Loading...
07-954Council File # �} '� 5 9 ' Green Sheet #?Oyy( 7 RESOLUTION MINNESOTA �$ 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the August 2 21, 2007, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of a Deficiency List for the following 3 address: 4 5 Propertv Appealed 6 7 2174 Princeton Avenue 8 Decision: Grant a ninety (90) day extension. Ap el p lant Daniel Speaz 10 283 Harrison Avenue William Berry 11 Decision: Grant a waiver on item #6 to provide a hand sink and grant a waiver on item #12 conceming the 12 ceiling height. 13 Yeas Nays Absent Benanav ✓ Bostrom ,/ Harris ,/ Helgen ,� Lanhy � Montgomery ✓ Thune �/ 7 � Adopted by Council: Date ���/�1�11' Adoption Certified by Coi icil Secretary BY� � d+� Approve a j• Date (� " l —U 7 By� __�� Requested by Deparhnent of. � Form Approved by City Attomey � Form Approved by Mayar for Submission to Council � e�- - °154 � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � co ��� ConWCt Person & Phone: Maraa Mcermond Doc. Type: RESOLUTION E-DOCUment Required: Y Document Contact: Contact Phone: oaocr-0� � Assign Number For Routing Order Tapl # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Green Sheet NO: 3044697 0 omcil I I 1 �CounN I DeoarhnentDirector 2 ' Clerk Ci Clerk 3 4 5 I I Resolurion approving the decision of the Legislarive Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters of Deficiency for properties at 283 Harrison Avenue and 2174 Princeton Avenue. itlations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contrad for this department? q6 Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/frm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this persoNfirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): AdvantageslfApproved: Disadvantages If Approved: Disadvantaqes If Not Approved: Trensadion: Funding Source: Financial Information: (F�cplain) CosflRevenue Budgeted: Activity Number: October 3, 2007 9:18 AM Page 1 O�--q54 MINLJTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEA.RIlVG ON LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES AND CORRECTION ORDERS Thursday, August 21, 2007 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West Marcia Moermond, Legislarive Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 130 p.m. Staff Present: Steve Magner, Department of Safety and Inspections (DSn - Code Enforcement; Leanna Shaff, DSI-Fire Prevention; Mike Urxnann, DSI-Fire Prevenrion; Phil Owens, DSI-Fire Prevention; JeffHawkins, DSI-Zoning Appeal of Daniel Spear to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 2174 Princeton Avenue Ms. Moermond requested a staffreport. Mr.Urmann stated that this was a duplex that was inspected for purposes of a Certificate of Occupancy and it was found that they have three units, and the third unit has not been approved through zoning. He noted that all three units are occupied and there aze no life safety issues on violarions. He stated that he will allow Mr. Spear time to go through zoning appeals and do the paperwork necessary. Mr. Spear stated that he purchased the property in 2000 and that he purchased it as a triplex. He noted that his Ramsey County property tax statements have always been 2-3 units, so when he purchased the property he spent $20,000 to remodel. He said that it has been a triplex for as long as anyone knows. He continued that he is trying to obtain zoning approval. He will have a re-inspection with Mr. Urmann in ten (10 days). Mr. Spear noted that everything else will be taken care of. Ms. Moermond stated that it will take thirty (30) days to get the process started. She said that after that thirty (30) days, she will give Mr. Spear another ninety (90) days to continue the process. She concluded that, "We will deal with it from there." August 21, 2007 Properiy Code Minutes a� ��`F' Page 6 5. Appeal of William Berry to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 283 Harrison Avenue Ms. Moermond requested a staff report. Ms. Shaff stated that, upon completion of a C of O inspection, it was found that the property was being used as a triplex and orders were written accordingly that it does not conform to the Zoning Code. A building official noted that it is a triplex, but has never had a C of O inspection. She stated that orders need to be rewritten. She added that it appeazs Mr. Berry's appeal is correct. Requirements for a duplex are very differentthan for a hipiex (Item 14). Mr. Berry stated that this came about because of a tenant. He inherited the building from his father and was not aware of a C of O. Ms. Shaff stated it is her expectation that the code requirements be met for a triplex. Mr. Berry stated that he cannot raise the ceilings. Tom Riddering, DSI Building Official, stated this is an existing, nonconforming 3-plex. He stated the Building Code and Fire Code are sister codes that have essentially the same requirements. He noted that the Building Code does require that you upgrade your property every time the code changes. The Fire Marshal was interpreting the Fire Code that that these changes needed to be done. The State Building Code requires no less than or no more than the Building Code. The Fire Code may not enforce the maYimuxn of the Building Code. The City may not enact anything more or less stringent than the Building Code. Ms. Moermond stated that the property needs to again be inspected, that her thought is that the inspector will go out there again and re-inspect as a 3-plex. There will be a new set of orders. She stated she will waive the appeal fee when Mr. Berry receives the orders as a 3-plex. Ms.Moermond informed Mr. Berry that his appeal is granted; she added that the problem is that he will get another set of orders appropriate to the 3-plex. Ms. Shaff stated that she didn't think another inspection is required, but she will send a corrected set of orders. Mr. Riddering referenced #6 regarding the upper unit bathroom. Mr. Berry stated that his ceiling is 79 inches and that he is five inches off for the ceiling. Ms. Moermond stated that she will recommend to the City Council that they provide him a waiver on the ceiling item, and a waiver will be granted on the bathroom hand sink. She requested that Mr. Berry put signage in that area and add a provision in the lease that this is a sanitation issue; this provision in the lease would let the tenant know that the bathroom sink is not up to code.