09-592Council File # b� -C�G/�-
Green Sheet # 3070698
RESOLUTION
�
Presented by
MINNESOTA
��
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul, based on a review of the legislative
hearing record and testimony heard at public hearing on May 20, 2009 hereby memorializes its decision to
certify and approve the February 17, 2009 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for the following
address:
6 ADDRESS
7
APELLANT
8 b36 Larpenteur Avenue West Nicholas Fahey
9
10 Decision: Appeal denied and extension granted per the amended recommendation of the Legislative
11 Hearing Officer (variances granted for double-hung windows; 90 days extension for bringing awning
12 windows into compliance).
Car[er
Bostrom
Harris
Thune
✓
Adopted by Council: Date �'�6���y
Adoption Certified by Co 7 Secretary ,
BY� /' f l/,e/ �9 %�i-�iu�
Approv by M'a o Date �Q .r
BY / 1 1 Vi
Requested by Department of:
By:
Form Approved by City Attomey
By:
Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Counci]
�
� Green Sheet Green Sheet
Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet
!3 � "��/ �.
�
DepartmentlOfficelCOUncil: Date Initiated:
co _��°°�° 2�-�.Y-09 Green Sheet NO: 3070698
Contad Person & Phone- Denartment Sent To Person InitiallDate
Marcia Moermond y o oon� ��
Cr8570 1 ouncil De artment DireMOr
��9° 2 ' Clerk C5 Clerk
Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 3 �
For 4 0
Routing
Doa7ype:�SOWTION Order 5 0
E-Document Required: Y
Document Contact: Mai Vang
Contact Phone: 6-8563
Total # ot Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature)
Actio� Requested:
Resolution memorializing City Councii ac6on taken May 2Q 2009 granting the variances for the double-hung egess windows and
denying the appeal and granting an extension for 90 days for properiy at 636 Larpenteur Avenue West to bring the awning windows
into compliance, pex the recommendation of the Legislative Hearing Officer.
Recommendalions: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions:
Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department?
CIB Committee Yes No
Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any
curtent city employee?
Yes No
Expiain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet.
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
Advantages If Approved:
Disadvantages If Approved:
Disadvantages If Not Approved:
Total Amount of
Transaction: Cost/Revenue Budgeted:
Funding Sou�ce: Activity Number:
Financial Information:
(Explain)
May 26, 2009 2;41 PM Page 7
Rg G t J
E� 1111 ,
o�
�
February 5, 2009
Nicholas Fahey
1244 W. Burke Ave.
Roseville, MN 55113
RE: 636 W. LarpenteurAve.
Dear Mr. Fahey:
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Your application for an appeal has been received and processed.
D 1 �y�-
Please attend the public hearing before the Legislative Hearing Officer on Tuesday, February
17, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 330 City Hall and Courthouse to consider your appeal
concerning the above referenced property. Atthat time the Legislative Hearing Officerwill hear
all parties relative to this action. Failure to appear at the hearing may result in denial of your
appeal.
Sincerely,
����� f���
Shari Moore ��
City Clerk
cc:
Leanna Shaff, DSI (Fire)
Phil Owens, DSI (Fire)
Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer
Jerry Hendrickson, Deputy City Attorney
15 4VEST KELLOGG BOULEVARD, SUITE 310 SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA55102 Tel: 651-2668688
Fax:651-2668574 www.stpaul.gov
M�rmahve Action Equal Opportumty Employer
D�I'��1�--
,.,«� :
}���.
� j����
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
Saint Paul Ciry Clerk
15 W. Kellogg Blvd., 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Telephone: (651) 266-8688
i. Address of Property being Appealed:
; � (� �..s. c aRPctiz''c�� /3v�
S i q c�1 N D � T i �3
�
�
�� �������
�o �`
����
3. Date of Letter Appealed:
�� � L� �1 �o �'
4. Name of Owner: � � � r+c L �a-S �fa t� � 7"
U.= cS��i;LL� + l
Address: 1 Z`t �1 (.�% � 4�"K'.� � City: � 5tate: �`' �" Zip: 5 S t-
aT
Phone Numbers: Business Residence �� �' �`� `� � j Cellular ��� �� � 4?
