Loading...
10-693Council File # �—� Green Sheet# 3115459 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 40 41 RESOLUTION 41NT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented by BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the June 1, 2010 decision of the Legislative Heazing Officer for Appeals of Letters and Deficiency Lists for the following addresses: Propertv Apuealed 1825 Marvland Avenue East Appellant Eli Rupnow Decision: Deny the appeal. 1087 Saint Paul Avenue Gregory Richazdson Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension to December 31, 2010 to bring the garage exterior into compliance. 2191 Mailand Road Patty McDonald Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension for one year to come into compliance. 2080 James Avenue Joshua Walter Decision: Grant a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in bedroom I and a 3.5- inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in bedroom 2; grant a variance to allow un t� three locks on each door during the current tenancy of the property. 819 Hazdenburgh Place Jeff Sullivan, Del Co LP � Decision: Grant a 4-inch variance on the ceiling height on the second floor; grant a 6-inch vaziance on the ' openable height of the egress window in the second floor bedroom. 954 Galtier Street Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension to December 31, 2010 to repair the roof; grant an extension to July 2 to complete the remainder of the repairs. Wallace Wickazd 2172 Sixth Street East Melanie and Tom Mortensen Decision: Grant a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the main floor southeast and southwest bedrooms; the basement room without an egress window cannot be used for sleeping. 30 10-693 � 42 685 Van Bwen Avenue Leslie Lucht 43 44 Decision: Deny the appeal. � 45 46 1663-1665 Leone Avenue Shazon Utgaard � 47 48 Decision: Grant an 8-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in Unit 1665 northeast 49 bedroom. 50 0 Yeas Na s Absent Requested by Department of: � Bostrom �/ Carter , / � Stark Thune Form Approved by CiTy Attomey By: Adopted by CounciL Date 7��/�,`,(�j� Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council Adoption Certified by Council Secretary gy; By: d�J Approv d b a o� Date � Approved by the Office of Financial Services By: By: 10-693 � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � co -co����i Confact Person & Phone: Moermond Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Doc. Type: RESOLUTION E-Document Required: Y Document Contact: � Contact Phone: 24 JUN 2010 � Assign Number For Routing Order Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) 0 i 2 3 4 5 � Resolution approving the June 1, 2010 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeais of Letters and Deficiency Lists at 1825 Maryland Avenue East, 1087 Saint Paul Avenue, 2191 Mailand Road, 2080 James Avenue, 819 Hardenburgh Place, 954 Galtier Street, 2172 Sixth Sh East, 685 Van Buren Avenue and 1663-1665 Leone Avenue. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Planning Commission 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 person�rm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separste sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: DisadvanWges If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: ToWlAmountof Transaction: Funding Source: Financial infortnation: (Explain) Cosf/Revenue Budgeted: Activity Number: Green Sheet NO: 3115459 June 24, 2010 10:03 AM Page 1 10-693 MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING OFFICER ON APPEALS OF LETTERS, LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION NOTICES & FEES, AND DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMITS Tuesday, June 1, 2010 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 1:35 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Leanna Shaff, Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI) — Fire; Mike Urmann, DSI — Fire; Joel Essling DSI — Code Enforcement; Mai Vang, City Council Offices Appeal of Eli Rupnow to a Code Compliance Inspection Report for property at 1825 Marvland Avenue East. (Rescheduled from May 4) No one appeared; Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal. Appeal of Gregory Richardson to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1087 Saint Paul Avenue . Appellant Gregory Richardson (1964 Highland Parkway, St. Paul, MN 55116) appeared. He said he had filed an appeal for windows and the garage, but the garage had been overlooked at the initial hearing. Ms. Shaff stated that an inspection was conducted on Apri129. The order to scrape and paint the garage in a professional manner and repair the fascia (Item 2) was being appealed. Mr. Richardson said it was primarily a cosmetic matter which he knew needed to be done. He had obtained an estimate for $1,600 for the garage about a month before the inspection; however he didn't believe he was given enough time as this was significant expense and had asked for an extension to next year. Ms. Shaff said the concern with waiting to a yeaz was that the rotted wood might allow rodent access. Ms. Moermond confirmed that the required work was for the garage and that it was a single-family home. She asked Ms. Shaff how the depattment would rate the property. Mr. Richardson said the other items had all taken just a few hours of time and cost $50 to $100, except the windows which had already been appealed. Ms. Moermond asked for a description of the condition of the fascia. Mr. Richazdson said the gazage "didn't look pretry" and needed to be painted and there was scattered rotting siding and fascia. