The URL can be used to link to this page

90-1150 OR � GINA�. � � Council File � O � �.�a Green Sheet � Q�� RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA g � �� _.� Presented By Referred To Committee: Date BE IT RESOLVED, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the action of the Property Code Enforcement Board (Saint Paul Board of Appeals & Review) per- taining to the following listed property and as shown by the Excerpted Minutes of said Property Code Enforcement Board, and dated April 10 , 1990 and marked EXHIBIT A, and attached and made a part hereof by reference : DATE OF BOARD MINUTES C:.SE NO: PROPERTY APPEALED APPELLANT 4-10-90 25-90-H 103 Cleveland Ave. So. Michael Marinovich BOARD ACTION: Granted an extension of time for 30 days (June l , 1990) to install handrails on cellar stairs ; also granted an extension of time 150 days (Oct. l , 1990) to remove the garage , with the condition that the garage be secured so as to make it safe from children. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Groveland Addition to St. Paul , Ramsey County Minnesota Lot 5 Blk 3 ----------------------------------------------- r , 0 R I G I N,��L �y°�'��"° DATE OF BOARD MINUTES CASE NO: PROPERTY APPEALED APPELLANT 4-10-90 26-90-F 480 St. Peter St. Juvenile Detention Ctr. Diane J . Prichard BOARD ACTION: Refund of Filing Fee. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Bazil and Guerin' s addition to Saint Paul NWLY 2/3 of Lots 4, 5, & 6 & SWLY 72.68 Ft of Fol Desc Tract ; SELY 1/3 Ft Lots 5 & 6 & NWLY 50. 36 Ft MOL of Lots 7 & (subj to esmts) Lot 8 Blk 8 ----------------------------------------- 2 as Navs Absent Requested by Department of: imon , o�swi z —� " � acca ee �� e man une —� c� z son �. B1'� � � � � Form Ap roved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date J�� 0 q�� Adoption ertified by Council Secretary By: � � s': �',�� By� Approved by Mayor for Submission to JUL 1 � lggp coun�� Approved by Mayor: Date � � �� By: �/.1✓,��°�LI�'i sy: �� ; PUBLISNED J U L 2 1 199Q @iyo-ii.�o �DE�'ominuni�y"�ervices °A�'"m"�D ent sa 5 2z �o GREEN SHEET Na �� 1 ATE' INITIAUDATE OONTACT R80N � 2 9 2-7 7 7 5 DEPARTMENT DIqECiOR �-�--� pTY COUNpL Jo s e 1 �. Tl 1 O V d 1 �p�p C�Y ATTORNEY CITy(XEq�( MUST BE ON COUNCIL AOENDA BY(DAT� ROUTNiO BUDCiET DIRECTOR FlN.d MOT.BERVICEB DIR. �MAVOR(OFI A8818TANT) � TOTAL N OF SIGNATURE PAQES 1 (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACT10N REOUESTED: Resolution approving -the actions of the Property Code Enforcement Board (Saint Paul B�ard of Appeals & Review) _ RECOMMENDATIONB:Approw U1)a RsN�•K(Al COUDK:IL COMMfTTEEJRESEARCH I�PORT OPTIONAL _PLANNINO OOMM18810N _pVIL SERVIC�COMMISSbN """�Y� RECEIVE�E�. REC�iVED _qB OOMMITTEE _ _STAFF _ OOMMENT8: _DISTRICT COURT _ �IAY 2 9 i990 MAY 2 51990 SUPPORTS WNICH�UNqL OBJECTIVE? �� INITIAT1NCi PF�BLEM�ISSUE.OPPORTUNITY(Who�WhN.lNhen.WMn.Wh�: � Approving the action of the Property Code Enforcement Board for the meeting of April 10, 1990. 1 - extension of time 1 - refund filing fee ADVANTAf3E8 IF APPROVED: Extensions to the property will be ratified. DISADVANTA�ES IF APPROVED: None , � �.U11ttC�i K�:S�d'(G��1 V�1�_Ct'tt R�C�IVED MAY 31 i�' DISADVANTAOES IF NOT IIPPRQVED: CITY CLERK The action taken by the Property Code Enforcement Board will be returned to the Board by the City Council for further review. TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTIOl1 � n�a COST/REVENUE SUDOETED(CIRCLE ON� �S NO X Fu�NO sou� n/a �cnv�ry NuMe�n 3 3 2 6 3 FlNAPIpAL INFORMATION:(EXPL.AIN) �rV � - . . �`;."` NOTE: COMPLfTE DIRECTIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE aREEN SHEET IN3TRUCTIONA�. MANUAL AVAIUBLE IN THE PURCHA81Nii OFFiCE(PHONE NO. 298-4225). ROUTIN(3 ORDER: Blsbw aro proferrod rouUngs tor the ilve m�frequeM types ot docurt�r+ts: (�NTRACTS � (�swm�s auttiori7.ed COUNqL RESOL.UTION (Amsnd, BdgtaJ budgst exbts) Accept. Grants) 1. Outelde A�sncy 1. Ds�Rmsnt Director 2. Initleting D�p�rUnent 2. Budpst Diracto► 3. City Attomsy 3. City Attomey 4. Mayor 4. MayoNAssistant 5. Flna�e d M�mt uhres. Director 5. CNy Councfl 8. Flnarx:e Il000uMinp 8. Chisf AccournaM, Rn 8 Mgmt Svca. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER (Budgst COUNCIL RE80LUT'ION (ell otlwrs) Revision) and ORDINANCE 1. Activity Manaper 1. Initiatirp Dspmrtment Diractor 2. Depsrtm�M AcoouMaM 2• qry Attor^eY -; 3,. O�,NU'tm�nt Director 3. AAayoNAtNstant 4. Budpst Di►ector 4. City CoUncfl 5. Cily t'Is�k 8. Chief Axourttant, Fln d MgrM Svca. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER3 (all othars) 1. Inibatinp Dep�rtmsM 2. City Ariomey 3. MayorlAaeistau�t 4. qty Clerlt TOTAL NUMBER OF SKiNATURE PA(3E3 It�Cate ths N of pagss on which sipnatures are roquirod and�dl sach of tha�p� ACTION REOUES'TED DsscAbe what th�proJscf/nqu��aesks W axomplish in sithsr d�ronolopi- cai ord�r a ocder of importano�.wlNchevsr fs mow a�iNe for tM is�e. Do not wrfb c�ompitls s�nas.Bspfn wch item in your list with a verb. REOOMMENDATIONS • Compl�te if ths is�us M queetion has bNn pn�snbd bston eny body, public or p�lvate. SUPRORTS WHICH OOUNdI OBJECTIVE9 Indicat�which Cou�x�l obj�cNrro(�Y'�P�v�l�suPP�bY��9 ��Y�sI��. RECREATION. NEKiHBORFFOOD3� E�OMIC DEVELOPMENT, BUDfiET, SEINER SEPARATION).(SEE COMPLETE LI3T IN IN3TRUCTIONAL MANUAL.) COUNCIL COMMITTEE/RESEARCFi REPORT-OPTIONAL AS RE�UESTED BY OOUNqL INITIATIN(i PROBLEM. ISSUE.OPPO�TUNITY ., Facplain dt�aitu�on or o�ora tlaR created a ri�ed Mr your projsct or requat. ADVANTA(iES IF APPROVED Indicats whether thfs is�mpy an enouel budpsR procedura required by law/ ch�rEsr or whsthsr there aro sp�dNc in wti�h the City of S�iM Paul and its citizens will bsr»Rt irom thb pro /action. DISADVANTACiES IF APPROVEO Whet negativs sffects or major chanpae W existing w past processes miyM thfs projectlnque�t produce if it it p�ased(e.g.,trafNc deleys, noise� tax increaees or ase�ssments)4 To Wlwm?YVhsn?For Frow bng? DI8ADVANTACiES IF NOT APPF�V�D UVhtt wNi bs ths negativs conspwr►ces N ths promised action is not app►oved? Inabiliy to deliwr savics?ConUnued high traiNc, rwise, accident rete?Las of rov�nw4 FINANCU�IMPACT A�h you must teilor the iniurmation you provide hero to the issue you us addrsssirp, in generel you must anewer two questions: How much is it going to cost?Who is going to pey? � . ��✓�d ��1��T �4 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD (SAINT PAUL BOARD OF APPEALS AND REVIEW) 555 CEDAR STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 MINUTES, MEETING OF APRIL 10, 1990 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Glassman, Chairman Ronald Ankeny James Laughlin Robert Viering Donald Weida MEMBERS PRESENT: William L. Tilton OTHERS PRESENT: Pat Fish, Department of Fire 8 Safety Hope Abrams, Department of Fire 8 Safety Steve Herbert, Rainleader Division Carrolyn Shepherd, Division of Public Health Dennis Olson Michael Marinovich Diane J. Prichard Manley Madson, Jr. Harlan Heichel Raymond Heichel Rollie Blakely Douglas King Ed Kral 1 . Approval of the minutes of the March 13, 1990 meeting as submitted in writing. Corrections to the minutes as follows : Page 4, under PROCEEDINGS. Line 7, after the word "KITCHEN" delete the word "FROM" and insert the word "FOR" , on the same line after the word "THIRD" insert the word "FLOOR" and change the word "EXIT" to "EXITING" . On line 8, after the word "OUTSIDE" delete the word '•AROUND" and insert the word ,�AT,�. On page 5 under BOARD ACTION after the word "VARIANCE" insert "ON INSTALLING A SECOND EXIT FROM THE THIRD FLOOR" . 