Signature: , 1��� /-
5. Appellant ( Applicant (if other than owner):
Address: City: State: Zip:
Phone Numbers: Business Residence Cellulaz
Signature:
6 State speci#"ically what is being appealed and why (Use an attachment if necessary):
sA� c 3L1.� 3�'�� �Sr1Ny �or UA-r�r'-.—t���„T� .. ���v,�F
� r a v� d1 f s c t+A r�"— (� �� r� � c k: s�� r� a� c r� St c=��! r t� � t'o� ,u a,
�
�G Q E- ��'� �tl 4•t �. T I� 1 c/ .S fi ,, If /t S YV � c.`" ,� 1/ i rt � L � i(�Y �� .
t.._,<`th r�n�-�v�d�c- 5'f�str�.S �3�p ���s l�e�c.ic.� �,a:. r��c�i��
�x( FPs-srva� (��������� r o ���L�+�� wct�No�.��
,
NOTE: A$25.00 £iling fee made payable to the City of Saint Paul must accompany this applicat�on as a
necessary condition for filing. You must attach a copy of the original orders and any other correspondence relative
to this appeal. Any person unsatisfied by the final decision of the City Council may obtain judicial review by
timely filing of an action as provided by law in District Court.
��_ nrr.,.,, r r..., n..i., /,
Received: Fee Received: Receipt Number:
����8��' 3�� �-�-
2. Number of Dwelling Units
Date of
�'��
^ u%i-AFc;�"u,�ia "sr+iai z A;�iu�?d9�riituris
- :: s�,Yffifiiniisi.,�"
c"u-.-
bn�...w Y '1
- -� �„�.-.LV�;r �j_��a-
i�f i� vt' J1iuv i FiiUl,
ChrFSttpAer 8. Co7emax, h{uyar
EGf7Y5i8[y �i� 61%V�
yaCris7F.r.S 3ri.;:EY
1L44 t'ft1SL'�:tY �"
$U��YSLL. $3I:�'39C15
�II. �Hp l C1&` �t!-[.r?gtaSi.cr {E.�!T� 2 "x�.�a n
�LiA/C�1� tT
�1. # �L°�l{iY
�wmi� u4¢f �. a''�i
��: _'ve�fa�fs�$w?
�`"� ^-.
3?S:eekas:Stre�,S�alte:20 Tctachcr,e•E31-2bb4Q3C
SairCPcu1,.�LV:914:-76d6
���%'' H'"'?��-"4--�- x'�€ �� -'_ e_�'=; � �v.�d �: x�s va...�-.�'�: v.;p' . ° `w.��.._'__ ^_ .�.. i` u�ri s�C.ysan3�y �iii
-�° �.,,^�'� ��-`-�^ �'--irl�',_.> ._�d' at'= -`. L$� Las. �'e ,.° �.'.rs': -- �in';e : : wi,r:ad:=Y;''. ' _ "fi�.
�k °n�^`R-s^=ca#.. �F - e _� A ' "e. � a_
wn„-`,-S�rd a: � 3 . �e.. s �,wfi.;« .. ..:.,,ie..s s:.._, u._ �..�. vi :a'c �i� t �±# ii&m`e3���v. �� - i,��r ±r.�,._i " 'a3niiyg
' �+'Y+`3 ] sss ._>..._,,. al�s�.su:Ta u�a�v:) ':
:. Z Y�8�710 �a1i3�iS1$ &j785F �7C OCC}�� �CSQ$ 8�.CS'f�T'C8�6 Uf �CCGIi}l�4�. �]G t-0d9'&�5E! (TY{NIFF�CLB �flf STkG E8$E89',l7CFkL fl{
8�3(1QF7B1 dC {pEB�
YOLT'i�VVII.L SE RFSPt12�iSIDLE RdR NOTffYBdfi'l�if�tT8IF�4�}Y OF T$& FOLLOWINt# F.�ST (3F DEFICIEKC�S ARE
'THLift RE5PL�I�it,T£Y.
IIF,FLC�i�TC3� LI�T
u:,, ., •.� �„�,.., ,,.. ,,,_, .
_ ,�: �, � , , , , .
.Vla` .f" sys
2. �c.r.'or-�LC3�r.i 3 { ��e} - PTQVEd6 8 tE#T�STtB�jSYiEY3�i7$iAPCWIIIC�DWffbIIlE8CT151ECpID$LOOI31 Tt�IDf61[C6IDi832C
Pai'uSL I'i� §.7 �35Cg �E CiF ��ZC� Si28 WlY�t S BStBECStffi4.ff�I$ fttC�1b8 fY�O}1CDB�IC TtCl�lt BACT �O 3II�C8 OCU�10E8bS0 WidTfi.
