CC_Minutes_2015_0406 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,April 6, 2015 Page 15 cate them on expectations. Mr. Englund clarified that even if a violation was listed three times and needed to be corrected for all three, it only counted as one violation with each instance expected to be corrected upon re-inspection. Door locks, whether left unlocked or broken Mr. Englund responded that if a door was intended to be locked with a key, and found not to be, a property owner was given a violation. Mr. Munson concurred, noting with Mr. Englund that, if the door was left unlocked to be accessed, it could still show as a violation. How grandfathering was factored in if at all in Chapter 906, Property Maintenance Code (e.g. detectors in bedrooms) Mr. Munson advised that, regardless of a building's age, and potentially different or con- tradictory requirements in various codes, smoke detectors were required by the City in bedrooms and hallways. Mr. Munson advised that a determination had been made by City staff cooperatively with the Fire Marshal that this was going to be required, even though that determination was not officially made until after the preliminary list of items was presented to property owners in advance of the initial inspection. Mr. Munson stated part of staff's rationale was that often with a multi-family community, and especially those with immigrant populations, when they cooked and the detectors in hallways were set off, they disconnected or removed them creating a situation where there was now no smoke detector in the entire unit or building. Therefore, Mr. Munson advised that, staff determined that, in Roseville, detectors should be located in bedrooms also to provide more protection for tenants. Since that item had not been included in the preliminary inspection list sent by staff, Mr. Munson advised if it were removed from this appellant's list of violations and their calcu- lations, the properties would still end up with a"D"grade. A property may still have some violations and not be at 100% or meet every single re- quirement across the board Mr. Munson responded that only a percentage of units were inspected from the total number available; and therefore could still have violations. Mr. Munson clarified that the calculations were set by ordinance, not subjectively by staff. At the request of Chair Roe, Mr. Munson provided an example of those calculations. At the request of Board Member Laliberte, Mr. Englund and Mr. Munson advised that the outside banners mentioned by the appellant had been listed as a violation for building 175, and had been noticed to the tenant before the rental licensing inspections, and as part of the Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP) inspections as a violation. At the re- quest of Board Member Laliberte, Mr. Munson clarified that removing that one violation would also not change the score of the building from a grade "D."