Loading...
09-388CouncilFile# 6y_��� :/d O Green Sheet # 3069039 Presented by RESOLUTION 41NT PAUL, MINNESOTA � i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the March 3, 2009 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for the following address: Pronertv Aanealed 1 L6 Fourth Street East Appellant Rick Miller Decision: Grant variances for egress windows in the north bedroom. Deny the variances for egress windows in the south bedroom and grant an extension for 90 days. Deny the ceiling height in both units and grant an extension for 90 days. If the appellant decides to taise the roof, grant 30 days to develop a plan. Bostrom Carter Harris Helgen Stark Thune Adopted by Council: Date Adoprion Certified by Co ci] Secretary By: � Approved b a q. Date / Bv: Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by Ciry Attorney By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: Approved by the Office of Financial Services By: � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �S�n ., � aT� � DepartmenUOffice/CounciL- �atelnitiated: � � 'l co -�°°°°�� 2,_�,R-09 Green Sheet NO: 3069039 Contact Person & Phone: Department Sent To Person InitialiDate Marcia Moermond � o ouoc0 0 G8570 1 oancil De ar[ment Director Assign 2 i Clerk Ci C1erk Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date�: Number 3 0 Routing a � Doc. Type: �SOLUTION Order 5 0 E•DOCUment Requiretl: Y Document Contact Mai Vang Contact Pho�: 68563 Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Resolution approving the Maroh 3, 2009 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officec on Appeal of Deficiency fo� pcoperty at 1126 Fourth Street East. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following questions: Plannin9 Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civii Service Commission 2. Has this person75rm ever been a city empbyee? 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 grern sheet. lnitiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Approv¢tl: DisativanWges If Not Approved: ToWI AmouM of CostlRevenue Bud eted; TransaMion: g Funding Source: Activity Number: Financialinformation: (Explain) March 27, 2009 9:04 AM Page 1 Mazch 3, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes b�.,�g� PageS 5. Appeal of Richazd Miller to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1126 Fourth Street East. Appellant Richazd Miller (5301 Aydee Circle, White Bear Lake, MN 55110) appeared. Ms. Shaff stated that the items being appealed were window size and ceiling height. She said that the ceiling height was less than seven feet over half the floor area; the openable dimensions of the egress window in the upper north sleeping room were 21 inches high by 27 inches wide; in the south bedroom, they were 19 inches high by 22 inches wide. Ms. Moermond asked for the measurements of the ceiling height. Mr. Miller stated that the appeal form incorrectly noted the ceiling height was six feet, eight inches and that the ceiling height was six feet, four inches. Ms. Moermond asked whether the ceiling was flat or measured six feet by four inches at the highest point. Mr. Miller stated that one of the rooms had a flat ceiling and the other room was six feet four inches at the highest point. He said that raising the ceiling would require raising the roof. Ms. Moermond asked for a description of the property. Mr. Miller stated that it was a single-family, three-bedroom house with one bedroom on the main floor and two upstairs, and that it was built in 1898. He said that if the house could not be rented he would have to sell it at a loss. Ms. Moermond asked whether the house was occupied. Mr. Miller said that it was. He said the property was well-maintained and that he had complied with all of the other orders on the inspection report. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Miller to provide a diagram of the ceiling with measuxements. She said she would recommend variance for the egress window in the north bedroom but not for the south bedroom. Mr. Miller stated that there were two windows in the south bedroom with glazed areas of 19 inches by 19 inches and 14 inches by 24 inches. He said that the window opening size, wall spacing and roof line presented constraints to changing the rough opening size. Ms. Shaff asked when the upstairs rooms had been added. Mr. Miller said that a previous owner had told him that the upstairs had been a finished space since the 1950s. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Miller to get an estimate from a contractor of the amount of time that would be required to bring the windows in the south bedroom into compliance. She said that her decisions on the ceiling and on the amount of time she would grant for the window replacement would be forthcoming. Ms. Moermond reviewed the records on March 26, 2009 and recommended denying the appeal for the egress windows on the south bedroom and granting an extension for 90 days to replace the windows. She recommended denying the appeal for the ceiling height in both units and granting an extension for 90 days. If Mr. Miller decides to raise the roof, she recommended that he get a plan to het within 30 days.