The URL can be used to link to this page

99-801�� Council File # �,`3 - $O r Green Sheet # 63280 Presented by Referred To Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the August 10, 2 1999, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Properry Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 addresses: 4 Propertv Appealed Appellant 232 Aurora Avenue Roger Vannelli Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compiiance. �` 9 Lot 7. Lewiston Heiehts. Fourth Addition fSouth Hiehwoodl 10 (Laid over from 7-6-99) 11 Decision: Appeal denied. 12 1607 Hewitt Avenue (Laid over from 7-6-99) 13 Decision: Appeal denied. 14 15 2252 Falcon Avenue (Laid over from 7-20-99) 16 Decision; Appeal denied. 17 444 St. Peter Street (Rescheduled from 7-6-99) 18 (Appeal withdrawn at request of the appellant.) 19 Ann Sch2ey futL.SiFf�F.Y�� u �I Judy Tschida Martinez Fred A. Kueppers, Jr. of Kueppers, Hackel & Kueppers for Loucas Arvanitis 20 215 Ki line Street South #266 (aka 200 Winthro�Street South #2661 Kaza Burns 21 Decision: Appeal denied. , 22 1025 Selbv Avenue 23 Decision: Appeal denied. Joseph Hernick for Fire-Guard Sprinkler 24 126 Ninth Street East Allen Kremer 25 Decision: Variance granted with respect to the doors. Appeal denied with respect to the latching devices on 26 the doors. 27 605 Portland Avenue Jerome Jansen RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 13 28 Decision: Variance granted for Mary Walker to continue using the bedroom. This variance will become void 29 when Mary Walker is no longer the tenant. Crreen Sheet 63280 1 1167 and 1169 Thomas Avenue Pahick and Georgia Hagerry �� 2 Decision: Vacant building fee is waived on condition that the ezcterior is maintained. 3 685 North Street #1 Ze Moua 4 Decision: Laid over to the September 7 Properiy Code Enforcement meeting. 5 550 Orleans Street #1 6 Decision: Appeal denied. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey ✓ Coleman �/ Harris � Benanav �/ Reiter � Bostrom � Lantry ,� � 14 15 � 16 Adopted by Council: Date: � 17 18 Adoption Certified by Council Secretary 19 By: `"��— a� _ (� 1 2Q Approved b Mayor: 21 Date: Z 7 j 22 By: Fredric Wallin Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney : Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council : 2 �s �� DEPARTMENT/OFFICE/COUNCIL DATE INrtWiED City Council Offices 8-11-99 GREEN SHEET No 63280 COMACT PERSON 8 PHONE InXb�mate �nHIaUDa1e Gerry Strathman, 266-8575 OEtMTI1ENlqRFGfOR CIIYCOIRIfY MUST BE ON GOUNCIL AGENDA BY (DA'f� ❑ ❑ August 7�3, 1999 � rnranox�v anum�K Hu.wo� w2 eouriNc � w+nxc�n�aErtucFSax rruHCU�aEa�naccrrs ❑wmR1�MA9R4I�M1) ❑ TOTAL # OF S4GNATURE PAGES {CUP ALL LOCATIONS FOR StGNATURE) CTION REQUES7ED Approving the 8-1�-94 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on ProperYy Code Enforcement Appeals for Che following addresses: 232 Aurora Avenue, Lot 7-Lewiston Heights- Fourth Addition (South Highwood), 1607 Hewitt Avenue, 2252 Falcon Avenue, 444 St. Peter Street, 215 Kipling Street South �1266 (aka 200 Winthrop Street South ��266), 1025 Selby Avenue, 126 Ninth Street East, 605 Portland Avenue, 1167 and 1169 Thomas Avenue, 685 North Street 4I1, and 550 Orleans Street l�l. ECA M I`1DAT N Approve A) u Reject () PERSONIIL SERVIGE CONTRAC[S MUST AOlSWER TNE iOLLOWIN6 QUESTiONS: 1. HasthispersoNfirtnevervrorkedunderawntractforthisdepartment� PLANNING CAMMISSION vES No CIBCOMMITfEE � 2. HasthieperaoMrmaverheenactilyemoloyee9 CIVILSERVICECAMMISSION vES No 3. Dces this per�rtn possess a sitill no[ romalryposse�ed by any cUrreM cRy employee7 VES NO 4. isthis persan/fi,m atargetetivendoR YES NO FJ�lain atl Y� �� Pa�� sheet and attach to preen sheet IMTIATING PROBI.EM ISSUE. OPPORTUNIN (Wtw. What. N/hen. Wtiere. Why) ' AOVANTAGESIFAPPROVED DISADVAMAGES IF APPROVED OISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPR�VEO TOTAL AMOUN7 OF TRANSAC710N S COST/REVplUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE� YES NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTNITV NUMBER FlNANCIAL INFORMATION (IXPWi� �3. �� v� NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, August 10, 1999 Room 330 Courthouse Gerty Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer STAFF PRESENT: Pat Fish, Fire Prevention; Hazold Robinson, Code Enforcement; Bob Seifert, Fire Prevention; Joe Yannarelly, Code Enforcement 232 Aurora Avenue Roger Vannelli, owner, appeazed. Gerry Strathmau asked was this a standard fire door issue and aze these original doors. Pat Fish responded yes and the Fire Departmettt has no objections to a variance. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. Lot 7, Lewiston Heights. Fourth Addirion [South Highwood] (Laid over from 7-6-94) (No one appeazed representing the properiy.) Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. 1607 Hewitt Avenue (Laid over from 7-6-99) (No one appeared representing the property.) Pat Fish reported this matter went to court. The judge gave unril August 15 to resolve or vacate the premises. Gerry Strathman denied the appeai. 2252 Falcon Avenue (Laid over from 7-20-99) (No one appeared represenring the property.) Pat Fish reported all this matter needs is a permit to be signed off in the building department. Gerry Strathman derued the appeal. 4A4 St. Peter Street (12escheduled from 7-6-99) (Appeal withdrawn at request of the owner.) �� o� PROPERTY CQDE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 8-10-99 215 KiQling Street South #266 (aka 200 Winthrop Street South #2661 (No one appeazed representing the property.) Pat Fish reported the placard has been lifted on the condemnation. