Loading...
09-820Council File #� Green Sheet# 3073066 RESOLUTION SA{NT PAUL, MIIdNESOTA a� 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the May 5, 2 2009 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for Appeals on Leriers of Certificate of Occupancy 3 Deficiency Lists and Vacant Building Registration Notices and Fees for the following addresses: 4 5 Pronertv Appealed 6 7 1552 Blair Avenue Anpellant Neil Hendrickson 9 Decision: Deny the variance for the egress windows for the 2" floor bedroom and grant an extension for 10 120 days to bring the windows into compliance. 11 12 Yeas Nays Absent Bostrom r / Carter Harris Helgen ,/ Lanhy Stazk Thune �0 e7 � Adopted by Council: Date � � � C�Qy Adoptio rtified un iIS etary� By: Approv by a Date � l D By: Requestad by Department oE � Form Approved by City Attomey C3� Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council B Approved by the Office of Financial Services By: � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet n�t���d C= DepartmenVOfficefCouncii: Date InRiated: �o-�°°^°�� 24-JUL-09 Green Sheet NO: 3073066 Contact Person & Phone: Department Sent To Person Initial/Date Marcia Moertnond o oon�a � �$$7� I onncl� De artmentD'vttfor ��9� 2 ' Clerk l.ti Cterk Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 3 � For 4 � Routing Doc.Type:RESOLUTION Order 5 0 E-Document Required: Y DoGUmentConWCt: MaiVang Contad Phone: 68563 Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Lowtions for Signature) Action Requested: Resolution approving the May 5, 2009 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officex on Appeal of Letter of Deficiency for property at 1552 Blair Avenue. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contrects Must Answer the Foliowing Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this persoNfirm ever worketl untler a contract for this depaAment? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this personlfirm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this personlfirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any curreM city employee? Yes No 6cplain all yes answers on s¢parate sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, lssues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: Disadvantages lf Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approved: Total Amount of Transaction: CostlRevenue Budgeted: Funding Source: Activity Number: Financial Information: (Explain) July 24, 2009 12:04 PM Page 1 May 5, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes b � y g� Page 6 10. Appeal of Neil Hendrickson to a Certificate of Occupancy Deficiency List for property at 1552 Blair Avenue Appellant Neil Hendrickson (1452 Van Buren Avenue, St. Paul 55104) appeared. Ms. Shaff gave a staff report. She said that Inspector Imbertson had conducted an inspection on April 6 for the Fire Certificate of Occupancy and that a number of issues were being appealed. She said the openable dimensions of the egress window in the first floor bedroom were 22 inches high by 22.5 inches wide, in the second floor bedroom were 18 inches high by 21 inches wide, and that there was no egress window in the basement bedroom. Mr. Hendrickson stated that there had been a fire at the property. He said the square footage of the main floor egress window exceeded what was required. Ms. Moermond recommended granted a 2 inch variance on the openable height of that window. Mr. Hendrickson stated that replacing the second floor window presented an expense issue. He said he had a negative cash flow on several properties and had numerous tenant problems. He stated Items 15 through 18 on the deficiency list were fire related. He said the basement was never advertised as a sleeping room. Ms. Shaff provided a photograph showing a bed in the basement room. Mr. Hendrickson stated that he had told the tenant the basement couldn't be used as a sleeping room, and the tenant had said the bed had been removed. He said that correcting small things like cover piates and switches was not a problem, but wondered how stained ceiling tiles in the bathroom represented a safety issue. Ms. Moermond responded that an active leak could be a safety issue. Ms. Shaff stated that the inspectors were also enforcing the property maintenance code. Mr. Hendrickson said that he wasn't sure how the use of the basement room as a sleeping room could be policed. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Hendrickson to come up with a proposal and suggested it could be written into the lease or an addendum to the lease. Ms. Moermond asked how many bedrooms were in the house. Mr. Hendrickson responded that there were two legai bedrooms. Ms. Moermond asked how many people were living in the house. Mr. Hendrickson responded there were four: a woman and her live-in boyfriend, and a son and daughter. He said the son was older and wasn't there a11 of the rime. Ms. Moermond asked whether Ms. Shaff had a recommendation for addressing the issue. Ms. Shaff recommended a written agreement. Mr. Hendrickson stated that he had always had the intention of making the basement room a legal bedroom but couldn't afford to do so now. He said if a legal egress window was installed, there would still be the issue of ceiling height. Ms Moermond stated that if Mr. Hendrickson did decide to install an egress window to make the basement a legal sleeping room, she would recommend a variance for the ceiling height. May 5, 2009 Property Code Hearing Minutes �.�� Page 7 Ms. Moertnond asked Mr. Hendrickson to draft a written agreement, including consequences for non-compliance, to address the unapproved use of the basement area as a sleeping room and to submit a signed copy within 30 days. She recommended he submit a draft for approval before having it signed. Mr. Hendrickson stated that he did not understand items 9 or 13. Ms. Moermond stated that all painted surfaces needed to be maintained. She asked Mr. Hendrickson to suggest a timeline for painting or removing the deck. Mr. Hendrickson requested four months. Mr. Hendrickson asked whether Item 19 addressing the front door screen was a fire code issue. Ms. Shaff stated that a11 items on the property should be kept in good repair and that inspectors were also enforcing the property maintenance code. Ms. Moermond recommended granting two months for the repair of the screen. Mr. Hendrickson said that the fumace was brand new and that the paperwork should have been sent. He said he would fill aut the smoke detector affidavits. [There was no a decision on the second floor bedroom window.] On July 14, 2009 Ms. Moermond reviewed the measurement for the egress windows in the 2" floor bedroom and recommended denying the vaziance of the egress window and grants an extension for 120 days to bring the windows into compliance.