1 Oouglas Ktng - Mr. King requested ta address the Bo�rd about 750 Btair Avenue who was the Appellant last month. "Mr. King stated that the wording under PROCEEDINGS that you just went over, I talked with her a couple of times about that. You know if you look down to the end of the paragraph, the last sentences, on page 4 middle of the paragraph, change that whole sentence. If you look at the last sentence in that paragraph it said much clearer the same thing, the same exit, it just, I don't know maybe you could use just that same sentence, the wording in the middle of the paragraph, gets a little wordy there, and it's said much clearer there at the end of the paragraph, and if you just insert after the word third floor, the sentence would read "The interior stairs goes from the third floor in kitchen to qround level without goin4 thru another apartment. " is very simply said right there. Ron Glassman - Did you take this off of the transcript? Doualas Kina - She was trying to take the first corrected sentence from the transcript, and my wording just wasn't very concise at that point, but down at the bottom that is the exit we are talking about. Ron Glassman - Did in fact, the City go back out and reinspect this? Qoualas Kina - Sue did not come out, somebody else came. Ron Glassman - You are coming back next month on that? Douqlas King - I am. Ron Giassman - What is the difference, what the semantics say here? As long as the rneaning is here. I think we all understand what the meaning is. Douglas King - I think ah, Ron Glassman - Am I correct, we know what the meaning is here, we know what we are trying to do, as far as semantics, I don't think that's too important. 2 . . ��yo-��i.s� Douglas King - I think it has to be cleared, in case this goes to some other arena. Also, the general sense, I think, of the whole reading of this matter would be cieared up or made clearer if another paragraph were inserted. (At this point Mr. King passed out a copy of what he thought should be inserted. ) Which said - "After Mr. King stated that both stair exits (the interior stair well and the new exterior deck and stairs) from the third floor are from the kitchen, Sue Toskey did not make an issue of the remoteness of the exits . She said " I had no idea you were going to say you had two exits, because if you had two exits, I don't know what you're even doing here" Ron Glassman - It's because of this that she is going out to see it again, so this is ridiculous. Douglas King - Sir, this it's like you saying to somebody, who just sold you a pair of shoes , Well Sir, you sold me one pair of shoes, one shoe, when the fact is, I was honest, I told everything, I sold you both pair of shoes and I think it wouid just make the whole scenario much clearer. Ron Glassman - I have no idea, I can't remember what I did yesterday, let alone what some one said verbatim a month ago, so I don't know of, in fact, she said this or not. I can't say, I want this added to the minutes on my behaif, because I don't know if she said it. Dou4las Kinq - my issue, then would be the summary, as it is written, is not inclusive of some other important items. Ron Glassman - I don't know, the Fire Department cited it. You are going to be back here next month, what's the difference? I also think we are wasting all this time here. You're coming back here next month. The basis minutes say what we wanted em to say. Anyone here have any objections, what the minutes say, or want to make any changes? Robert Vierinq - he is coming back next month! Ron Glassman - Yes, he is coming back next month away. Anything you want c eared up, will be cteared up then. Douglas King - I would hope the Board would try to achieve as concise and accurate information in there notes as possible. I would like to make one comment then, on the new addition that I haven't seen before on Page 5, BOARD ACTION by adding that "Motion made to deny the variance on instailing a second exit on the third fioor, that could be construed that I can never go into be permitted to install a second exit. " 3 Ron Glassman - No, No, Douglas King - There could be a better way to word it! Ron Glassman - But, that's the way she, Come on back next month. � We will take care of it then. This is the way his motion was stated. I assume Jo. you took that out of the tape, those words. Thats the way he stated it and thats the way it was voted on. We are talking about screwy semantics here. Lets work it out next month when you come back. James Laughiin - We denied the variance because the exit was