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. 1025 Selby_Avenue (Bob Seifert provided paperwork to Gerry Sirathman.} Page 2 Joseph Hernick, Fire-Guard Sprinkler contractor for the building, appeared and stated the pipe used to run through the wa11 for the fire department connection was standazd black steel. Orders were written to replace that pipe with galvanized pipe. This is an interpretation problem. The law reads: "Steel pipe, where exposed to weather, sha11 be externally galvanized or otherwise protected against corrosion." Mr. Hernick feels the pipe penetration through the wall should be caulked so there is no draft or ability for anything to go through the wall and into the building. There is no exposed pipe. If he put a thread on externally galvanized pipe, the external galvanized is no more. Bob Seifert reported the pipe is penettating the exterior wa11, and is exposed to the exterior. There is a body screwed onto the pipe. Behind that body there is a gap, and moisture is going to collect there. It has been the industry standard that anything e�osed to the exterior ar penetrates an exterior wa11 is galvanized pipe. The law also says the exposed threads of steep pipe should be painted. Gerry Strathman asked why galvanized pipe was not used Mr. Hernick responded his company does not always do so. There are other pipes that penetrate the exterior wall in almost every sprinkler system. Those are not always galvanized, but they have a galvanized fitting and a galvanized wall plate. The difference is it is brass. There really is no exposed pape. The risk that is being protected, presumed Mr. 5trathman, is that over time the pipe will rust and not be there to serve the fire departrnent. Mr. Hernick answered that in most cases flie pipe will laat longer than the building itself. Mr. Stratlunan asked has cauiking been done. Mr. Hernick responded he does not know because he has not seen the installation. Caulking is generally done when there is a hole from the outside to the inside. In this case, the orders were to replace the pipe. Someone can be sent back to caulk it or replace it, but Mr. Hernick feels the interpretation in the orders is overly strict. How much of a fire safery issue is tlus for the Fire Department, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Seifert responded he is concerned that the silicone caulk will not be maintained nor will the building ��r �6� 1 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 8-10-99 Page 3 owner make sure it is re-caulked on a semi-annuai ar annuai basis. Most inspectors will not check the caulking. Mr. Strathman asked what kind of cost is involved with replacing the pipe. Mr. Hemick responded a few hundred dollazs. Gerry Strathman granted a vatiance on the following conditions: 1) the pipes will be caulked annually, 2) where steel pipe is exposed to weather, Joseph Hernick will use galvanized steel pipe when doing work in 5aint Pau1. 1Vote: Subsequent to the hearing and in response to procednrai questions, Mr. Strathman changed his decision to be "appeal denied." The contractor is not the owner; therefore, he does not have standing to appeal orders made by the enforcement officers. 126 Ninth Street East A11en Kremer, owner, appeared. (He showed photographs to Gerry Strathman and Pat Fish.) Mr. Kremer stated he would like to keep the existing doors. Pat Fish reported the latching devices have to wark. If they do not work, the hallway would be contaminated with smoke and heat in an emergency, and not allow other occupants of the building to use the hallway. Even though the fire department has a 3 to 4 minute response time, the doar should give some protection. The inspector felt strongly that the closures and latching devices should be working. Is there another way to make them latch, asked Mr. StratYunan. Mr. Kremer responded tenants usuaily turn the deadbolt. He asked for additionai time to find some latches. He might need 30 to 60 days to locate them. Mr. Strathman asked Mr. Kremer which option he preferred: 1) a layover on this matter, 2) a variance granted with respect to the doors and denied with respect to the latching devices. Mr. Kremer responded he wouid like the variance granted on the doors and he will deai with the inspector regarding the latching devices. Gerry Strathman granted a variance with respect to the fire doors. Appeal denied with respect to the latching devices on the doors. 605 Portland Avenue Julie Jansen, owner, and Mary Walker, tenant, appeazed. Ms. Jansen stated two apartments on the third floor have bedrooms in the middle of the building with no egress window. She lives in one apartment and Ms. Walker lives in the other. It is impossible to have two exits from the �� o � PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 8-10-99 Page 4 bedrooms. Both apartments have front and reaz exits. Ms. Walker added they aze requesting a variance be granted so that the bedrooms can have one e�t instead of two. Pat Fish reported they tell people not to use the interior rooms for sleeping. The solution is to take out 50% of the wall and consider it all one room or to switch rooms. Gerty Strathman granted a variance on the bedroom egress window as long as Mary Walker is the occupant. This variance will become void when Mary Walker is no longer the tenant. llb7 and ll69 Thomas Avenue Georgia Hagerty, owner, appeared and stated she was told to pay the vacant buiiding fee. Arrangements have been made with the next door neighbor who can provide better security instead of having a city inspector come azound once a month. The next door neighbor uses half the garage