Loading...
09-104Council File #_���Js� - ' Green Sheet # 3066286 RESOLUTION SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented by la 1 BE TT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of 5aint Paul hereby certifies and approves the January 2 6, 2009 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on the Appeal of a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency 3 List for the following address: 4 5 Prouertv Apnealed Appellant 6 7 li02 ReaneV Avenue Dan Carlson, 8 D.T. Cazlson Real Estate LLC 9 10 Decision: Deny the appeal for window egress on Items #1 and #4 and grant an extension for 90 days. 11 Grant a variance for window egress on Items #2 and #3 provided the mini blinds covering the windows aze 12 removed. 13 Yeas Nays Absent Bostrom ,/ Carter ,/ Harris ,/ Helgen ,� Lantry � Stazk ,/ Thune ,� .� Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney � Adopted by Council: Date '%��/�jJ�l/ Form Approved by Mayar for Submission to Council Adoption Certified by Cou cil Secretary By: , Approv�e� y� a t: Date -� Q By: lY�- � Approved by the Office of Financial Services � d9-iG� � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � DepartmenV�ce/Council: Date Initiated: co-�°°°°�� ��,.�,_09 Green Sheet NO: 3066286 Contact Person & Phone: DeoarGnent Sent To Person InitiaUDate Marcia Moertnond y 0 ooncil �� 6-BS�� 1 ounu7 De artment A"vector Assign 2 ' Clerk C� Clerk Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 3 � Routing 4 � Doc.Type:RE50LUTION Order 5 0 E-DOCUment Required: Y Document Contact: Mai Vang CoMact Phone: 6-8563 Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locatinas fnr SignaWre) AMion Requested: Resolution approving the January 6, 2009 decision of the Legisla6ve Hearing Officer on Appeal of Letter of Deficiency List for property at 1302 Reaney Avenue. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): personal Service Contrects Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission �, Has this person/frm ever worked under a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No - Givil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this personlfirm possess a skill not normaily possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, lssues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Approved: � Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of Transadion: CosURevenue Butlgetetl: Funding Source: Activity Number: Financial Information: (Explain) January 22, 2009 12:09 PM Page 1 Oy-iv� January 6, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes Page 2 2. Appeal of Dan Carlson, D.T. Carlson Rea1 Estate LLC, to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency Last foz property at 1302 Reanev Avenue. Property owner Dan Carlson (3609 E. 47 Street, Minneapolis) appeared. Ms. Shaff provided a staff report. She said that the property had been inspected for the Fare Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) on December 18, 2008 and that the inspector had found that the openable height of egress windows at the property ranged from 16" to 20" and that the minimum required was 24". Mr. Carlson provided photos and measurements far the windows, and documentation of financial hardship. He stated that the height of the windows measured by the inspector at 16" were actually 18 3 /4". He said that the house was built in the `SOs and that the windows were in great shape. He stated that he and his wife owned several rental properties and most were Section 8, and that replacing the windows was burdensome and represented a hardship. He said they' d owned the house for five years and would lose the house if they had to replace the windows. He said that tenant family had lived there for 4%z years. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Carlson whether he had thought about refinancing. Mr. Carlson said that banks were not refinancing investment properties. He said that he worked in construction and understood about egress and wouldn't put the tenants in hanns way. He said they were good-sized windows. Ms. Moermond questioned the width of the windows. Mr. Carlson said that the widths ranged from 39" to 24". Ms. Moermond asked whether the inspector had taken width measurements. Ms. Shaff stated that the inspector had not. Ma Moermond stated that there was a large shortfall in the openable height. Mr. Carlson stated that the windows wexe wide and that replacing them would represent a financial hardship. Ms. Moermond stated that she could not consider financial hazdship in a life/safety situation, but that she could take financial hardship into consideration when determining the length of time she could allow to have the windows replaced. She stated that she would need good width measurements in order to decide how the replacements should be staggered. Mr. Carlson said that the front window was the smallest and that it would have to be a double-hung window to retain the architectural integrity. He asked about the possibility of the windows being grandfathered. Ms. Moermond stated that the city had expanded C of O requirements to duplexes and single-family rental properties. She said that she could help with the timing of the required window replacements but part of the cost of doing business was maintenance. Mr. Carlson stated that the size of the front window was restricted by other structural considerations. January 6, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Culson to provide measurements of all window dimensions and photographs with notes about any special concerns regarding fit and structure. �9-idhl Page 3 Mr. Carlson stated that he was womed about the property's Section 8 status if he were not granted a variance on the window size. Ms. Shaff stated that Section 8 inspectors made their own decisions and might not accept a time variance. Mr. Carlson stated that the cost of window replacement would be $16,000 without contractor fees. Ms. Shaff stated that a sprinkler sysYem mighY be less expenszve and would remove the egress window requirement. Ms. Moermond stated that she would look at the dimensions and recommend a schedule for replacements. On January 22, 2009, Ms. Mcermond reviewed the records and recommended granting variances for window egress on Items #2 and #3. She recommended denying the appeal for window egress on Items #1 and #4 and granted an extension for 90 days.