards with the siding. Ms. Moermond asked how much time was needed for the siding. Mr. Schwichtenberg said all of the exterior work minus the door and three windows could be completed in 600 hours. Ms. Moermond asked what would remain after winter other than some painting. Mr. Schwichtenberg said everything would be done in a yeaz. Ms. Moermond asked whether a deadline of December 31 for everything but the painting would � work. Mr. Schwichtenberg said the permit was good until sometime in April and that seemed like a logical deadline. He said entering into an agreement with the heazing officer defaulted on the jurisdictional issue which he was not going to do. He was doing the work as fast as he could and the orders didn't change anything. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Essling about the department's reasoning on using the property maintenance code on long-term, incomplete construction. Mr. Essling said the maintenance code was used because all of the permits were inactive or expired. Ms. Moermond noted that Mr. Schwichtenberg had gotten a permit after the orders were issued; she asked whether that addressed the issue. Mr. Essling said that did not address the issue as far as his division was concerned and he would enforce the orders unless directed otherwise. Mr. Schwichtenberg said an electrical permit had been signed off for electrical work in the old house, and a plumbing permit had been pulled but the work was not done. The addition had not required a vaziance but the gazage did and he had taken a permit for the gazage, but then had to abandon the garage project to work on the addition and the variance had expired. Ms. Moermond said the record showed an inactive electrical permit. Mr. Schwichtenberg said the work had been inspected at rough-in and final. Ms. Moermond said the permit appeared to have been closed for inactivity. Mr. Schwichtenberg said there were a couple of items that had been completed after the final inspection and had not been re-inspected, but the items were part of the finish that had been approved. It would all be subject to the wiring inspection that would take place when the addition was inspected. Ms. Moermond said she was looking for an end-game, and there was usually some basis for neighbor complaints. She said there was no permit when the orders were written. Mr. 669-OL May 18, 2010 Property Code Minutes 10-691 Page 7 Schwichtenberg said the orders were written the day after he renewed the building permit; he provided copies of the inspection letters. Ms. Moermond restated Mr. Schwichtenberg's position that he felt this was a building issue and not a property maintenance issue and he was not beholden to a deadline set by her. Mr. Schwichtenberg said he hadn't read anything anywhere that said a project done under permit had to be completed within a set time period. As a practical matter, he was at least as motivated as anyone to have the exterior of the addition done. Ms. Moermond said she would do some follow up with the building official and issue a decision in writing. On May 25, 2010, Ms. Moermond recommended granting the appeal as the orders were issued and building permits were applied for on the same day. It was her position that in a situation such as this, it was important to decide the question in favor of the property owner rather than the enforcement agency. 669-06 10-691 May 4, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 9 8. Appeal of James Swartwood to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for properry at 735 Cook Avenue East. Appellant James Swartwood (5537 Dupont Avenue S., Minneapolis, MN 55419) appeared. Ms. Moermond reviewed the orders and recommended granting a I-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom 1 egress window, and a 2-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom 2 egress window. Ms. Moermond said she did want to talk about the upstairs bathroom not having a sink. Mr. Swartwood said it was an existing condition in a 100-year-old house. Ms. Moermond said the issue was sanitation; she asked how far it was to another sink. Mr. Swartwood said it was a very small room with just a toilet, and the real bathroom was downstairs. Ms. Moermond stated that in this type of situation she generally asked for a compromise including notification in the lease and some provision for sanitation. Mr. Swartwood and Ms. Moermond discussed options such as a wash basin or disinfecting wipes. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Swartwood whether he had a floor plan or photograph of the space. Mr. Swartwood said he could provide them. Ms. Moermond said she would lay the matter over for two weeks. 