$t{td' � �DY[!� �68�$ gi� � ��i%t �6�OE. $C��C. , 8u�400SSEL� VYIID�OG6 C6 A70� C'OI�E.
3. �L£ 34.Ii {6j� 3�.i
m�a6u�tt�. Ss1s
RCPort so9� a#�rx.
`�{ � . t�:,
s'"- i� � ;�, f�r :,��, �_ ��.'
4. SPLC 39.UI(cJ - Camp[at� and si� ttic pxpviided smot� deucmr a$'tdavfc ued setura if m this oi�
Yw hav� ttu right ta app�nt tbesc ordexa to the Legialadve Heacmg Qfficer. Applicstiwfa for a�wle amy be Obmined at the City
Clalat Office, Rootn 310, aad {b51 266-$68$} ant! muet be filed wi#}il�y 10 daya of t� date of the originat ordecy,
If you havt anY' 4neeaema, cs�Et me at 65F-266-8488 trNweea 6:30 a.m - 8:3EF a.m. Pies� halp to �ke Sei� Peut a safer pkce in
wbich to live aad woik.
Sincer�ly,
Liea Martin
Fue inapectoz
nrar•nu .e�cz�ii i�n ina� �n in [iin �n�an�r cnn �L •n�i
March 10, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes N,�_ `� �... Page 7
1/'( "/
Appeal of Nicholas Fahey to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 636
Larpenteur Avenue West.
Appellant Nicholas Fahey (1244 W. Burke, Roseville, MN 55113) appeared.
Ms. Shaff stated that she had visited the property and that the windows which had been depicted in
the previous appeal as casement windows were in fact awning windows. She said that awning
windows were not approved for egress and that the sill height was 56.5 inches which also exceeded
the 48 inch masimum allowed. She said that the openable dimensions of the double-hung windows
were 17.5 inches high by 28 inches wide, and that those windows were replacement windows. She
said that a permit far windows had been issued in 2008 but had never been signed off.
Ms. Moermond asked how many of the 11 units had the awning windows. Mr. Fahey stated that
there were five one-bedroom units and each bedroom had one double-hung and one awning
window. He said there were six two-bedroom units and that one of the bedrooms in each of those
units had an awning and a double-hung and the second bedroom had just an awning.
Ms. Moermond confirmed that the inspectar had been to the building and had not cited the awning
windows. Ms. Shaff stated that that appeared to be the case.
Ms. Moermond asked how old the awning windows were. Mr. Fahey staYed that the building was
built in 1958 and that the window size had not changed. He said that one awning window had been
replaced with a sliding window.
Ms. Moermond confirmed that Section 8 had recently begun to cite egress windows. Ms. Shaff said
that that was correct.
Mr. Fahey submitted a memo from Mr. Thomas Joachim dated July 18, 1997 speaking to an
obsolete code addressing windows in older buildings. Mr. Fahey stated that the interior and exterior
alterations required replacement of the windows would be very substantial and that he had two bids,
one for $9,Q00 and one far $11,000.
Ms. Shaff stated that a casement window would fit into the opening.
Mr. Fahey stated that the windows were six inches short in openable height but eight inches over in
openable width.
Ms. Moermond stated that she was generally willing to go down to 20 inches in openable height if
there was an overage in width that was at least twice the height shortfall. She said that the code
requirements were based upon the Fire Department's experience with emergency situations and the
amount of space needed for egress and access.
Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Shaff to review the state code requirements. Ms. Shaff stated that the
state code required 24 inches in openable height by 20 inches in openable width with 5.7 square feet
of openable area for basement or second floor windows; and 24 inches in openable height by 20
inches in openable width with 5.0 square feet of open area for main floar windows. She said that
the city code requirement was for 5.7 square feet of glazed area.
Mazch 10, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes Q� ��J� � Page 8
Ms. Moermond asked whether all of the units were Section 8. Mr. Fahey responded that two of the
units were Section 8 and the process had begun with a Section 8 inspection.
Mr. Fahey stated that the building had been built in 1958 and had been acceptable for 52 years. He
asked whether the city provided financial help for property owners being inconvenienced by the
new regulations.
Ms. Moermond stated that there might be money available through Planning and Economic
Development (PED). She said that the regulations weren't new but were old regulations being
newly enforced.
Ms. Moermond recommended denying the appeal on the egress window size and granting a six
month extension to bring the awning windows into compliance and grant a nine months extension
for the double-hung windows. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a one month extension for
the installation of steps below the awning windows to address the sill height requirement.