at ll 67 and 1169 Thomas for storage, and haif of the off street parking for his boat during the winter. In return for this, the neighbor mows the lawn and shovels the snow. If there aze any difficulties with the properiy, he will let the Hagertys know right away. Harold Robinson reported the vacant building file was opened 6-14-49. The owner readily admits it has been vacant for some rime. This is a Category I vacant build'mg; therefore, it can be re-occupied whenever the owners want it to be. The City policy is when a building is vacant for at least 30 to 45 days, the owner has to pay the $200 vacant buiiding fee. Mr. Robinson suggested the appeals process because he does not have the authority to grant a variance. There have been no problems with the building. Gerry Strathman waived the vacant building fee on condition that the exterior is maintained. 685 North Street Ze Moua, owner, appeared and stated she received an order from the Fire Marshall to remove the tree stump. The first rime this tree was dealt with, she was told to cut a limb hanging over the neighbor's roof. The following spring, she was told to cut more because of the neighbor's foundation. Last month, the neighbor complained again that it needs to be removed. She talked to someone in Forestry who told her the tree stump will not get larger, but there is a possibility that the roots may sti11 be alive. Ms. Moua plans to buy a chemical to pour over the stump. Pat Fish reported this issue goes back to Febniary 1998. She did a certificate of occupancy inspection on the neighbor's building on Bates. One of the items was to repair the retaining wa11, which appeazed to be leaning dangerously. The neighbor found he could not do the repairs on the wall until the tree shunp was removed. This is not a reopening of the issue by the neighbor; rather, it is a continuation of the issue. The tree stump is still prohibiting the owner from repairing the retaining wa11. c �U 1 PROPERTI' CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 8-10-99 Page 5 You don't want to remove the stump because you like it or don't want to pay for it, asked Mr. Strathman. Ms. Ivloua responded the shunp is on the corner of the other two neighbors lot and her lot. If it needs to be removed, it would be the responsibility of the other owners also. In addition, it wouid be difficult to remove the tree stump because the neighbar built a garage about two feet away from the stump. (Ms. Moua showed Mr. Strathman photographs.) Mr. StraUunan stated he is uncomfortable asking Ms. Moua to remove the stump when it is not causing a problem for her. He asked if the other owner would be willing to share in the cost, would Ms. Moua participate in that. Ms. Moua responded yes because she has already spent close to $1,000 to remove the tree. Ms. Fish stated the Dispute Resolution Center has been suggested to the neighbar. Would Ms. Fish ask the neighbor is he willing to share the cost of removing the stump, asked Mr. Strathman. Ms. Fish responded yes. Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the September 7 Property Code Enforcement meeting to see if this matter can be worked out between the owners. 550 Orleans Street #1 Fred and Gayle Wallin, appellants, appeazed. Mr. Wallin stated the lack of electricity prompted this order. Mrs. Wallin stated they haue to make more payments to NSP. The electricity should be restored within two days. She will then cali the inspector. Joe Yannarrelly asked would the Wallins be living there before electricity is restored. Mrs. Wallin responded no. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. As soon as the electricity is restored, then Code Enfarcement will lift the condemnation, and the matter will be over. The meeting was adjourned at 2:21 pm. rit�i� �� Council File # �,`3 - $O r Green Sheet # 63280 Presented by Referred To Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the August 10, 2 1999, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Properry Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 addresses: 4 Propertv Appealed Appellant 232 Aurora Avenue Roger Vannelli Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compiiance. �` 9 Lot 7. Lewiston Heiehts. Fourth Addition fSouth Hiehwoodl 10 (Laid over from 7-6-99) 11 Decision: Appeal denied. 12 1607 Hewitt Avenue (Laid over from 7-6-99) 13 Decision: Appeal denied. 14 15 2252 Falcon Avenue (Laid over from 7-20-99) 16 Decision; Appeal denied. 17 444 St. Peter Street (Rescheduled from 7-6-99) 18 (Appeal withdrawn at request of the appellant.) 19 Ann Sch2ey futL.SiFf�F.Y�� u �I Judy Tschida Martinez Fred A. Kueppers, Jr. of Kueppers, Hackel & Kueppers for Loucas Arvanitis 20 215 Ki line Street South #266 (aka 200 Winthro�Street South #2661 Kaza Burns 21 Decision: Appeal denied. , 22 1025 Selbv Avenue 23 Decision: Appeal denied. Joseph Hernick for Fire-Guard Sprinkler 24 126 Ninth Street East Allen Kremer 25 Decision: Variance granted with respect to the doors. Appeal denied with respect to the latching devices on 26 the doors. 27 605 Portland Avenue Jerome Jansen RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 13 28 Decision: Variance granted for Mary Walker to continue using the bedroom. This variance will become void 29 when Mary Walker is no longer the tenant. Crreen Sheet 63280 1 1167 and 1169 Thomas Avenue Pahick and Georgia Hagerry �� 2 Decision: Vacant building fee is waived on condition that the ezcterior is maintained. 3 685 North Street #1 Ze Moua 4 Decision: Laid over to the September 7 Properiy Code Enforcement meeting. 5 550 Orleans Street #1 6 Decision: Appeal denied. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey ✓ Coleman �/ Harris � Benanav �/ Reiter � Bostrom � Lantry ,� � 14 15 � 16 Adopted by Council: Date: � 17 18 Adoption Certified by Council Secretary 19 By: `"��— a� _ (� 1 2Q Approved b Mayor: 21 Date: Z 7 j 22 By: Fredric Wallin Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney : Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council : 2 �s �� DEPARTMENT/OFFICE/COUNCIL DATE INrtWiED City Council Offices 8-11-99 GREEN SHEET No 63280 COMACT PERSON 8 PHONE InXb�mate �nHIaUDa1e Gerry Strathman, 266-8575 OEtMTI1ENlqRFGfOR CIIYCOIRIfY MUST BE ON GOUNCIL AGENDA BY (DA'f� ❑ ❑ August 7�3, 1999 � rnranox�v anum�K Hu.wo� w2 eouriNc � w+nxc�n�aErtucFSax rruHCU�aEa�naccrrs ❑wmR1�MA9R4I�M1) ❑ TOTAL # OF S4GNATURE PAGES {CUP ALL LOCATIONS FOR StGNATURE) CTION REQUES7ED Approving the 8-1�-94 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on ProperYy Code Enforcement Appeals for Che following addresses: 232 Aurora Avenue, Lot 7-Lewiston Heights- Fourth Addition (South Highwood), 1607 Hewitt Avenue, 2252 Falcon Avenue, 444 St. Peter Street, 215 Kipling Street South �1266 (aka 200 Winthrop Street South ��266), 1025 Selby Avenue, 126 Ninth Street East, 605 Portland Avenue, 1167 and 1169 Thomas Avenue, 685 North Street 4I1, and 550 Orleans Street l�l. ECA M I`1DAT N Approve A) u Reject () PERSONIIL SERVIGE CONTRAC[S MUST AOlSWER TNE iOLLOWIN6 QUESTiONS: 1. HasthispersoNfirtnevervrorkedunderawntractforthisdepartment� PLANNING CAMMISSION vES No CIBCOMMITfEE � 2. HasthieperaoMrmaverheenactilyemoloyee9 CIVILSERVICECAMMISSION vES No 3. Dces this per�rtn possess a sitill no[ romalryposse�ed by any cUrreM cRy employee7 VES NO 4. isthis persan/fi,m atargetetivendoR YES NO FJ�lain atl Y� �� Pa�� sheet and attach to preen sheet IMTIATING PROBI.EM ISSUE. OPPORTUNIN (Wtw. What. N/hen. Wtiere. Why) ' AOVANTAGESIFAPPROVED DISADVAMAGES IF APPROVED OISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPR�VEO TOTAL AMOUN7 OF TRANSAC710N S COST/REVplUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE� YES NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTNITV NUMBER FlNANCIAL INFORMATION (IXPWi� �3. �� v� NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, August 10, 1999 Room 330 Courthouse Gerty Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer STAFF PRESENT: Pat Fish, Fire Prevention; Hazold Robinson, Code Enforcement; Bob Seifert, Fire Prevention; Joe Yannarelly, Code Enforcement 232 Aurora Avenue Roger Vannelli, owner, appeazed. Gerry Strathmau asked was this a standard fire door issue and aze these original doors. Pat Fish responded yes and the Fire Departmettt has no objections to a variance. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. Lot 7, Lewiston Heights. Fourth Addirion [South Highwood] (Laid over from 7-6-94) (No one appeazed representing the properiy.) Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. 1607 Hewitt Avenue (Laid over from 7-6-99) (No one appeared representing the property.) Pat Fish reported this matter went to court. The judge gave unril August 15 to resolve or vacate the premises. Gerry Strathman denied the appeai. 2252 Falcon Avenue (Laid over from 7-20-99) (No one appeared represenring the property.) Pat Fish reported all this matter needs is a permit to be signed off in the building department. Gerry Strathman derued the appeal. 4A4 St. Peter Street (12escheduled from 7-6-99) (Appeal withdrawn at request of the owner.) �� o� PROPERTY CQDE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 8-10-99 215 KiQling Street South #266 (aka 200 Winthrop Street South #2661 (No one appeazed representing the property.) Pat Fish reported the placard has been lifted on the condemnation. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. 1025 Selby_Avenue (Bob Seifert provided paperwork to Gerry Sirathman.} Page 2 Joseph Hernick, Fire-Guard Sprinkler contractor for the building, appeared and stated the pipe used to run through the wa11 for the fire department connection was standazd black steel. Orders were written to replace that pipe with galvanized pipe. This is an interpretation problem. The law reads: "Steel pipe, where exposed to weather, sha11 be externally galvanized or otherwise protected against corrosion." Mr. Hernick feels the pipe penetration through the wall should be caulked so there is no draft or ability for anything to go through the wall and into the building. There is no exposed pipe. If he put a thread on externally galvanized pipe, the external galvanized is no more. Bob Seifert reported the pipe is penettating the exterior wa11, and is exposed to the exterior. There is a body screwed onto the pipe. Behind that body there is a gap, and moisture is going to collect there. It has been the industry standard that anything e�osed to the exterior ar penetrates an exterior wa11 is galvanized pipe. The law also says the exposed threads of steep pipe should be painted. Gerry Strathman asked why galvanized pipe was not used Mr. Hernick responded his company does not always do so. There are other pipes that penetrate the exterior wall in almost every sprinkler system. Those are not always galvanized, but they have a galvanized fitting and a galvanized wall plate. The difference is it is brass. There really is no exposed pape. The risk that is being protected, presumed Mr. 5trathman, is that over time the pipe will rust and not be there to serve the fire departrnent. Mr. Hernick answered that in most cases flie pipe will laat longer than the building itself. Mr. Stratlunan asked has cauiking been done. Mr. Hernick responded he does not know