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.