9. Appeal of James Swartwood to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 697 Western Avenue North. Appellant James Swartwood (5537 Dupont Avenue �., Minneapolis, MN 55419) appeared. Ms. Moermond noted that the appeal was foz ceiling height and egress windows. She read from the orders that the ceiling height on the second floor was 6'2". Ms. Moermond asked whether it was a flat ceiling. Mr. Swartwood described the configuration and said he would provide photos. He said the ceiling was an existing condition and was built to code 100 years ago. Ms. Moermond said there was no building permit to document that, and the current orders were under the fire code. Mr. Swartwood said he was always arguing with Leanna that Fire was pushing for a code that was higher than the state. He cited Morris v. Sax Investments. Ms. Moermond corrected herself and said the cunent order referenced the legislative code. Ms. Meormond asked Mr. Swartwood to provide photographs and dimensions of the room; she said she would lay the matter over for two weeks. She recommended granting a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the west window in the second floor bedroom. 469-06 Council File # � ' Green Sheet # 3115317 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 38 39 RESOLUTION OF,$AINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Prese�ted by � • BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the May 18, _ 2010 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals of Letters and Deficiency Lists for the following addresses: Property Appealed 294 Stinson Street Appellant James Davis, 2401 Ventwes LLC Decision: Deny the appeal and grant a 90-day extension to bring the windows into compliance. 735 Cook Avenue East James Swartwood Decision: Deny the appeal and grant a 90-day extension for installing a hand sink in the upstairs bathroom or discontinuing the use of the room as a bathroom. If the use was discontinued, the plumbing fixtures must be removed and capped. � 697 Western Avenue North James Swartwood Decision: Deny the appeal. 1448 Goodrich Avenue Sandra Shirek Decision: Grant a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in two second floot bedrooms; grant a 3-inch vaziance on the ceiling height in the basement; if and when owner-occupancy documentation is provided, the property will be removed from the Fire C of O program. 1927 Fremont Avenue John Higgs, PHA Decision: Grant a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the northwest, northeast and southeast bedrooms. 1177 Fairmount Avenue Hilde Lindquist-Holan Decision: Grant a 7.5-inch vaziance on the openable height of the egress window in the south bedroom; grant a 30-day extension from the June 10 deadline for completing all items. 1657 Selbv Avenue Gary Kreb Decision: Deny the appeal. �o-��� 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 2027 Cottaee Avenue East Merle Biggs Decision: Grant an 8-inch vaziance on the openable height of the bedroom egress window. 314 Rvan Avenue Kurt Schwichtenberg Decision: Grant the appeal. Yeas Nays Absent Bostrom � Carter Harris Helgen �/ Lantry Stark Thune y Requested by Department oE � Form Approved by City Attomey By: Adopted by Council: Date �/ %/�C?/O Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council Adoption Certified by Council Secretary By: � Approve b a or: Date �/j /o By: (� � Approved by the Office of Financial Services By: /�-��?/ � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet )epartment/�ce/Council: Datelnkiated: GCeell Sheet NO 3115317 CO —Council �7 �UN 2010 ConWCt Person 8 Phone: Marcia Moertnond � Assign Number For Routing Order 0 000�u C� 1 ouocd De ar[mentDirector 2 '[vClerk C1 Clerk 3 0 4 0 5 0 Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Doc. Type: RESOLUTION E-DOCUment Required: Y Document Contact: ConWCt Phone: Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) � Resolution approving the May 18, 2010 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals of Letters and Deficiency Lists at 294 Stinson Street, 935 Cook Avenue East, 697 Westem Avenue North, 1448 Goodrich Avenue, 1927 Fremont Avenue, 1177 Faim�ount Avenue, 1657 Selby Avenue, 2027 Cottage Avenue Eas[, and 314 Ryan Avenue. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Planning Commiss�on CIB Committee Civil Service Commission Personal Service Contrects Must Answer the Following Questions: 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contrad for this department? Yes No 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this persoNfirm'possess a skill not normalty possessed by any current ciry 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: Disadvantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of Trensaction: Funding Source: Fi nancial Information: (Explain) CosURevenue Budgeted: Adivity Number: June 17, 2010 1227 PM Page 1 10-691 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 18, 2010 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officez The hearing was called to order at 1:35 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Leanna Shaff, Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI) — Fire; Joel Essling, DSI — Code Enforcement; Mazgaret Fuller — DSI; Mai Vang, City Council Offices Appeal of James Davis, 2401 Venhues LLC, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 294 Stinson Street. (Continued from Apri120) Jenny Anderson (3227 Girard Avenue S., Minneapolis, MN 55408) appeared on behalf of the appellant. Ms. Shaff read from Inspector Martin's inspection letter that the majority of windows throughout the