already there, isn't that what we thought! Ron Glassman - Well , there was some question as to whether it was in the right place. and whether is was correct or not and that is why we said without another further fee, we said, lets deny it now, lets have the city go back out there with you, have another look at it, and give you, your chance to come back without paying another fee and that's basically what we did. Douglas King - You denied it, because you thought I didn't need it, and this paragraph by Sue, that I am adding, that I would suggest be added, gives the information that Sue, did not make the REMOTENESS an issue, and led you to deny it and didn't think it important, when now in fact, comes back and says its important. Ron Glassman - Well , she didn't know, she hasn't seen it. Bring this paragraph next month. Dougias King - I 'm done. Ron Glassman - Does anyone on this Board want to make a motion, that Mr. King's appearance last month be changed any other way? There being none. Chairman GLassman then asked if anyone on the Board would like to make a motion that the minutes with Jo's correction be approved as submitted? Motion made by Robert Viering to approve the minutes of the March 13, 1990 as submitted in writing with the corrections. Seconded by James Laughlin. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ---------------------------------- 4 . . � � �c yG_��,Sa �.r�eirmen �lessmen welc�med tr►e appeliants and explained the procedures, stating the what the board does is recommends action to the City Council . He asked that the statements be brief, and that the board was there as fellow citizens to help them in a fair manner. ---------------------------------- 2. CASE HEARINGS: CASE NO: PROPERTY APPEALED APPELLANT 29-90-R 1897 LaCrosse Rve Dennis G. Olson (4 units) APPEARANCE: Dennis Olson SUBJECT: Appellant is requesting a variance from the requirement of having to disconnect rainleaders, as it will cause basement flooding and would be very costly. PROCEEDINGS: Mr. Olson stated that he was not aware that the building was not in compliance. The building was purchased in December of 1986. At that time the leader from the roof had been routed out to the lawns, I had no idea to even question anything, then last fall I got a letter from the City indictating that I was not in compliance with code on the gutters that are down at the bottom of the driveway. This area is solid concrete an area 10 ft by 100 ft, and beyond that, going to the boulevard, we have the sidewalk and the area between that is asphalt. What the City is requesting to be done is to disconnect the drains and come up with some alternative to deal with the water. At one point the suggestions was made that I could pay the annual amount for the treatment of the water. which I am willing to do. The rough quote was not in excess of probably a couple hundred dollars a year. Since then. the city denied me that and wanted me to disconnect. If I disconnect, the way the building is, obviously the basements and the garages would be completely flooded everytime there was rain. The only other option that I have, is to disconnect those and put in some sort of a sump mechanism to collect the water. which means I wouid have to tear up the majority of the driveway that is there. If you observe the building it is substantialiy up in the air and the ground descends ail the way around the building. Ron Ankeny, asked Mr. Herbert if he could come up with a suggestion for Mr. OLson. Steve Herbert, from the Rainleader Division stated that the only suggestion that he could come up with is , that the Appellant connect to the storm sewer. 5 Steve Herbert stated that the Appeliant. in all probability, would have to dig up the middle of the two driveways at the bottom, and then run a line to the two catch basins, and then run a line out to the storm sewer, or could run one to the catch basins if they are deep enough. . Chairman Glassman asked, What would the cost be? Steve Herbert, stated in the driveway about $90.00 a foot, for a total cost of about 6 or 7 thousand dotlars. BOARD ACTION: Motion made by Ron Ankeny to grant a variance from the requirement of having to disconnecting the rainleaders. Seconded by Robert Viering. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Steve Herbert asked Mr. Ankeny if he would piease state the reason that he is granting the variance. Mr. Ankeny stated that he feels it is unreasonable to expect this Appellant to pay the cost, I feel this is a real hardship. Steve Herbert informed the Board that 40% of the commercial owners within the City of St. Paul get cost, if not greater, equal to what he is being asked to pay. If this Board starts giving variances on commercial property. then we are looking for trouble. Robert Viering stated that his feeting on this is, that if the City feels that this is a potential problem, then the City should look into some alternatives to help the owners to do this. Steve Herbert, stated that there is a agency, which a owner could contact, that is PED. Robert Viering stated that he is very familiar with PED program, and that is, borrowing half the money at a good rate, the problem is borrowing the other haif at market rates. Ron Glassman stated that at the beginning of the rainleader program, persons from the Rainieader Division informed this board that they should feel free to give a variance only if it is a real hardship. ---------------------------------- 6 . � � � qo-//.So �S-�U-H lU� Clevel+�nd Ave. So. Mi �haei M�rinavich (��1 un�i t) APPEARANCE : Michael Marinovich SUBJECT: Appellant is requesting a variance from code on the following items; Items #1 - Cellar sleeping rooms have insufficient natural light, #2 - Cellar sleeping room egress window wells of insufficient size, #3 - Cellar rooms have insufficient ceiling height, #4 - Cellar livingroom has insufficient natural light and ventilation. An extension of time is requested on Items #5 - No handrail for stairway from cellar to the first floor , #8 - repair or remove dilapidated garage. Inspection letter date February 9, 1990. PROCEEDINGS: Appellant stated on Item #1 regarding insufficient light, that there is 6 sq. ft. of window area. When this window was installed, appellant was informed that it was according to code. Carolyn Sheppard, from Public Heaith stated that the Code requires 8 sq. ft. in the cellar, minimum, otherwise 8 percent of the floor area. 'T'he rooms were not measured, because there was a question as to whether it was being operated as a roominghouse, because there was more than four persons unrelated living there. It is my understanding the the Appellant has an agreement with zoning, that by June 1 , 1990 the number of occupants be reduced to only four unrelated persons. Michael Marinovich, Item # 2 egrees window wells, these windows measure 2 1/2 feet out and 8 inches on either side. I believe the code is 3 feet on either side. I believe the window is very sufficient for an egress window. Carolyn Sheppard, it has been generaily accepted in the case of casement windows. Item #3 - insufficient ceiling height, the Appellant stated he installed a drop ceiling that rest on the underside of the plumbing to provide a maximum height, which is about 6'6" to 6'9", code is 7ft. Appellant has no idea how to solve this problem. Ron Ankeny stated that maybe if the pipes were exposed, then maybe the ceiling height would be o.k. Carolyn Sheppard stated that she did not believe that the ceilings in the basement were that high. Item #4 - Ceilar LR insufficient light and ventilation, the two windows in the livingroom measure 4.5 sq. ft. and they open 1009L. From the ventilation standpoint the appellant feels the light and ventilation is sufficie�t. 7 Carolyn Shepard stated that it definitely does not have sufficient light and ventilation. Item #5 - handrail missing on stairway to cellar, Appellant will do the work, he just needs more time at least 30 days. Item #8 - repair or removed dilapidated garage. Appellant will do the work, but would like at least 150 days to