because he has not seen the installation. Caulking is generally done when there is a hole from the outside to the inside. In this case, the orders were to replace the pipe. Someone can be sent back to caulk it or replace it, but Mr. Hernick feels the interpretation in the orders is overly strict. How much of a fire safery issue is tlus for the Fire Department, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Seifert responded he is concerned that the silicone caulk will not be maintained nor will the building ��r �6� 1 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 8-10-99 Page 3 owner make sure it is re-caulked on a semi-annuai ar annuai basis. Most inspectors will not check the caulking. Mr. Strathman asked what kind of cost is involved with replacing the pipe. Mr. Hemick responded a few hundred dollazs. Gerry Strathman granted a vatiance on the following conditions: 1) the pipes will be caulked annually, 2) where steel pipe is exposed to weather, Joseph Hernick will use galvanized steel pipe when doing work in 5aint Pau1. 1Vote: Subsequent to the hearing and in response to procednrai questions, Mr. Strathman changed his decision to be "appeal denied." The contractor is not the owner; therefore, he does not have standing to appeal orders made by the enforcement officers. 126 Ninth Street East A11en Kremer, owner, appeared. (He showed photographs to Gerry Strathman and Pat Fish.) Mr. Kremer stated he would like to keep the existing doors. Pat Fish reported the latching devices have to wark. If they do not work, the hallway would be contaminated with smoke and heat in an emergency, and not allow other occupants of the building to use the hallway. Even though the fire department has a 3 to 4 minute response time, the doar should give some protection. The inspector felt strongly that the closures and latching devices should be working. Is there another way to make them latch, asked Mr. StratYunan. Mr. Kremer responded tenants usuaily turn the deadbolt. He asked for additionai time to find some latches. He might need 30 to 60 days to locate them. Mr. Strathman asked Mr. Kremer which option he preferred: 1) a layover on this matter, 2) a variance granted with respect to the doors and denied with respect to the latching devices. Mr. Kremer responded he wouid like the variance granted on the doors and he will deai with the inspector regarding the latching devices. Gerry Strathman granted a variance with respect to the fire doors. Appeal denied with respect to the latching devices on the doors. 605 Portland Avenue Julie Jansen, owner, and Mary Walker, tenant, appeazed. Ms. Jansen stated two apartments on the third floor have bedrooms in the middle of the building with no egress window. She lives in one apartment and Ms. Walker lives in the other. It is impossible to have two exits from the �� o � PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 8-10-99 Page 4 bedrooms. Both apartments have front and reaz exits. Ms. Walker added they aze requesting a variance be granted so that the bedrooms can have one e�t instead of two. Pat Fish reported they tell people not to use the interior rooms for sleeping. The solution is to take out 50% of the wall and consider it all one room or to switch rooms. Gerty Strathman granted a variance on the bedroom egress window as long as Mary Walker is the occupant. This variance will become void when Mary Walker is no longer the tenant. llb7 and ll69 Thomas Avenue Georgia Hagerty, owner, appeared and stated she was told to pay the vacant buiiding fee. Arrangements have been made with the next door neighbor who can provide better security instead of having a city inspector come azound once a month. The next door neighbor uses half the garage at ll 67 and 1169 Thomas for storage, and haif of the off street parking for his boat during the winter. In return for this, the neighbor mows the lawn and shovels the snow. If there aze any difficulties with the properiy, he will let the Hagertys know right away. Harold Robinson reported the vacant building file was opened 6-14-49. The owner readily admits it has been vacant for some rime. This is a Category I vacant build'mg; therefore, it can be re-occupied whenever the owners want it to be. The City policy is when a building is vacant for at least 30 to 45 days, the owner has to pay the $200 vacant buiiding fee. Mr. Robinson suggested the appeals process because he does not have the authority to grant a variance. There have been no problems with the building. Gerry Strathman waived the vacant building fee on condition that the exterior is maintained. 685 North Street Ze Moua, owner, appeared and stated she received an order from the Fire Marshall to remove the tree stump. The first rime this tree was dealt with, she was told to cut a limb hanging over the neighbor's roof. The following spring, she was told to cut more because of the neighbor's foundation. Last month, the neighbor complained again that it needs to be removed. She talked to someone in Forestry who told her the tree stump will not get larger, but there is a possibility that the roots may sti11 be alive. Ms. Moua plans to buy a chemical to pour over the stump. Pat Fish reported this issue goes back to Febniary 1998. She did a certificate of occupancy inspection on the neighbor's building on Bates. One of the items was to repair the retaining wa11, which appeazed to be leaning dangerously. The neighbor found he could not do the repairs on the wall until the tree shunp was removed. This is not a reopening of the issue by the neighbor; rather, it is a continuation of the issue. The tree stump is still