building were very old with flaking paint and were very difficult to open, and replacement of the windows in the kitchen and living room of Unit 1 had been ordered. The bedroom egress window dimensions said some met egress requirements but might not continue to if maintenance continued to be deferred. Ms. Moermond asked whether Mr. Davis had sent photographs of the windows as had been requested at the previous hearing. Ms. Anderson said the photographs had been sent to Inspector Martin along with the fire sheet and smoke alarm affidavit. Ms. Moermond said she had not seen them. Ms. Anderson said they received bids for $l ],000 and for $4,100 for replacing all of the windows in the house. She said the work could not be completed until July 15 if they took the $4,100 bid and they were asking for more time to allow for that. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Ms. Anderson that all of the windows were being replaced. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting a 90-day extension to bring the windows into compliance. 2. Appeal of James Swartwood to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 735 Cook Avenue East. (Continued from May 4) Appellant James Swartwood appeazed. Mr. Swartwood provided photographs of the bathroom; he and Ms Moermond reviewed the photographs. He said the smallest sink he could find was about 19 by 18 inches and would be difficult to fit into the bathroom and be usable. 469-06 May 18, 2010 Property Code Minutes 10-691 Page � Ms. Moermond asked if the room was originally a bathroom. Mr. Swartwood said he didn't know whether it was and both bathrooms in the house were small. Ms. Moermond reviewed the orders. She recommended denying the appeal and granting a 90-day extension for installing a hand sink in the upstairs bathroom or discontinuing the use of the room as a bathroom. She said that if the use was discontinued the plumbing fixtures must be removed and capped. Appeal of James Swartwood to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for properry at 697 Western Avenue North. (Continued from May 4) Appellant James Swartwood appeazed and provided photographs. Ms. Moermond reviewed the photographs and said she was not comfortable granting a variance and recommended denying the appeal. 4. Appeal of Sandra Shirek to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1448 Goodrich Avenue. (Rescheduled from May 11) Appellant Sandra Shirek (17151 Creek Ridge pass, Minnetonka, MN 55345) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that the openable dimensions of the existing double-hung windows in the two second floor bedrooms were 20 inches high by 30.5 inches wide. The height of the flat finished ceiling in the basement living area was 6'9", and there was exposed insulation in the basement that was not rated to be exposed. The residential heating report requirement was also being appealed, but the appellant had said the furnace had been serviced by a licensed contractor. , Ms. Shirek stated that her son lived at the house and was on the deed so the house was owner- occupied, but the inspector had advised her to proceed with the appeal anyway. She said the windows had all been replaced under permit and finaled within the last couple of days. She provided a copy of the signed permit. The exposed insulation was in the laundry room and would be covered by a drop ceiling and everything else was being addressed except the ceiling height. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the egress _ windows in two second floor bedrooms, but noted that the permit should not have been signed off. She recommended granting a 3-inch vaziance on the ceiling height in the basement. The house will be removed from the Fire C of O program when owner-occupancy documentation is provided. The heating facility report will no longer be required after that time. Appeal of John Higgs, PHA, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1927 Fremont Avenue. • Appellant John Higgs, Public Housing Agency (555 N. Wabasha, St. Paul, MN 55102) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that the openable dimensions of the double-hung windows in the northeast and northwest bedrooms were 20 inches high by 25 inches wide; the southeast bedroom were 20 inches 469-OL 10-691 May 18, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 3 high by 37 inches wide. There appeared to be a discrepancy related to Item 3; the inspector had ordered repair of the chain link fence but the PHA said the fence was not theirs. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the northwest, northeast and sout7�east bedrooms. Ms. Moermond asked about the situation with the fence. Mr. Higgs said the address to the west, 1923 Fremont, had a fence on its west boundary, alley, and east boundary which was the common property line. He said the property was currently vacant. Ms. Moermond checked the property records for fence permits and said there were no records on file. She said the inspector had apparently thought the fence belonged to 1927 Fremont and asked whether there were any mazkers at the property line. Mr. Higgs said there weren't. Ms. Moermond asked that a determination about the ownership of the fence be made at the time of the reinspection; she said the orders would be withdrawn from 1927 Fremont and the issue referred to vacant buildings if necessary. She said she would hold her decision on the fence until she received a report from staff. On May 25, 2010, Fire staff reported that they had determined the fence does not belong to PHA's property but was on the property of the registered vacant building next door which was referred to the vacant building inspector. Based upon this determination, Ms. Moermond recommended granting the appeal on the fence and requested DSI re-issue orders to the correct owner. 6. Appeal of Hilde Lindquist-Holan to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for propexty at 1177 Fairmount Avenue. Appellant Brunhilde Lindquist-Holan (25153 County 17, Preston, MN 55965) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that the inspector ordered the batluoom walls be maintained in a professional manner. The appellant was also requesting more time for the handrail and was appealing the order addressing the south bedroom egress window with openable dimensions of 16.5 inches high by 34.5 inches wide. She confirmed with Ms. Lindquist that it was a double-hung window. • Ms. Lindquist-Holan stated that the windows were from 1955 and could be pulled out using compression from the sides. She said her daughter lived there and the property was not a rental per se. The stove gas shut-off and dryer venting were being updated the next day; she was having trouble finding a contractor to do the bathroom walls; Item 4, the faucet was working; there was nothing wrong with the bathtub faucet and that might have been a misunderstanding, but the wall did need to be repaired. Ms. Moermond asked which items could not be completed by the June 10 deadline and about the handrail. Ms. Lindquist-Holan said only the batluoom walls could not be completed by that time. The basement handrail was not a big deal; there was no handrail along the steps up to the front da•-.- Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 7.5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the south bedroom and granted a 30-day extension from the June 10 deadline for completing all items. 669'06 10-691 May 18, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 4 Appeal of Gary Kreb to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1657 Selbv Avenue. Appellants Gary and Roberta Kreb (7980 Ranchview Lane N., Maple Grove, MN 55311) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that the property owners were appealing whether the property should be in the Fire C of O program. Mr. Kreb stated they bought the house in 2007 for his daughter and her roommates to live there while she attended school at St. Thomas. It was a six-bedroom house with rivo full baths and was well kept. The windows were a11 taken caze of and would be ordered; he confirmed that only onP window in each bedroom needed to comply with egress requirements. Everything else on the list had been done other than the windows. Ms. Shaff said the window replacement would need to be done under permit. Ms. Moermond stated that the property had to remain in the C of O program until his daughter was on the deed. The zoning code occupancy limit of no more than four unrelated adults was an issue which she had no jurisdiction and suggested he contact the Board of Zoning appeals. She clarified for Mr. Kreb that the occupancy limit applied whether or not the property was owner-occupied and that his daughter would be included in the total. 8. Appeal of Merle Biggs to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 2027 Cottaee Avenue East. Appellant Merle and Mrs. Biggs (6445 Pheasant Hills Drive, Lino Lakes, MN 55062) appeazed. Ms. Shaff stated that the openable dimensions of the bedroom egress window on the 2025 side were 15 inches high by 31 inches wide. Ms. Moermond asked whether there was any way to open the window Purther. Mr. Biggs said it . was a double-hung window and he didn't see how it could be opened further. The house was built in 1972 and they were the original windows. Ms. Shaff asked whether the window in the other unit was the same. Mrs. Biggs said it was. Ms. Shaff noted that only the window on the 2025 side was cited; she asked how the window on the other side opened more. Ms. Moermond asked the appellants to provide photographs and measurements of the window, and said a variance would be granted if the window could be made to open to a height of at least 16 inches. If the window must be replaced, a 90-day extension will be granted. On May 25, 2010, Ms. Moermond reviewed the photographs of the egress window provided by the property owner and based on the documentation, recommended granting an 8-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress window for 2025. L69-O6 10-691 May 18, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 5 12. Appeal of Kurt Schwichtenberg to a Conection Notice for property at 314 Rvan Avenue. (Rescheduled from May 11) Appellant Kurt Schwichtenberg (314 