Loading...
08-26Council File #� Green Sheet # "�`j�1`6� \ RESOLUTION F SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented by � 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the 2 November 2Q 2007 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters, Correction Norices 3 and Correction Orders for the following addresses: 4 5 Propertv Apnealed Annellant 6 7 60 Hawthome Avenue East Fred Gibson 8 9 Decision: Deny the appeal and grant an extension to December 5, 2007on the dryer vent and an extension 10 to May 1, 2008 to complete painting the house. 11 12 129 Wilder Street North MP Johnson 13 14 Decision: Deny the request for a variance on the bedroom ceiling height in the basement Yeas Nays Absent Carter � Bostrom � Harris ,/ Helgen � Lanhy � Stazk �/ Thune J f Adopted by Council: Date ��//Lj��'�/f� Adoprion Certified by Co ncil Secretary By: / Approve y ifa� � Date t%� O - By: Requested by Department o£ � Form Approved by City Attomey � Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � 08- d�o co -�� Contact Persan & Phone: Marcia Mcertnond 68570 Doa Type: RESOLUTION E-Document Required: Y DocumentContact: Vcki ConWct Phone: 6-8561 Total # of Signature Pages 28-DEC-07 � Assign Number For Routing Order (Clip All locations Por Signature) Green Sheet NO: 3047891 0 ouncil 1 Conacil DeparbnentDirector Z ty Clerk I 3 4 5 Resolution approving ffie November 20, 2007 decisions of the Legislakve Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters of DeFiciency for properties at 60 Hawthome Avenue East and 129 Wilder Street North. Planning Commission �_ Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? CIB Gommittee Yes No � Civil Service Commission 2, Has this personlflrm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this persoNfirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any curreM city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantaqes If Approved: Disadvantages If Approved: Disadvantages if Not Approved: Transaction: Funtling Source: Financial lnformation: (Explain) Activity Number: CosVRevenue Budgetetl: December 28, 2007 12:�2 PM Page f �8 � ��v MAItJTES OF THE LEGISLATNE HEARING ON LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTTON NOTICES CORRECTION ORDERS AND LETTERS Tuesday, November 20, 2007 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 1:30 p.m. Staff Present: Leanna Shaff, Deparhnent of Safety and Tnspection (DSI} - Fire Prevention; Appeal of Fred Gibson to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 60 Hawthorne Avenue East. Frederick Gibson, property owner, appeared and stated that he had aimost compieted all of the work. There had been water seepage in the basement which he believed was due to the heavy rainfalls as he had never previously had water in the basement. He did some ea�terior landscaping planting shrubs around the foundation and installed drain tile around the Foundation as well. Since then, he had not had any problems with water in the basement. Ms. Shaff confirmed that Mr. Gibson had indicated to her that everything was pretty much done. As far as the drain file in the basement, they would not know if it would prevent further water seepage in the basement until the next rainfall, likely in the spring. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Gibson about the painting and whether the work on the dryer vent had been done. Mr. Gibson stated that since the fall had been so warm, he was able to get most of the exterior painting done. The only thing he had left was some trim work and he thought he may be able to get that completed before the weather turned cold. As far as the dryer vent, he believed he had done the work properly. Ms. Shaff stated that the inspector will have to make that determination. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and granting an extension to December 5, 2007 on completing the work to the dryer vent. She recommended granting an extension to May 1, 2008 on painting the exterior of the house. Z. Appeal of MP Johnson to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 129 Wilder Street North MP Johnson, property owner appeared. Ms. Shaff stated t}�at the inspector found that the basement had a utility room and bedrooms. The ceiling height was less than the required seven feet. In Mr. Johnson's appeal, he indicates that the ceiling height is 6 feet 10 1/4 inches. The inspector indicated that 30 to 40 percent of the room is at that height; however, the remainder of the ceiling drops down under the duct work approximately November 20, 2007 Properiy Code Hearing Minutes D$ � a,,� Page 2 six to eight inches. This was far below the required seven feet which was required of sleeping rooms. Mr. Jahnson stated that this was the case in one of the sieeping rooms; however, in the other bedroom, the ceiling was at least 60 percent or more at 6 feet 10 1/4 inches. The one room had a large duct, the other room had a small duct. Ms. Moerxnond asked whether this affected only one apartment in this five-unit apartment buiIding. Mr. 7ohnson responded this was correct. 4Vhen he purchased the property, thare were six units in the building; two units were in the basement. He had since eliminated one of the units in the basemenk He was raquesting a variance of the seven foot ceiling requirement for the remauung basement unit. Ms. Moermond asked about the ceiling height in the unit he was requesting the variance for. Mr. Johnson responded that the ceiling was six feet 10 ll4 inches covering approximately 65 to 70 percent of the floor space. Ms. Shaff stated that it was her understanding that the inspectar had indicated that both bedrooms did not meet the seven foot ceiling requirement as he had indicated in his report. Ms. Moermond reviewed the deficiency list and asked Mr. Johnson as to whether he had reduced the number of occupants to more than four unrelated adults in the unit, Mr. 7ohnson responded that this had been resolved. There had been five people living in the one unit and there were now currently four people living in Yhis unit. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Johnson to describe which unit in the basement that he was requesting the variance for. Mr. Johnson responded that it would be the southwest comer unit of the basement. Ms. Moermond stated that she would recommend the Councii recommend granting a variance of 1 and ll2 inches in the bedroom basement since he had disconfinued using the other non-conforming basement bedroom. Note: This itenz was recalled to an additional hearing on Tuesday November 27, 2007 at 11: 00 a.m. because of a concern the laearing o�cer had with the accuracy and conipleteness of the appellant's testimony. The second hearing lead to a different outcome. November 27, 2007 Legislative Hearing Minutes �g� �,,(�j Page 5 10. Appeai of MP 7ohnson to a Certifrcate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 129 Wilder Street North. (Continned from Navember 20) MP 7ohnson, appellant appeared. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Johnson whether he had received her letter indicating that she had additional information which she had concems with and was withdrawing her recommendation on granting a variance to the ceiling height. Mr. Johnson responded that he had. Mr. Moermond stated that at the hearing on November 20, Mr. Johnson had represented that this was a five-unit building and that the occupancy issues had been resolved. It was her understanc3ing that Mr. Nies made an inspection of the property on November 20 and talked to Mr. Johnson`s daughter who indicated that the occupancy issues had not been resolved. She wanted to laiow what informarion was conect. Mr. Johnson responded that he believed that one of the people had already moved out and found out that this person did not move out ranril the Thanksgiving weekend. He was confused as to the classification of the building being a five-unit building. He did not believe he had represented that it was. Ms. Moerrnond stated that she had asked l�im whether this was a five-unit building and whether they were talking about two garden-level units in which he responded that this was correct. Mr. 7ohnson stated that he did not tmdersCand thaC a unit was in the house. As to the reference to garden level, he assumed this meant the two units in the basement. He misunderstood the term "unit vs. a house." Mr. Nies stated that the property was inspectad on a refertal to the Cerkificate of Occupancy program on November 7 due to over-occupancy at the property. Ha conducted a surprise inspecrion at the property and was let into the house by Mr. Johnson's daughter, Jessica. He asked her how many people were living at the property and she indicated that there were five people. He asked if he could conduct an inspection and she agreed to allow him access. He did find that there was over- occupancy at the property as well as the deficiency of the ceiling height in the basement as the ceiling height did not meet the minimum requirement of seven feet. He conducted a re-inspection of the property on November 20 to verify that the overcrowding issue had been resolved. At that time, Jessica was leaving the property and he asked her whether the over-occupancy issue had been resolved and she indicated that it was. He asked again whether she was sure and she then indicated that it had not. He had not been back to the building to verify whether the remainder of the deficiencies had been completed. Ms. Moermond stated that since there were more than four unrelated adults living at the property, this was essenrially a zoning issue. Mr. Nies stated that this was correct. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. 7ohnson whether the over-occupancy issue had been resolved. Mr. Johnson responded that it was now resolved. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. JoYmson if his daughter lived at the property with tlu�ee of her good friends. Mr. Johnson responded that his daughter attended St. Thomas University and ]ived at the property with three of her classmates. November 27, 2007 Legislarive Hearing Minutes ��-�� Page 6 Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Johnson whether he owned any other rental properties. Mr. Johnson responded that he did not. Mr. Nies stated that in reviewing the appeai, Mr. Johnson claimed that over 50 percent af the ceiling was seven feet which he did not believe was correct. He did not believe that either of the bedrooms in the basement had a ceiling height of seven feet. Ms. Moermond stated one of the bedrooms in the basement did not qualify for a variance as the ceiling height was too low. Mr. Nies stafed that Mr. Johnson had indicated he was going to take down one of the walls in the basement to make it one big bedroom. Mr. Johnson responded that when he re-measured the ceiling heights he found that the ceiling was 6 feet 10 1/4 inches in the one bedroom which covered 75 percent of the floor space. It was his intention to leave the wall up and use the other room for storage. Mr. Nies stated that there were four bedrooms upstairs and one of the bedrooms did not have an approved egress window; however, this bedroom was not currently being used for a sleeping room. Mr. Johnson stated that it was his intention to replace the window to comply with egress requirements for that one bedroom. Ms. Moermond asked how many stories the house had. Mr. Johnson responded that it was a two- story house with a basement. When he originally purchased the house, there were four bedrooms upstairs and two bedrooms in the basement. He was seeking a variance on the ceiling height for the one bedroom in the basement. Ms. Moermond recommended denying the request for a variance far the basement bedroom ceiling height.