Loading...
09-1219Council File # Q�/a/GJ Green Sheet # 3086237 CITY Presented by f� 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the 2 September 15, 2009 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeal to Letter of Certificate of 3 Occupancy Deficiency List for the following address: 4 5 Pronertv Anpealed 6 7 1666 Jessamine Avenue East 8 Anuellant Nancy and Daryl Olson 9 Decision: Grant a 3-inch variance on the openable height of the first and second bedroom egress windows. 10 Grant the appeal on the paved parking area. 11 12 13 14 Yeas Nays Absent Bostrom Carter Harris � Helgen � Lanhy ,/ Stark ;/ Thune ,/ � l Requested by Department of. � Form Approved by City Attorney By- Adopted by CouncIl: Date ���r1�f�p� Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council Adoption Certified by Coun '1 Secretary BY� � ? Approv a� or Dat j� J B y: �� RESOLUTION PAUL, MINNESOTA � Approved by the Office of Financial Services � ��iai� � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � �� DepartmenllOffice/CounciY. Date Inifiated: , ; co-�°°°°�' ; Z8o�T2oos ' Green Sheet NO: 3086237 ConWM Person & Phone: Marcia Mcermond 6- Must Be an Council Agenda hy (Oate): loc. Type: RESOLUTION E-DocumentRequired: Y DocumentConWCt: MaiVang ContactPhone: 6-8563 � ; 0 I 1 Assign , 2 Numher For Routing I Order Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Reso(ution appcoving the decision of the Legislative Aeazing Officec on an appeal of Letter of Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1666 Jessamine Avenue East. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Planning Commission GB Commiflee Civil Sernce Gommission Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this depaRment? Yes No 2. Has this personffirm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this personlfirm 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 Pfoblem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approvetl: Total Amount of Trensaction: Funding Source: Financial Information: (Explain) CosURevenue Budgeted: Activity Number: October 28, 2009 10:46 AM Page 1 September 15, 2009 Property Code Minutes ��i-���9 Page 4 10. Appeal of Nancy and Dary1 Olson to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1666 Jessarniue Avenue East. Appellant Nancy Olson (W8296 Highway 10, Ellsworth, WI 54011) appeared. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She stated that Inspector Thomas had inspected for the Fire C of O August 27 and reported that the attic room had no egress windows. She said the requirement for paved parking space, #7, was also being appealed and that she was concerned because the item addressing the nonconforming use of the property, #3, was not being appealed. Ms. Olson stated that the nonconforming use had been discontinued. She said her tenants had rented out the attic and basement and she had allowed it because she was not aware of the zoning problem and it helped them pay the rent, but she was no longer allowing it. She said the property was currently vacant and she hoped to rent to a single family. Ms. Moermond asked whether all of the tenants had vacated since the inspection. Ms. Olson responded that there was still one tenant in the basement where there was an egress window; however, he was moving out. Ms. Shaff noted that the inspector's report indicated that the attic egress window had been blocked and asked Ms. Olson for more information. Ms. Olson responded that the attic door had been locked on August 27 and the inspector had been unable to access the space. She said she had measured the egress window and the openable space was almost 21 inches in height; the width was not measured. She said there were two windows on each end of the attic and it was one large room. She had not been aware that when she purchased the property, the windows were not legal for egress. Ms. Moermond noted that Ms. Olson had written in the appeal that the egress window was 22 by 20 inches. Ms. Olson said it was between 21 and 22. Ms. Shaff stated that the inspector did not have the opportunity to check the attic space and she also had concerns about the ceiling height. Ms. Moermond asked whether the basement and attic locks had been removed. Ms. Olson said they were in the process of having it done and would be taking care of a number of things as soon as the building was vacant. Ms. Moermond asked how soon the basement tenant would be moving out. Ms. Olson said he would be out that week. Ms. Moermond confirmed that the house would then be rented to a single family. Ms. Olson said there were three other bedrooms and the attic didn't have to be used as a bedroom, but would like to rent the house as a four-bedroom. Ms. Moermond asked about the paving issue. Ms. Olson said they were unaware of the code requirement when they purchased the home. She said it was a 100-foot gravel driveway. Ms. Moermond asked what condition the driveway was in. Ms. Olson said there was some wood and some weeds at the entrance to the driveway, was very nanow with a fence on one side and a fence and lawn on the other. September 15, 2009 Property Code Minutes O�-i>iy Page 5 Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Shaff how enforcement was being done on the issue of paved pazking spaces. Ms. Shaff said orders were written based on the current surface of the parking area. Ms. Moermond asked when she purchased the property. Ms. Olson responded that she purchased it in 2005. Ms. Moermond confirmed with Ms. Olson that the driveway had not been changed since then. Ms. Olson said there was a large cement apron up against the house. Ms. Moermond recommended granting the appeal for the paved parking area. She said it was her understanding that the code was only enforced for new driveways, and that the driveway at this property had been the same at least since 2005. She asked that the attic windows be measured by the inspector, and would recommend granting a variance if they were 22 inches in height by 20 inches in width. Ms. Shaff reviewed the ceiling height requirements and said the inspector would also measure the ceiling. A new hearing will be scheduled if the requirements are not met. On October 27, 2009, Ms. Moermond reviewed the wandow measurements from the inspection done on October 8, 2009 by Inspector Thomas. She recommended granting a 3-inch variance on the openable height of the egess windows in the first and second floar bedrooms.