prohibiting the owner from repairing the retaining wa11. c �U 1 PROPERTI' CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 8-10-99 Page 5 You don't want to remove the stump because you like it or don't want to pay for it, asked Mr. Strathman. Ms. Ivloua responded the shunp is on the corner of the other two neighbors lot and her lot. If it needs to be removed, it would be the responsibility of the other owners also. In addition, it wouid be difficult to remove the tree stump because the neighbar built a garage about two feet away from the stump. (Ms. Moua showed Mr. Strathman photographs.) Mr. StraUunan stated he is uncomfortable asking Ms. Moua to remove the stump when it is not causing a problem for her. He asked if the other owner would be willing to share in the cost, would Ms. Moua participate in that. Ms. Moua responded yes because she has already spent close to $1,000 to remove the tree. Ms. Fish stated the Dispute Resolution Center has been suggested to the neighbar. Would Ms. Fish ask the neighbor is he willing to share the cost of removing the stump, asked Mr. Strathman. Ms. Fish responded yes. Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the September 7 Property Code Enforcement meeting to see if this matter can be worked out between the owners. 550 Orleans Street #1 Fred and Gayle Wallin, appellants, appeazed. Mr. Wallin stated the lack of electricity prompted this order. Mrs. Wallin stated they haue to make more payments to NSP. The electricity should be restored within two days. She will then cali the inspector. Joe Yannarrelly asked would the Wallins be living there before electricity is restored. Mrs. Wallin responded no. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. As soon as the electricity is restored, then Code Enfarcement will lift the condemnation, and the matter will be over. The meeting was adjourned at 2:21 pm. rit�i� �� Council File # �,`3 - $O r Green Sheet # 63280 Presented by Referred To Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the August 10, 2 1999, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Properry Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 addresses: 4 Propertv Appealed Appellant 232 Aurora Avenue Roger Vannelli Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compiiance. �` 9 Lot 7. Lewiston Heiehts. Fourth Addition fSouth Hiehwoodl 10 (Laid over from 7-6-99) 11 Decision: Appeal denied. 12 1607 Hewitt Avenue (Laid over from 7-6-99) 13 Decision: Appeal denied. 14 15 2252 Falcon Avenue (Laid over from 7-20-99) 16 Decision; Appeal denied. 17 444 St. Peter Street (Rescheduled from 7-6-99) 18 (Appeal withdrawn at request of the appellant.) 19 Ann Sch2ey futL.SiFf�F.Y�� u �I Judy Tschida Martinez Fred A. Kueppers, Jr. of Kueppers, Hackel & Kueppers for Loucas Arvanitis 20 215 Ki line Street South #266 (aka 200 Winthro�Street South #2661 Kaza Burns 21 Decision: Appeal denied. , 22 1025 Selbv Avenue 23 Decision: Appeal denied. Joseph Hernick for Fire-Guard Sprinkler 24 126 Ninth Street East Allen Kremer 25 Decision: Variance granted with respect to the doors. Appeal denied with respect to the latching devices on 26 the doors. 27 605 Portland Avenue Jerome Jansen RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 13 28 Decision: Variance granted for Mary Walker to continue using the bedroom. This variance will become void 29 when Mary Walker is no longer the tenant. Crreen Sheet 63280 1 1167 and 1169 Thomas Avenue Pahick and Georgia Hagerry �� 2 Decision: Vacant building fee is waived on condition that the ezcterior is maintained. 3 685 North Street #1 Ze Moua 4 Decision: Laid over to the September 7 Properiy Code Enforcement meeting. 5 550 Orleans Street #1 6 Decision: Appeal denied. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey ✓ Coleman �/ Harris � Benanav �/ Reiter � Bostrom � Lantry ,� � 14 15 � 16 Adopted by Council: Date: � 17 18 Adoption Certified by Council Secretary 19 By: `"��— a� _ (� 1 2Q Approved b Mayor: 21 Date: Z 7 j 22 By: Fredric Wallin Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney : Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council : 2 �s �� DEPARTMENT/OFFICE/COUNCIL DATE INrtWiED City Council Offices 8-11-99 GREEN SHEET No 63280 COMACT PERSON 8 PHONE InXb�mate �nHIaUDa1e Gerry Strathman, 266-8575 OEtMTI1ENlqRFGfOR CIIYCOIRIfY MUST BE ON GOUNCIL AGENDA BY (DA'f� ❑ ❑ August 7�3, 1999 � rnranox�v anum�K Hu.wo� w2 eouriNc � w+nxc�n�aErtucFSax rruHCU�aEa�naccrrs ❑wmR1�MA9R4I�M1) ❑ TOTAL # OF S4GNATURE PAGES {CUP ALL LOCATIONS FOR StGNATURE) CTION REQUES7ED Approving the 8-1�-94 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on ProperYy Code Enforcement Appeals for Che following addresses: 232 Aurora Avenue, Lot 7-Lewiston Heights- Fourth Addition (South Highwood), 1607 Hewitt Avenue, 2252 Falcon Avenue, 444 St. Peter Street, 215 Kipling Street South �1266 (aka 200 Winthrop Street South ��266), 1025 Selby Avenue, 126 Ninth Street East, 605 Portland Avenue, 1167 and 1169 Thomas Avenue, 685 North Street 4I1, and 550 Orleans Street l�l. ECA M I`1DAT N Approve A) u Reject () PERSONIIL SERVIGE CONTRAC[S MUST AOlSWER TNE iOLLOWIN6 QUESTiONS: 1. HasthispersoNfirtnevervrorkedunderawntractforthisdepartment� PLANNING CAMMISSION vES No CIBCOMMITfEE � 2. HasthieperaoMrmaverheenactilyemoloyee9 CIVILSERVICECAMMISSION vES No 3. Dces this per�rtn possess a sitill no[ romalryposse�ed by any cUrreM cRy employee7 VES NO 4. isthis persan/fi,m atargetetivendoR YES NO FJ�lain atl Y� �� Pa�� sheet and attach to preen sheet IMTIATING PROBI.EM ISSUE. OPPORTUNIN (Wtw. What. N/hen. Wtiere. Why) ' AOVANTAGESIFAPPROVED DISADVAMAGES IF APPROVED OISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPR�VEO TOTAL AMOUN7 OF TRANSAC710N S COST/REVplUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE� YES NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTNITV NUMBER FlNANCIAL INFORMATION (IXPWi� �3. �� v� NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, August 10, 1999 Room 330 Courthouse Gerty Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer STAFF PRESENT: Pat Fish, Fire Prevention; Hazold Robinson, Code Enforcement; Bob Seifert, Fire Prevention; Joe Yannarelly, Code Enforcement 232 Aurora Avenue Roger Vannelli, owner, appeazed. Gerry Strathmau asked was this a standard fire door issue and aze these original doors. Pat Fish responded yes and the Fire Departmettt has no objections to a variance. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. Lot 7, Lewiston Heights. Fourth Addirion [South Highwood] (Laid over from 7-6-94) (No one appeazed representing the properiy.) Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. 1607 Hewitt Avenue (Laid over from 7-6-99) (No one appeared representing the property.) Pat Fish reported this matter went to court. The judge gave unril August 15 to resolve or vacate the premises. Gerry Strathman denied the appeai. 2252 Falcon Avenue (Laid over from 7-20-99) (No one appeared represenring the property.) Pat Fish reported all this matter needs is a permit to be signed off in the building department. Gerry Strathman derued the appeal. 4A4 St. Peter Street (12escheduled from 7-6-99) (Appeal withdrawn at request of the owner.) �� o� PROPERTY CQDE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 8-10-99 215 KiQling Street South #266 (aka 200 Winthrop Street South #2661 (No one appeazed representing the property.) Pat Fish reported the placard has been lifted on the condemnation. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. 1025 Selby_Avenue (Bob Seifert provided paperwork to Gerry Sirathman.} Page 2 Joseph Hernick, Fire-Guard Sprinkler contractor for the building, appeared and stated the pipe used to run through the wa11 for the fire department connection was standazd black steel. Orders were written to replace that pipe with galvanized pipe. This is an interpretation problem. The law reads: "Steel pipe, where exposed to weather, sha11 be externally galvanized or otherwise protected against corrosion." Mr. Hernick feels the pipe penetration through the wall should be caulked so there is no draft or ability for anything to go through the wall and into the building. There is no exposed pipe. If he put a thread on externally galvanized pipe, the external galvanized is no more. Bob Seifert reported the pipe is penettating the exterior wa11, and is exposed to the exterior. There is a body screwed onto the pipe. Behind that body there is a gap, and moisture is going to collect there. It has been the industry standard that anything e�osed to the exterior ar penetrates an exterior wa11 is galvanized pipe. The law also says the exposed threads of steep pipe should be painted. Gerry Strathman asked why galvanized pipe was not used Mr. Hernick responded his company does not always do so. There are other pipes that penetrate the exterior wall in almost every sprinkler system. Those are not always galvanized, but they have a galvanized fitting and a galvanized wall plate. The difference is it is brass. There really is no exposed pape. The risk that is being protected, presumed Mr. 5trathman, is that over time the pipe will rust and not be there to serve the fire departrnent. Mr. Hernick answered that in most cases flie pipe will laat longer than the building itself. Mr. Stratlunan asked has cauiking been done. Mr. Hernick responded he does not know because he has not seen the installation. Caulking is generally done when there is a hole from the outside to the inside. In this case, the orders were to replace the pipe. Someone can be sent back to caulk it or replace it, but Mr. Hernick feels the interpretation in the orders is overly strict. How much of a fire safery issue is tlus for the Fire Department, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Seifert responded he is concerned that the silicone caulk will not be maintained nor will the building ��r �6� 1 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 8-10-99 Page 3 owner make sure it is re-caulked on a semi-annuai ar annuai basis. Most inspectors will not check the caulking. Mr. Strathman asked what kind of cost is involved with replacing the pipe. Mr. Hemick responded a few hundred dollazs. Gerry Strathman granted a vatiance on the following conditions: 1) the pipes will be caulked annually, 2) where steel pipe is exposed to weather, Joseph Hernick will use galvanized steel pipe when doing work in 5aint Pau1. 1Vote: Subsequent to the hearing and in response to procednrai questions, Mr. Strathman changed his decision to be "appeal denied." The contractor is not the owner; therefore, he does not have standing to appeal orders made by the enforcement officers. 