do the work. Item #6 - Appellant needs clarification as to where the smoke detectors should be. There are two in the basement, two on the main floor and one upstairs. Jim Laughlin - Are they interconnected? Michael Marinovich - No, they are battery operated. The appellant stated that he will do what he has to do to make the house safe. Where does one get information as to what is code? Jim Laughlin stated that the Appellant call the Housing and Building Code Office. Ron Ankeny asked the Appellant if he had a building permit at the time he remodeled the house. Mr. Marinovich told the Board that he did not have a permit. Ron Ankeny asked if this is a two level house with a basement, and that there wi11 be people down in the basement. I guess the problem is, this does not meet the code, in terms of habitable space, because of the ceiling heights. Ventilation seems to be sufficient. I believe you are not to have people in the basement. Is that not correct? Ron Glassman asked Carolyn Sheppard what she thought in general about the basement? Carolyn Sheppard informed the Board that the Appellant had done a very nice job remodeling, except it does not meet code. Jim Laughlin stated that the Smoke Detectors must be interconnected. BOARD ACTION: Motion made by Ron Ankeny to grant a variance on cellar sleeping room light and ventilation, cellar sleeping room egree window size, cellar rooms ceiling height and ceilar livingroom natural light and ventilation. In addition give an extension of time for 30 days (June 1 , 1990) to install handrails on cellar stairs and 150 days (October 1 , 1990) to remove garage, with the understanding that the garage be secured so it is safe from children. Seconded by Robert Viering. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8 . . � � �yo-,�.�o Mr. Ankeny would like it stated in the minutes why the variances were given, because the life saftey item pertaining to the egrees window meets code. ---------------------------------- 7-90-F 596 Portland Ave. Raymond Heichel (4 units) APPEARANCE: Harlan Heichel 8 Raymond Heichel SUBJECT: Appeilant is requesting a variance on Stove/Refrigerators in four rooms; tight furniture storage on third itoor and house repair material to be stored in basement. PROCEEDINGS: Harlan Heichel wants a variance on the sleeping rooms to be ailowed to leave the stove and refrigerators in these rooms. Pat Fish, from Department of Fire and Safety stated that it was very difficult to clarify exactly what Mr. Heichel needs. He is before the board today, because of what he has. Presently. he has a five unit apartment building, because he has kitchens inside of the sleeping rooms, but has a shared bath. In order to make it a legal five unit building, he would have to add a bath inside each �nit, then he would have to go to the Zoning Board for approvai for a five unit apartment. The other way he could go (which Mr. Heichel insists he has) is four sleeping rooms and his own unit. Ms. Fish has observed five units, plus an extra unit in the attic. The four units on the second floor do share one bathroom What Mr. Heichel would like (at least thats the way he explained it to Ms. Fish) he wo�ld like a variance from the Board so as not to have to remove the kitchens out of the sieeping rooms and still remain sleeping rooms. Then Mr. Heichel would not (by law) have to have a Certificate of Occupancy and not have a license for rooming and boarding. Ms. Fish did explain to Mr. Heichel that he would have to discontinue the use of the attic. Ron Glassman, stated that the Board cannot grant a variance on stove and refrigerator in a sleeping room, maybe this issue should be before Zoning first. Ms. Fish stated that if the Board were to give him a variance on the stove and refrigerator then Mr. Heichel would not have to go before Zoning, because it would not be a rooming house, but a single family house. Chairman Glassman stated that if we allow stoves and refrigerators in the sleeping rooms then the Board is ,�eo3ardizing the Zoning law. Mr. Heichel stated that the rooms were in existince before that law came into effect. 