Loading...
07-953Council File # (�_ � S3 Green Sheet # ?y0 `-�`{l �j Presented RESOLUTION SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA � �. 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the July 17, 2 2007, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters and Letters of Deficiency for the 3 following addresses: 4 5 Pronerty Appealed Appellant 6 7 1204 Sherburne Avenue Christine Navarro 8 Decision: Grant the appeal for a variance on the room occupancy conditioned on the present ownership of 9 the property 10 11 41 Douglas Street Jim Smith 12 Decision: Grant the appeal for a variance on the hand sink in the bathroom conditioned on the present 13 ownership of the property 14 15 1893 Marshall Avenue David Kari 16 Decision: Deny the appeal on a fence variance 17 18 Requested by Department of: Adoption Certified by Co cil Secretary By: , Approy�a oy/rvia Date I� ��` U� l��/l� By: L�i l_, � Form Approved by City Attorney By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � Adopted by Council: Date ���/C��o7jJlJ7 � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet 6reen Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � �}—�� co -��� Confact Person 8 Phone: Marcia Moermond Doc Type: RESOLUTION E-Document Required: Y DocumeM Contact: Contad Phone: Total # of Signature Pages o�T-0� � Assign Num6er For Routing Order (Clip All Locations for Signature) Green Sheet NO: 3044693 Deoar4nent Sent To Person 0 �Comcil 1 ouncil De arhnentDirec[or 2 i Clerk Ci Clerk 3 4 5 Resolurion approving the decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters and Letters of Deficiency for properties at 41 Douglas Street, 1893 Mazshall Avenue and 1204 Sherbume Avenue. iaanons: approve �q� or tte�ec[ (K): rersona� sernce contrects must nnswer tne Fonowing QuesTions: Planning Commission t, Has this person/firm ever worked untler a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 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 E�cplain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advanqges If Approved: DisadvanWges If Approved: Disativantages If Not Approved: Transaction: Funding Source: Fi nancial Information: (Expl2in) Activity Number: CosURevenue Budgeted: October 3, 2007 9:00 AM Page 1 c��- - �ts 3 MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES, CORRECTION ORDERS Room 330 City Hall, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Tuesday, July 17, 2007 Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 1:30 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Joseph Ehrlich, Deparhnent of Safety and Inspections (DSn - Licensing, Leanna Shaff, DSI - Fire Prevention; Michael Urmann, DSI - Fire Prevention Appeal of Christine Navarro to a Certificate of Occupancy with Deficiencies for property at 1204 Sherburne Avenue. The following appeazed: Christine Navarro, appellant, and David Nichols, property owner. Mr. Nichols stated that he could comply with everything on the order. Mr. Urmann reported that the inspector made the correct determination under the code. The building code and the fire code require anything under four feet when dealing with a peaked roof to be unoccupied space. The measurement is taken at five feet and above. There is a peaked ceiling in this room. With the peaked ceiling, the usable squaze feet was 91. If they were to take those areas cut off by the peaked ceiling and add those in, it more than adequately meets the requirements for the code for 50 square feet per person. The determinarion was correct because it is usable square footage that they are measuring, but in this case the construction makes it unusable. Ms. Moermond asked the actual floor square footage. Mr. Urmann responded that he did not measure that, but puts it around 97 square feet. It was 91 square feet without measuring the areas under five feet high. The requirement is 50 square feet per person per occupant. There were two occupants in this room: a five year old and an eight year old child. Ms. Moermond stated she wiil grant the appeal and issue a variance of nine square feet to allow occupancy of this bedroom by two children. This variance will apply for the duration of the present owner's ownership of the building. If the building is sold, this issue will need to be revisited. July 17, 2007 Property Code Minutes e�- �s 3 Page 3 Appeai of Jim Smith to a Certificate of Occupancy with Deficiencies for property at 41 DouElas Street. Jnn Smith, property owner, appeazed. Ms. Shaff stated that she and Mr. Smith had talked prior to the hearing this morning. The bedroom with an opening in the wall does meet egress requirements. The call by the inspector was incorrect. It appears the toilet has been there for a very long time. It does not have a hand sink. The property maintenance code requires a hand sink, but there is nowhere to put one inside or outside of that room. It is a correct call, but he is not sure that making him disable that toilet would be the correct way to go. The kitchen sink is close. It is not idea to use the kitchen sink for washing after the batl�room; however, if that is all there is, that is not unreasonable. The third item is about the residential hearing report. She provided him with a blank copy of that. Mr. Smith has agfeed to haue his contractor fill that out and give him some time to do that. Ms. Moermond stated it seems that everything got discussed ahead of time. She asked is this the only bathroom. Mr. Smith responded that this one is off the kitchen, but there is one upstairs. Ms. Moermond granted a variance that the kitchen sink can be substitute for the hand sink as it is close proximity to the bathroom. This is for the duration of the present ownership. Appeal of David Kari on the Denial of a Fence Variance Request for property at 1893 Marshall Avenue. (DSI-Licensing) Mr. Kari, property owner, appeared. Joel Ehrlich reported that the application is for a six foot fence in the front yard. A four foot fence is allowed. The reason far the fence was the need to contain two energetic dogs and it is a high traffic street that causes the dogs to get excited. They adhere closely to the ordinance. They are only allowed to grant a variance if it is found that the site, terrain or nuisance animal conditions warrant a waiver of the height restrictions. This lot is level. They did not observe any site conditions that are unique to the site. The house is set back about 26 feet from the sidewalk and is in line with all the other houses. That is a minimum setback in the front that would require an adequate rear for the dog. There were no conditions that would warrant a fence there. Ms. Moermond stated that a six foot fence can go all the way to the front of the house along the sides. It can be flush with the front of the building according to code. She asked does he have a photo. Mr. Kari responded he does have a few to show her. Mr. Kari presented photographs. Mr. Kari stated that there is a lot of activity late at night. There were times that he had to put a mail box on the street because the mail lady would not deliver to the house because of the dogs. Every weekend it would get damaged. Now there is a halfway house next door. There are some things concerning to him. They would be more comfortabie with a six foot fence. They have had people come up to the house at 2:00 a.m. in the morning and they ripped out all three of the lights. July 17, 2007 Property Code Minutes o�--�t53 Page 4 Ms. Moermond stated that the dogs wouid be aware of an intruder just because the fence made a noise. That wouid be some level or security. When she looks at the streetscape, she does not see any fencing. This is not a fenced neighborhood. Mr. Ehrlich responded there are not toa many on the street or that block. There aze a lot of rentals, too. Mr. Kari asked the reasoning for the four foot guidelines. Mr. Ehrlich added that part of it for the police. In any emergency, they like to identify the house. TYus is a nonobscuring fence, but sometimes they become obscuring with plantings. Also, it is one of the few aesthetics responses that we have in the City. It does not look good to have six foot fences. It says keep out. The response the City would like is a more welcoming front porch response. It provides a better cityscape. Ms. Moermond sfated she is reconunending that the City not grant a variance on this issne. He could talk to Councilmember Benanav if he would like to pursue this further. She feels staff made the right cali on this one. The hearing was adjourned at approximately 2:00 p.m. �i�7