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting an extension to December 31, 2010 to bring the garage exterior into compliance. The deadline for the other items remained the same. i[�II�k3 June 1, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page � Appeal of Patty McDonald to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 2191 Mailand Road. Appellant Patty McDonald (2150 Mailand Road, St. Paul, MN 55119) appeazed. Ms. Shaff stated an inspection was conducted on May 7, 2010; she had spoken with Ms. NlcDonald and the issue was the roof of the house (Item 9). Ms. McDonald said they would like another yeaz to complete the roof as they hadn't realized the detached garage was included in the inspection and were completing the necessary improvements on that first. They wanted to install metal roofing on the house and would now need more time to save money. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting an extension for one yeaz to come into compliance. 6. Appeal of Joshua Walter to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 2080 James Avenue. � Appellant Josh Walter (2469 Fieldstone Curve, Woodbury, MN 55129) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated an inspection was conducted on May 3, 2010 and the openable dimensions of the egress window in bedroom 1 were 20 inches high by 34.5 inches wide and in bedroom 2 were 20.5 inches high by 38 inches wide. There were also more than two deadbolts on both the front and back doors. Mr. Walter said he thought there were three deadbolts on the front and two on the back. Ms. Shaff said the maximum allowed was two. Mr. Walter said the inspector had noted both doars so there might be three on the back. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Mr. Walter that his aunt lived there. Mr. Walter said the home had been his grandparents' primary residence and his aunt had lived there since it was built. He explained that his aunt was mentally ill and the locks were very important to her and because she. lived alone, the locks didn't affect anyone else's safety. The house was basically owner-occupied but his aunt could not be on the deed because of her mental illness. Ms. Shaff noted that the appeal form said Mr. Walter's aunt carried the keys with her all the time; she asked whether the locks were double-keyed. Mr. Walter responded they were not. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in bedroom 1 and a 3.5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in � bedroom 2. She recommended granting a variance to allow up to three locks on each door during the current tenancy of the property. 10-693 June 1, 2010 Properiy Code Minutes Page 3 7. Appeal of leff Sullivan, Del Co LP, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 819 Hazdenbur�h Place. Appeliant Jeff Sullivan (1146 Rice Street, St. Paul) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that an inspection was conducted on Mazch 29, 2010 and the openable dimensions of the second floor windows were 18 inches high by 34 inches wide and the center of the second, floor ceiling was 6' 8". Ms. Shaff, Mr. Sullivan and Ms. Moermond reviewed the second floor diagram provided by Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Sullivan said the highest azea of the ceiling was five feet wide; Ms. Sbaff said the inspectar had reported it was four feet wide. Ms. Moermond said it appeared that over half of the ceiling azea was over 6' 8". She recommended granting a 4-inch variance on the ceiling height on the second floor; grant a 6-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in the second floor bedroom. 8. Appeal of Wallace Wickard to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 954 Galtier Street Appellants Wallace Wickard and Mrs. Wickard (1252 East Cook Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55106) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that Inspector Martin had conducted an inspection on May I 3, 2010; she said the appeal was not specific. Mr. Wickard said the building was 120 years old and they had owned it for over 30 years and some of the items cited had been okay for yeazs. The bedroom in the back of the building had a window that opened to the alley and the upstairs bedroom exited to a landing and stairway to the exterior, but the inspector had said egress windows were required if the rooms were to be used as bedrooms. Ms. Shaff refened Ms. Moermond to Item 26 regarding egress windows. ' Mr. Wickazd said the downstairs front room was being used for sleeping and he had made arrangements to install an egress window. The locations of the rear and upstairs bedroom exits had passed inspection before and everything else was done. Ms. Shaff asked whether the work had been done under permit. Mr. W ickard said it had. Ms. Moermond, Ms. Shaff and Mr. Wickazd reviewed the inspector's photographs. Mr. Wickazd asked whether an egress window could be installed on the landing outside of the upstairs bedroom. Ms. Moermond responded that the code required that the egress window be in the sleeping room. Ms. Moermond asked how many units there were. Mr. Wickazd said it was two buildings that had been combined. There were nine sleeping rooms upstairs and two 2-bedroom units downstairs in addition to the beauty shop and 2-bedroom unit above it. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Wickazd whether he was appealing anything other than the roof and upstairs egress window. Mr. Wickazd asked whether an egress window was required in the room that exited to the alley which had been used as a bedroom for 30 yeazs; it had a window exiting to a June 1, 2010 Property Code Minutes 10-693 Page 4 walkway to the garage and one exiting to the alley. Ms. Shaff asked whether the walkway was at least three feet wide and weather both windows in the room were easily openable. Mr. Wickard said the window to the walkway was smali but the one to the back alley was fine. Ms. Moermond noted that there were no orders for that room. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Mr. Wickard that he was adding an egress window to Unit 254. Mr. Wickazd said he had qualified for a grant and was having all of the windows replaced. � Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Wickazd how much time he would like to do the roo£ Mr. Wickazd said he would like as much time as possible and asked whether he could have an extension for the other items. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting an extension to December 31, 2010 to repair the roof; grant an extension to July 2 to complete the remainder of the repairs. Mr. Wickard asked what would be required in the upstairs room. Ms. Shaff said he would have to submit plans to the building plan examiner. 9. Appeal of Melanie and Tom Mortensen to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 2172 Sia�th Street East. Appellant Melanie Mortenson appeared and indicated she was a tenant of the property. Ms. Shaff stated an inspection was done on May 4, 2010 and the basement bedroom had no egress and the use as a bedroom should be discontinued. Tt�e other item being appealed was Item 6 having to do with extension cords and multi-plug adapters. Ms. Mortenson said there had been a misunderstanding with the inspector about Item 6 and that was no longer being appealed. The property manager had asked whether there could be a variance for the egress windows (Item 4). Ms. Shaff read from the orders that the openable dimensions of the egress window in the main floor southeast bedroom were 20 inches high by 25 inches, and in the main floor southwest bedroom were 20 inches high by 33 inches wide. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows in the main floor southeast and southwest bedrooms. Ms. Mortenson said they were using the basement bedroom as an office. They had changed the knob on the door between the bedroom and office so that it couldn't be locked and could remove. the door at the top of the stairs to provide two direct egress paths. Ms. Moermond reviewed the photographs and said the basement room without an egress window could not be used for sleeping. 10. Appeal of Leslie Lucht to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 685 Van Buren Avenue. Appellant Leslie Lucht (1090 Cumberland Street, St. Paul, MN 55117) appeared. Mr. Urmann stated that he read the appellant's concems and wouid try his best to address them. The issue began with a referral for a rodent infestation which gave the department probable cause to 10-693 June l, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 5 � follow up with a referral inspection. He said the inspector found that the C of O was provisional and had opened the C of O to address a11 items together. All items on the deficiency list were fire or property maintenance code issues or items that the mechanical inspector had asked to have calied out such as dryer venting and gas piping if they were found because they were items that required a permit to be changed. The other issues were not Monis v Sax issues; he said the city was no longer calling issues under Morris v SaY. Mr. Lucht referred to the item related to the ceiling (Item 16) and said he had been working on the leak upstairs before repairing the ceiling. The complaint was about a rat that had come up from the toilet and gotten stuck on a sticky trap behind the toilet and there was not a rodent infestation. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Lucht to clarify his position about the complaint. Mr. Lucht said he had taken care of the rat problem and tried to keep his properties maintained. He'd been working on � another house for over a yeaz and a half and finally had it rented aRer the city had condemned it and asked whether the city was trying to put him out of business. Monis v Sax said the city couldn't supersede the building code and referred to Item 11 on the list and said there were no feces on the property. He understood the city had a job to do to make sure properties were safe for tenants, but he was trying to make a living far himseif and couldn't. He had an electrician look at the items the inspector had cited and the electrician had put a couple straps on wires and shortened the water heater cable, but couldn't find anything else and didn't feel a permit was needed. , Ms. Moermond asked whether he was appealing that item. Mr. Lucht responded that he was appealing the whole procedure as under Morris v Sax the city couldn't just come in as it was unconstitutional for the inspectors to visit without notice. Ms. Moermond said that when the inspection was for public health, safety or welfaze it was an exercise of police power. Ms. Moermond said that was a separate issue and she was looking for how long it was going to take to complete everything. Mr. Lucht said he objected to the whole thing and it was against the state Supreme Couri decision. Ms. Moermond said that was Mr. Lucht's interpretation, and the city's interpretation of Morris v Sax differed. She said he was at an impasse and could either comply with the orders or pursue other avenues to resolve the conflict. She understood he felt there shouldn't have been an inspection after he had addressed the rat problem; it was unfait that others were calling in complaints and he hadn't been given enough time. She asked what specifically he was looking for. Mr. Lucht said he didn't know what the inspector wanted because the orders were broad. Mr. Urmann said the scheduled full inspection was the opportunity for the property owner to meet with the inspector and have the orders clarified. The short time period was partly due to the fact that one of the orders was to provide access to all azeas of the building. Mr. Lucht expressed frustration at having to miss another day of work. Ms. Moermond asked how many units were in the building. Mr. Urmann said there were two. Ms. Moermond asked whether only one unit had been accessed and why the initial inspection was not a full inspection. Mr. Urmann said only one unit was accessed. The uutial inspection had been a' referral inspection oniy, and the provisional inspection had been scheduled to access the whole building. 10-693 June 1, 2010 Property Code Minutes Page 6 Ms. Moermond asked again whether he was looking for a specific period of time to address the issues in the order. Mr. Lucht said he didn't know what the inspector wanted. He said completing the repairs would be a financial hardship and said he had to use his daughter's college fund to work on another property because the city had not allowed him to do the work a little at a time. He said coming to the hearings caused him to have to miss work. Ms. Moermond said taking care of the properties was also his business. Mr. Lucht expressed fiustration at having to deal with tenants who used legal aid services to protect them from having to repair damage they had caused. Ms. Moermond asked again whether there were specific items Mr. Lucht wanted to talk about. Mr. Luchi said he wanted to talk about the whole list. He didn't know what the inspector wanted or expected. He also couldn't make the inspection on June 8 because he worked Monday through Thursday. - Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Lucht whether he had come to the heazing to vent his fiustration. Mr. Lucht said what the inspectors were doing wasn't right. They were going after the little guys but didn't mess with the big guys. He didn't know what the inspector was asking for on the list and he was frustrated at having to pay to have people live in a better situation than he did. He paid taxes, fines and inspection fees and didn't have enough money. Ms. Moermond asked why he was in the business. Mr. Lucht said no one would buy the properties because of the city's policies. Mr. Lucht asked for clazification of the fire extinguisher arder. He said the fire extinguishers weren't required and he couldn't afford to have them inspected. He asked why they had to be removed. Ms. Moermond said the code required they be maintained or removed. Mr. Lucht asked about the order related to wiring; he said the electrician hadn't seen any exposed wiring. Mr. Urmann said the inspector had described non-metallic cable that ran underneath the beams, was not secured according to code, and was within reach by hand. He said it needed to be put in a raceway or otherwise protected from contact and damage. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Mr. Lucht that the unsupported wiring had been addressed by the electrician. Ms. Moermond said there would be an inspection on June 8 or soon after and set a deadline of July 30 to complete the items on the current list. She told Mr. Lucht he could appeal items from the new list if he chose to and the fee would be waived. Appeal of Shazon Utgaard to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1663-1665 Leone Avenue. Grant an 8-inch variance on the openable height of the egress window in Unit 1665 northeast bedroom.