09-1146Council File # //�-' � � ��
Green Sheet # 3083846
RESOLUTION � �
4�IT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented by
1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the June 16,
2 2009 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeal on Letters of Certificate of Occupancy
3 Deficiency Lists for the following address:
4
� Proaertv Aupealed
6
7 871 Fourth Street East
Appellant
Scott McCoy
9 Decision: Grant a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the egress bedroom windows in Units 1
10 through 4 and a 5.5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress bedroom windows in Units 5 and 6;
11 deny the appeal on the egress window in Unit 7 and grant a 90 day extension to bring the window into
12 compliance; deny the appeal on the sill height in Unit 7 and install approved steps.
13
14
15
16
Bostrom
Carter
Stark
�
Requested by Department of:
�
Form Approved by City Attorney
By:
Adopted by Council: Date ��j�f��� Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to CouncIl
Adoption Certified by Coun l Secretary
BY L / /,�? �J` � - O'.>'
Approve�i�,} �r Dat� (� �
BY _ ���—
�
Approved by the Office of Financial Services
�
June 16, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes � r,� �" � I� Page 7
-( `T
12. Appeal of Scott McCoy to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for properiy at 871
Fourth Street East.
Appellant Scott McCoy (3949 79 Street E., Inver Grove Heights 55076) appeared.
Ms. Moermond noted that it was only the windows that were bein� appealed. Inspector Urmann
said it appeared that the windows were the only item left and that the inspector was especially
concemed about the windows in Unit 7.
Ms. Moermond stated that the inspector's report indicated that the openable height was 13 inches
but the glazed height was 54 inches. Inspector Urmann said that the sill height was also 54 inches
and that the figure for the glazed height might be a typo.
Mr. McCoy stated that he felt it was an error because Units 5 and 7 were the same and Unit 6 had
the smallest windows. He said he purchased the building three or four years ago and the previous
owner had replaced the windows in one unit. He was replacing a boiler in this building and a roof
on another and could not afford to replace windows this year. He said the building was built 40
years ago and the windows should be grandfathered in.
Ms. Moermond said she was not clear on the measurements and could not grant a variance without
correct numbers. She asked whether he was willing to install a step to address the sill height. Mr.
McCoy responded that he felt the step would present a tripping hazard but had discussed it with the
inspector and was willing to install the step.
Ms. Moermond asked whether he would be able to provide photographs of the windows with
measurements or whether he would prefer to have the inspector come back out. Mr. McCoy said
that the re-inspection was already scheduled for June 29.
Ms. Moermond asked that the window dimensions and sill height in Unit 7 be re-measured during
the June 29 re-inspection, and said that her decision would be forthcoming. She said if the window
dimensions were close to those of the other windows, she would recommend granting a variance.
She recommended grant a-4 inch variance on the openable height of the egress bedroom windows in
Units 1 through 4, and a 5.5-inch variance on the openable height of the egress bedroom windows in
Units 5 and 6.
Inspector Urmann reviewed the requirements for the step. Mr. McCoy asked whether a variance
might be granted for sill height if it was re-measured and found to be 49 inches high. Ms.
Moermond said she would wait to make a decision until she received the measurement.
On October 8, 2009, Inspector Thomas made an inspection to re-measure the windows in Unit 7 and
found that the measurement was 15 inches high by 31 inches wide, and the sill height was 53
inches. After reviewing the measurements, Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal and
granting 90 days to bring the windows into compliance. Mr. McCoy would also need to install
steps to address the sill height issue.
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
�, DeparUnenUOfficelCOUncil: �, Date Initiated: i
b �J�ll��
� co-c°°"�'' ; isocrzoos � GP@etl Sh@@t NO: 3083896
; Contact Person & Phone• � � Department 5ent To Person Initial/Date
Marcia Moermond • I o Counca - ,
� 6-5570 , y ��, 1 Council � Department Accountant , ��
' Assign �� 2 Citv Clerk ' CiN Clerk '
Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): N b � �
Doc. Type: RESOLUTION
E-Document Required: Y
Document Contact: Mai Vang
Contact Phone: 6-8563
um er
For
Routing
Order
Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip AII Locations for Signature)
Resolution approving the decision of the Legislative Heazing Officer on an Appeal of a Letter of Deficiency List for properiy at 871
Fourth Street East.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R):
Planning Commission
CIB Committee
Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions:
1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this departmeni?
Yes No
Civii Service Commission I 2. Has ihis person/firm 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 Probiem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
Advantages If Approved:
DisadvanWges If Approved:
Disadvantages If Not Approved:
Total Amount of
Trensaction:
Funding Source:
Financial information:
(Explain)
CosURevenue Budgeted:
Activity Number:
October 14, 2009 9:54 AM Page 1