126 Ninth Street East A11en Kremer, owner, appeared. (He showed photographs to Gerry Strathman and Pat Fish.) Mr. Kremer stated he would like to keep the existing doors. Pat Fish reported the latching devices have to wark. If they do not work, the hallway would be contaminated with smoke and heat in an emergency, and not allow other occupants of the building to use the hallway. Even though the fire department has a 3 to 4 minute response time, the doar should give some protection. The inspector felt strongly that the closures and latching devices should be working. Is there another way to make them latch, asked Mr. StratYunan. Mr. Kremer responded tenants usuaily turn the deadbolt. He asked for additionai time to find some latches. He might need 30 to 60 days to locate them. Mr. Strathman asked Mr. Kremer which option he preferred: 1) a layover on this matter, 2) a variance granted with respect to the doors and denied with respect to the latching devices. Mr. Kremer responded he wouid like the variance granted on the doors and he will deai with the inspector regarding the latching devices. Gerry Strathman granted a variance with respect to the fire doors. Appeal denied with respect to the latching devices on the doors. 605 Portland Avenue Julie Jansen, owner, and Mary Walker, tenant, appeazed. Ms. Jansen stated two apartments on the third floor have bedrooms in the middle of the building with no egress window. She lives in one apartment and Ms. Walker lives in the other. It is impossible to have two exits from the �� o � PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 8-10-99 Page 4 bedrooms. Both apartments have front and reaz exits. Ms. Walker added they aze requesting a variance be granted so that the bedrooms can have one e�t instead of two. Pat Fish reported they tell people not to use the interior rooms for sleeping. The solution is to take out 50% of the wall and consider it all one room or to switch rooms. Gerty Strathman granted a variance on the bedroom egress window as long as Mary Walker is the occupant. This variance will become void when Mary Walker is no longer the tenant. llb7 and ll69 Thomas Avenue Georgia Hagerty, owner, appeared and stated she was told to pay the vacant buiiding fee. Arrangements have been made with the next door neighbor who can provide better security instead of having a city inspector come azound once a month. The next door neighbor uses half the garage at ll 67 and 1169 Thomas for storage, and haif of the off street parking for his boat during the winter. In return for this, the neighbor mows the lawn and shovels the snow. If there aze any difficulties with the properiy, he will let the Hagertys know right away. Harold Robinson reported the vacant building file was opened 6-14-49. The owner readily admits it has been vacant for some rime. This is a Category I vacant build'mg; therefore, it can be re-occupied whenever the owners want it to be. The City policy is when a building is vacant for at least 30 to 45 days, the owner has to pay the $200 vacant buiiding fee. Mr. Robinson suggested the appeals process because he does not have the authority to grant a variance. There have been no problems with the building. Gerry Strathman waived the vacant building fee on condition that the exterior is maintained. 685 North Street Ze Moua, owner, appeared and stated she received an order from the Fire Marshall to remove the tree stump. The first rime this tree was dealt with, she was told to cut a limb hanging over the neighbor's roof. The following spring, she was told to cut more because of the neighbor's foundation. Last month, the neighbor complained again that it needs to be removed. She talked to someone in Forestry who told her the tree stump will not get larger, but there is a possibility that the roots may sti11 be alive. Ms. Moua plans to buy a chemical to pour over the stump. Pat Fish reported this issue goes back to Febniary 1998. She did a certificate of occupancy inspection on the neighbor's building on Bates. One of the items was to repair the retaining wa11, which appeazed to be leaning dangerously. The neighbor found he could not do the repairs on the wall until the tree shunp was removed. This is not a reopening of the issue by the neighbor; rather, it is a continuation of the issue. The tree stump is still prohibiting the owner from repairing the retaining wa11. c �U 1 PROPERTI' CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 8-10-99 Page 5 You don't want to remove the stump because you like it or don't want to pay for it, asked Mr. Strathman. Ms. Ivloua responded the shunp is on the corner of the other two neighbors lot and her lot. If it needs to be removed, it would be the responsibility of the other owners also. In addition, it wouid be difficult to remove the tree stump because the neighbar built a garage about two feet away from the stump. (Ms. Moua showed Mr. Strathman photographs.) Mr. StraUunan stated he is uncomfortable asking Ms. Moua to remove the stump when it is not causing a problem for her. He asked if the other owner would be willing to share in the cost, would Ms. Moua participate in that. Ms. Moua responded yes because she has already spent close to $1,000 to remove the tree. Ms. Fish stated the Dispute Resolution Center has been suggested to the neighbar. Would Ms. Fish ask the neighbor is he willing to share the cost of removing the stump, asked Mr. Strathman. Ms. Fish responded yes. Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the September 7 Property Code Enforcement meeting to see if this matter can be worked out between the owners. 550 Orleans Street #1 Fred and Gayle Wallin, appellants, appeazed. Mr. Wallin stated the lack of electricity prompted this order. Mrs. Wallin stated they haue to make more payments to NSP. The electricity should be restored within two days. She will then cali the inspector. Joe Yannarrelly asked would the Wallins be living there before electricity is restored. Mrs. Wallin responded no. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. As soon as the electricity is restored, then Code Enfarcement will lift the condemnation, and the matter will be over. The meeting was adjourned at 2:21 pm. rit�i