Ryan Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55102) appeazed. Mr. Essling stated that the property was inspected on April 27, 2010 for a large, unfinished addition to a single-family dwelling. There were five items on the correction notice all related to exterior maintenance under Chapter 34. Permits had been pulled in 2005 and 2006, and the work was started but never finished. The lazge addition was sitting without siding, windows, doors, stairs, and guazdrails. The department was looking for a timeframe and commitment to bring the structure into compliance under Chapter 34. Ms. Moermond asked about the status of the work. Mr. Schwichtenberg said the work on the addition was ongoing and he worked on it every week. It had been slow over the past yeaz because his wife was undergoing cancer treatment. The permit rules had apparently changed and his understanding now was that activity referred to inspection activity and not activity on the building, and that the inspector had to be out at least every six months for the permit to remain active. The building inspector had last been out in July 2009 and everything was being done under a building permit. He felt work should be regulated through the permit process and not by neighbors. He wa: on jury duty the day the inspection had taken place and learned from his wife that the inspector had been at the property; he said he had renewed the permit that day. Since then, he had finished the trim and roofing on the addition and installed the siding on the addition; the windows had been ` ordered from Marvin and some of the siding materials were on site; the porch guardrails were needed but could not be installed before the siding; he was going to make the door himself; and he believed he could finish everything within a yeaz by postponed the reroofing, but might be able to do the reroofing in that time as well. Ms. Moermond, Mr. Essling and Mr. Schwichtenberg reviewed and discussed photographs from the inspection, and drawings provided by Mr. Schwichtenberg. , Ms. Moermond asked whether the windows for the basement were on order. Mr. Schwichterberg said they were not. He said he was going to be revising one of the openings to accommodate an egress window. Ms. Moermond asked whether all of the windows except the basement were coming with the Marvin order. Mr. Schwichtenberg said the double-hungs on the back of the addition had been ordered earlier and a couple of others were being changed from double-hung to another style whicn he hadn't ordered yet because he needed HPC approval. Ms. Moermond asked whether he could complete all of the exterior items other than the roof of the main building within a yeaz. Mr. Schwichtenberg said he could complete everything except possibly some of the painting. The siding would need to be primed before it was put on and the trim was already primed, but they would be painted after they were installed. Ms. Moermond said it looked like he had started in 2005. Mr. Schwichtenberg responded that they had dug the foundation in October 2005 and had begun drawings and approvals before that. He said he received a long list of things to fix on the 1910 house that were going to be torn off in a few months, in addition to an order related to the back fence. He had been working on the fence but had 469-04 10-691 • May 18, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 6 to wait for an adjacent electrical pole to be re-secured. He expressed frustration that his record showed he had not complied with orders given those circumstances. Ms. Moermond said she would like to see a work plan including a timeline. Mr. Schwichtenberg responded that he believed the work should be regulated by the building permit. Ms. Moermond said it was long-term incomplete conshuction and was covered under the property ma'rntenance code and there needed to be an end-game plan to complete the project. Mr. Schwichtenberg said he was interested in completing the project as well and didn't have any disagreement about what needed to be done. Ms. Moermond asked how much time would be required for the windows. Mr. Schwichtenberg said he bought the windows without trim or subsill and they would require about six hours each to build and install. Ms. Moermond asked how much time was needed for the doors. Mr. Schwichtenberg said one was missing and he was building it himself which was a wintertime project. Ms. Moermond asked about the eves and soffits. Mr. Schwichtenberg said he would do the soffit boards with the siding. Ms. Moermond asked how much time was needed for the siding. Mr. Schwichtenberg said all of the exterior work minus the door and three windows could be completed in 600 hours. Ms. Moermond asked what would remain after winter other than some painting. Mr. Schwichtenberg said everything would be done in a year. Ms. Moermond asked whether a deadline of December 31 for everything but the painting would • work. Mr. Schwichtenberg said the permiT was good until sometime in April and that seemed like a logical deadline. He said entering into an agreement with the heazing officer defaulted on the jurisdictional issue which he was not going to do. He was doing the work as fast as he could and the orders didn't change anything. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Essling aboat the departmenYs reasoning on using the property maintenance code on long-term, incomplete construction. Mr. Essling said the maintenance code was used because all of the permits were inactive or expired. Ms. Moermond noted that Mr. � Schwichtenberg had gotten a permit after the orders were issued; she asked whether that addressed the issue. Mr. Essling said that did not address the issue as far as his division was concerned and he would enforce the orders unless directed otherwise. Mr. Schwichtenberg said an electrical permit had been signed off for electrical work in the old house, and a plumbing permit had been pulled but the wark was not done. The addition had not required a variance but the garage did and he had taken a permit for the gazage, but then had to abandon the garage project to work on the addition and the vaziance had expired. Ms. Moermond said the record showed an inactive electrical permit. Mr. Schwichtenberg said the wark had been inspected at rough-in and final. Ms. Moermond said the permit appeared to have been closed for inactivity. Mr. Schwichtenberg said there were a couple of items that had been completed after the final inspection and had not been re-inspected, but the items were part of the finish that had been approved. It would all be subject to the wiring inspection that would take place when the addition was inspected. Ms. Moermond said she was looking for an end-game, and there was usually some basis for neighbor complaints. She said there was no permit when the orders were written. Mr. 669-06 May 18, 2010 Property Code Minutes 10-691 Page 7 Schwichtenberg said the orders were written the day after he renewed the building permit; he provided copies of the inspection letters. Ms. Moermond restated Mr. Schwichtenberg's position that he felt this was a building issue and not a property maintenance issue and he was not beholden to a deadline set by her. Mr. Schwichtenberg said he hadn't read anything anywhere that said a project done under permit had to be completed within a set time period. As a practical matter, he was at least as motivated as anyone to have the exterior of the addition done. Ms. Moermond said she would do some follow up with the building official and issue a decision in writing. On May 25, 2010, Ms. Moermond recommended granting the appeal as the orders were issued and building permits were applied for on the same day. It was her position that in a situation such as this, it was important to decide the question in favor of the property owner rather than the enforcement agency. 669-06 May 4, 2010 Property Code Minutes 10-691 Page 9 Appeal of James Swartwood to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 735 Cook Avenue East. Appellant James Swartwood (5�37 Dupont Avenue S., Minneapolis, MN 55419) appeared. Ms. Moermond reviewed the orders and recommended granting a 1-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom 1 egress window, and a Z-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom 2 egress window. Ms. Moermond said she did want to talk about the upstairs bathroom not having a sink. Mr. Swartwood said it was an existing condition in a 100-year-old house. Ms. Moermond said the issue was sanitation; she asked how far it was to another sink. Mr. Swartwood said it was a very small room with just a toilet, and the real bathroom was downstairs. Ms. Moermond stated that in this type of situation she generally asked for a compromise including notification in the lease and some provision for sanitation. Mr. Swartwood and Ms. Moermond discussed options such as a wash basin or disinfecting wipes. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Swartwood whether he had a floor plan or photograph of the space. Mr. Swartwood said he could provide them. Ms. Moermond said she would lay the matter over for two weeks. 9. Appeal of James Swartwood to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 697 Western Avenue North. Appellant James Swartwood (5537 Dupont Avenue 5., Minneapolis, MN 55419) appeared. Ms. Moermond noted that the appeal was for ceiling height and egress windows. She read from the orders that the ceiling height on the second floor was 6'2". Ms. Moermond asked whether it was a flat ceiling. Mr. Swartwood described the configuration and said he would provide photos. He said the ceiling was an existing condition and was built to code 100 years ago. Ms. Moermond said there was no building permit to document that, and the current orders were under the fire code. Mr. Swartwood said he was always arguing with Leanna that Fire was pushing for a code that was higher than the state. He cited Morris v. Sax Investments. Ms. Moermond corrected herself and said the current order referenced the legislative code. Ms. Meormond asked Mr. Swartwood to provide photographs and dimensions of the room; she said she would lay the matter over for two weeks. She recommended granting a 5-inch variance on the openable height of the west window in the second floor bedroom. 669-04