9 Chairman Glasman, informed the Appellant that most of the violations are because laws do change. Mr. Heichel stated that the house has been in the present state since 1930. Mr. Heichel purchased the building in 1964. Ms. Fish informed the Board that she is not recommending that the house remain as is, even as a single family home Ms. Fish has observed some electric, smoke detectors not working and some border line unsanitary conditions that constitute a hazard in there proximity to the stoves. Ms. Fish is very concerned about the safety to the occupants. Ms. Fish has discouraged Mr. Heichei from renting out the units, and tried to convince him that this was not a good situation. There is furniture on the third floor, but the day that Ms. Fish was there for the inspection, she observed no one in the third floor unit. Ed Kral , one of the occupants would like to have the variance granted because he wants to remain living there. Ron Glassman stated that the Appeilant should go to Zoning for clarification. then if need be the Appellant could come back to the Appeats Board for a variance on a share bath situation, if need be. Am I correct in what I 'm assuming? Ron Glassman stated that if the board were to grant a variance on aliowing the stove and refrigerator to remain in the sleeping rooms this would be a single family house with the right to rent rooms, therefore, no future inspections. Ron Ankeny, stated that this does not meet the requirement of a single family home, not with the five kitchens, I believe this case should be sent to the Board of Zoning. BOARD ACTION: Motion made by Ron Glassman to deny the request for a variance to allow a stove and refrigerator in the sleeping room, with the condition that the Appellant go before the Board of Zoning to allow 5 apartment units, then Appellant be allowed to return to this Board for further review to request a variance on shared baths, if necessary. ---------------------------------- 24-90-F 732 Holly Ave. Unity Church of St. Paul Jane L. Hilliard SUBJECT: Appellant is requesting a variance from having to instali panic hardware for 12 doors and 3 door ciosures, thls would create a financial burden. Case resolved - Withdrawn. ------------------------------ 10 � �yo-��s o 26-90-F 480 St. Peter St. Juvenile Detention Ctr. Diane J . Prichard SUBJECT: Appellant is requesting a variance from the requirement of having to "Remove keyed locking device from rear gym door. " Letter dated February 16, 1990. Case resolved - Withdrawn. BOARD ACTION: Motion made by Ron Glassman to refund the filing fee of $10. 00. Seconded by Robert Viering. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ------------------------------ 27-90-F 62 Dale St. So. Manley Madson, Jr. (6 units) APPEARANCE: Manley Madson SUBJECT: Appellant is requesting a variance from the requirement of having to "Provide dead bolt locks for all apartment doors. " Letter dated February 13, 1990. PROCEEDINGS: The building is a security building and is owner occupied, therefore, a variance is requested. Pat Fish, from the Department of Fire 8 Safety stated that most of the units have deadbolt locks and the building is a security building and owner occupied. Ms. Fish would like to make a condition that the units not be allowed to be rented. BOARD ACTION: Motion made by Ron Glassman to grant the variance from the requirement of having to provide deadbolt locks ( 1") for all unit doors, with the understanding the units be owner occupied only. Seconded by Robert Viering. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOULSY ------------------------------ 28-90-F 806 Earl St. Bart Montanari (4 units) SUBJECT: Appeilant is requesting a variance from the requirement of having to "Provide one hour fire separation at ceiling in furnace room. " Letter dated January 26, 1990. Case postponed to the May meeting. ---------------------------------- There being no further business meeting adjourns at 3:30 p.m. 11