09-1083Council File # `�--�- �O �S3
Green Sheet # 3081236
RESOLUTION
CITY O�/JS/,kINT,PAUL .MINNESOTA
��
Presented by
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the
September 1, 2009 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals to Letters of Certificate of
Occupancy Deficiency Lists for the following addresses:
Proaertv Apnealed
1530-1532 Ivy Avenue East
Appellant
Larry Ubani
Decision: Deny the appeal and grant a 90-day extension to bring the egress bedroom windows into
compliance.
Adopted by Council: Date \l7 C;� i p�
Adopti ertifi y Co il Secretary
By:
Appro or. t l r ' /3 �-}
By: �'L-�C-z�
Reguested by Department of:
�
Form Approved by City Attomey
By:
Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
Approved by the Office of Financial Services
�
O�i-�o$3
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
i DepartmenUOfficelCouncii: i Date Initiated:
� co-c°°^��� I 23SEPZOO9 'I Green Sheet NO: 3081236
, �
i Contact Person & Phone: '., �
� Marcia Moermond �
� i
i Assign
�; Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): � Number
; For
Routing
I Doa Type: RESOLUTION � Order
E-Document Required: Y
Document ContaM:
Contact Phone:
Total # of Signature Pages �(Clip Ail Locations for Signature)
Action Requested:
0 'Council r . '
1 Council � Deoarm�entDirector °
2 Ciri Clerk Ciiv Clerk '
3 !
4 ' i
5 j
Resolution approving the decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on an Appeal of a letter of Deficiency for proeprty at 1530-
1532 Iry Avenue East.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R):
Planning Commission
CIB Cammittee
Civil Service Commission
Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Foilowing Questions:
1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department?
Yes No
2 Has this personffirm 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
Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet.
Initiating Probiem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
AdvanUges If Approved:
Disadvantages If Approved:
Disadvantages If Not Approved:
Total Amount of
Trensaction:
Funding Source:
Financiai Information:
(Explain)
CostlRevenue Budgeted:
Activity Number:
September 23, 2009 9:01 AM Page 1
September 1, 2009 Property Code Minutes
c����c�s3
Page 4
Appeal of Lany L7Uani to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1530-
1532 Iw Avenue East.
Appellant Larry Ubani (2147 University Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55114) appeared.
Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She stated that Inspectar Thomas had inspected for the Fire C of O on
August 17 and reported that the openable width of the egress windows in both bedrooms at 1530
Ivy was 16 inches with a sill height of 50 inches. She said there was a code enforcement folder on
1532 Ivy from 2005 stating that egress windows were being installed without permits.
Mr. Ubani stated that the egress window in 1532 were very new and had been installed by a
contractor under permit. He said there were permanent steps attached to the windows to address sill
heightin 1530.
Ms. Moermond noted that a building permit had been issued on September 27, 2001 to Dorothea C.
Coakley. Mr. LR�ani stated that the windows had been done in 2005. Ms. Moermond and Ms. Shaff
said there was no permit for 2005. Ms. Moermond asked the name of the contractor who had done
the work.
Mr. Ubani responded that he did not have the information with him but could provide it. He said
the windows were double-hung and could be pulled out for cleaning, and he believed they were
about 18 inches wide and 48 inches high.
Ms. Moermond and Ms. Shaff said that was probably glazed area. Ms. Shaff stated that the
inspector's report gave an openable width of 16 inches and that she had written 15 inches for the
openable height. She said she thought she had gotten that measurement from the inspector. Mr.
Ubani stated that he did not believe 15 inches was correct.
Ms. Moermond confirmed with Mr. Ubani that steps bad been permanently installed to address sill
heigJ�t. She said she would recommend granting a variance if he submitted photographs
demonstraring that the openable height of the egress windows in both bedrooms was at least 32
inches. She said she would also check with the inspector. If the openable height was not at least 32
inches, she would recommend denying the appeal and granting a 60-day extension to bring the
windows into compliance.
On September 23, 2009, Ms. Moermond reviewed the file and since the property owner failed to
provide photographs demonstrating that the openable height of the egress windows in both
bedrooms was at least 32 inches, she recommended denying the appeal and granting an extension
for 90 days to bring the windows into compliance.