Loading...
09-725Council File # 09-725 Green Sheet # 3072010 Presented by 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 'ION L, MINNESOTA � . BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the May 12, 2009 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeal on Letter of Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for the following address: PropertV Appealed 927 Armsh Avenue Appellant Katherine Kaiser Decision: Grant a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the bedroom egress windows; deny the appeal on the ownership status and the property is not to be removed from the Certificate of Occupancy Program. Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attomey By: Adopted by Council: Date ����/lJG Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council Adoption Cerhfied by Coun � Secretary BY� �.�t0�� _ Approve b ay . Date � L By: � Approved by the Office of Financial Services By: 09-725 � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Shee0��5 Sheet � i CO-Council ConWd Person 8 Phone: Marcia Moermond Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Doc.Type:RESOLUTION E-DocumentRequired: Y Document ConWCt: ConWd Phone: aa�uN-os � Assign Number For RoUting Order Green Sheet NO: 3072010 D Coancil i � 1 Council DepartmeutDirector � 2 G5N Clerk CSry C7erk I 3 I! I 4 � II 5 il i Total # of Signa Pages _( Clip Aii Locations f or Signature) Action Requested: Resolurion approving the decision of the Legislative Aearing Officer on an Appeal of a Letter of Deficiency for property at 927 Armstrong Avenue. Recommendafions: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Planning Commission CIB Committee Civil Service Commission Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Foilowing Questions: 1. Has this person/firm ever worked u�der a contract for this department? Yes No 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 current city employee? Yes No Facplain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): AdvantageslfApproved: DisadvanWges If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of Transaction: Funding Source: Financial Information: (Explain) June 30, 2009 10:41 AM CosVRevenue Budgeted: Activity Number: Page 1 May 12, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes 09-725 Page 6 12. Appeal of Katherine Kaiser to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 927 Armstrong Avenue. Appellant Katherine Kaiser, Michele Sengstock, and attorney Wiliiam Anderson appeazed. William Anderson, attomey representing Ms. Kaiser and Ms. Sengstock, stated that the property was owner-occupied and should not have been subject to inspection. He stated the property was going through a foreclosure re-conveyance, and that Ms. Kaiser was the property owner according to Minnesota State Statute 325N.01, Part G. He said that Ms. Sengstock intended to re-convey the property back to Ms. Kaiser. Ms. Moerxnond asked who lived at the property. Mr. Anderson responded that Ms. Kaiser had always maintained her residence there. He said that the city and state statutes were inconsistent in terms of the definition of ownership. He cited 325N.17, Part F and said that the inspection should not have occuned and the results of the inspection should beaz no further consideration. Ms. Moermond stated the language was pretty simple with respect to the Fire Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) program and that it provided that all buildings required a C of O except those that were owner occupied. Mr. Anderson stated the property had always been owner-occupied. He said that Ms. Sengstock had never occupied the property and that Ms. Kaiser had never ceased to occupy the property. He said that the property conveyance and re-conveyance had taken place at the same time. Ms. Moermond asked whether Ms. Sengstock had any comments. Ms. Sengstock stated that she had come into a difficult situation and that as far as she was concerned, Ms. Kaiser was the owner of the property. Ms. Moermond stated that the matter of who was paying taaces with the County was fairly straightfonvard. She asked for the dimensions of the windows being appealed and asked for DSI's position on the applicability of the fire safety code to rental and owner-occupied dweilings. Ms. Shaff stated that the regulations referred to all dwellings and that the windows had been cited under Chapter 34 of the Legislative Code. She said that Chapter 40 referred specifically to the owner of record. She said the openable dimensions of the egress windows were listed in the inspector's report as 20 inches high by 26.5 inches wide. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Kaiser what she wanted in the appeal. Mr. Anderson stated that if the inspection had not taken place the problems would not have been found in the first place and the windows would have been grandfathered in. Ms. Moermond stated that there was no grandfathering with safety codes. She said that there were situations where the code did apply to owner-occupied homes. Ms. Moermond recommended granting a 4-inch variance on the openable height of the egress windows. Ms. Moermond stated that the property should probably not be in the C of O program but that the safety issues still needed to be addressed. May 12, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes 09-725 Page 7 Mr. Anderson stated that an additional concern was Ms. Sengstock's potential criminal liability if the corrections to the property were not made. He asked whether the ownership could be clarified in the city records. Ms. Shaff stated that the ordinance referred to the owner of record and that the owner of record in this case was Ms. Sengstock. Ms. Moermond asked whether there was sepazate documentation for the re-conveyance that could serve to clarify ownership. Mr. Anderson stated that submitting that paperwork to be recorded would be a violarion of 325N. Ms. Moermond responded that this was not the case. Mr. Anderson stated that the re-conveyance was in the form of a lease/purchase agreement but that it was actually a contract for deed. Ms. Moerxnond asked the appellant to provide documentation of the property ownership. She said that she wonld recommend thaT the property be removed from the Certificate of Occupancy program if the documentation showed that the property was owner-occupied. On June 26, 2009, Ms. Moermond reviewed the documents provided by Ms. Kaiser and recommended denial of the appeal on the ownership status and that the property not be removed from the Certificate of Occupancy Program. Per Ramsey County tax records and the City's records, both indicate that Ms. Sengstock is still the owner of the property.