Loading...
99-817council File # g_ q_ R 1 � JRICtNAL Presented Refesed To RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Green Sheet # 63281 Committee Date �S 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paui hereby certifies and approves the August 17, 2 1999, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Properiy Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 addresses: 4 Propert�pUealed Apnellant 5 1667 Ames Avenue Ruby Eggum 6 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 7 nonconfornaing doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 8 building must otherwise be in compliance. 9 243 Lexington Pazkwav South 10 (Appeal withdrawn.) ll 853 Randolph Avenue (Laid over from 7-20-99) 12 Decision: Appeal denied. 13 Patrick Byrne Richard Lemke 14 1505 McAfee Street (Rescheduled from 8-10-99) Tom Lindbeck for Lindbeck Family Trust 15 Decisions: Variance is granted on the garage doors and the order to remove old caulk and recaulk around all 16 bathtub enclosures until the next certificate of occupancy inspection. The certificate of occupancy can be 17 posted in the entryway of the building as long as the entrance is unlocked. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1513 McAfee Street (Rescheduled from 8-10-99) Tom Lindbeck for Lindbeck Family Trust Decision: Variance is granted on the gazage doars and on the order to remove old caulk and recaulk around all bathtub enclosures until the next certificate of occupancy inspecrion. The certificate of occupancy can be posted in the entryway of the building as long as the entrance is unlocked. The appeal is denied on the damaged door frame and brick mold in Unit #3. The appeal is denied on the damaged walls and damaged ceiling in Unit #4. 1521 McAfee Street (Rescheduled from 8-10-99) Tom Lindbeck for Lindbeck Family Trust Decision: Variance is granted on the gazage doars until the ne� certificate of occupancy inspection. The certificate of occupancy can be posted in the entryway of the building as long as the entrance is unlocked. 923 Agate Street Decision: Appeal denied. Daniel Otto 30 1115 Greenbrier Street James 7aszczak for Arlington Hills Lutheran 31 Decision: Laid over to the September 21 Properiy Code Enforcement meeting. Green Sheet 63281 q9-8'1� 1 2086 Mazshall Avenue Lorri Steffen 2 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors (Item 8) with the following condition: when the 3 nonconforcrung doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors. The owner 4 has until November 1, 1999, to complete the following items: Item 4, the ceiling in boiler room; Item 7, the fire 5 alarm system report; and Item 9, the test on the boiler and vent. The owner has until April i, Z000, to complete 6 the corrections on all other items. 7 781 Lincoln Avenue Robert and Fay DeBellis 8 Decision: Variance ganted on fence height. 9 500 Como Avenue (rescheduled from 6-30-99) 10 (Orders withdrawn by Fire Prevention. They have come to an agreement with 500 Como Avenue; therefore, the 11 appeal is moot.) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey � Coleman Harris � Benanav � Reiter � Bostrom � Lantry ✓ � � O 22 Adopted by Council: 23 Date: � v-., . �.S \`�°�°� 24 Adopti Certified by Council Secretary 25 By: � 1. {� ,.�� � 26 Approved y ayor: 27 Date: l°�,a 28 By: Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney : Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council : City Council Offices Gerry Strathman, 266-8575 25, 1999 8-18-99 I GREEN SHEET oE.�.,re�ro.ccrae caa , ❑ rnr�newar 9q -pi'i No 63281 mx�aunate ancouc�. ❑ arvanuc nounxs � a �.,�� �.�,,.�a ❑���,�,� ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the 8-17-99 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 1667 Ames Avenue, 243 Lexington Parkway South, 853 Randolph Avenue, 1505-1513-1521 McAfee Street, 923 Agate Street, 1115 Greenbrier Street, 2086 Marshall Avenue, 781 Lincoln Avenue, and 500 Como Avenue. ra� PIANNING COMMISSION CIB COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION Has ihis perwNfirm everworked under a con6ac[ for this department'� YES NO Has Mis persoNfrm ever been a city empbY�7 YES NO Does this persoNfi�m possess a s�611 not iwrtnallypossessetl by any curteM city empbyee7 YES NO Is this persoNfirm a tarpeted vendM YES NO all ves answers on IFAPPROVED to TRANSACTION S C08T/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO ACTNITY NUMBER �� g �� NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, August 17, 1999 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer STAFF PRESENT: Jon Hegner, Code Enforcement; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement; Phillip Owens, Fire Prevention; Mike Urmann, Fire Prevention The meeting was called to order at 132 p.m. 1667 Ames Avenue Ruby Eggum, owner, appeared and stated she is appealing the fire doors issue. She does not care to replace them because it is very expensive. Gerry Strathman asked are there any concems about a variance being granted in this case. Mike Urmann responded no. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconfornung doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with confornung fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 243 Lexington Parkway South (Appeal withdrawn.) 853 Randolph Avenue (Laid over from 7-20-99) (No one appeared representing the property.) Mike Urmann reported the owner was given two options at the July 20 meeting: maintain bids to install an escape window or vacate the room being used for sleeping. The owner was then suppose to call Fire Prevention for approval. Mr. Urmann has not heard from him. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. 1505.1513,1521 McAfee Street (Rescheduled from 8-10-99) 1521 - Mike Urmann reported the gazage doors panels are deteriorating to the point they are emitting water into the surface of the gazage doors. Mr. Lindbeck responded it is $600 apiece to replace the four panels. Water is not entering the gazage. He has not received any complaints from the tenants. The outside is chipping away slightly, and a small portion of the outer panel is missing. G� � � PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 8-17-99 Page 2 1521 - Mr. Strathman asked was moisture observed entering the gazage. Mr. Urmann responded it is obvious from the deterioration of the doors that moisture is entering the door panels. The majority of the deterioration is towards the bottom of the door. Eventually the door will not be structurally sound; someone will open it and it will fall. 1505 - Mr. Lindbeck stated he is appealing Item 1(scrape and repaint unprotected wooden surfaces on gazage; replace deteriorated gazage door panels) and Item 5(remove old caulk around tub enclosure and recaulk to make water tight). The garage doors are in better shape than 1521 McAfee. Item 5 is unnecessary. There are slight dirt and brown spots in some azeas, but tlus is a housekeeping issue. 1505 - Mr. Urmann responded the caulk is deteriorating with mold and mildew, and is not adhering in a11 azeas. The only way to fix it is to recaulk, otherwise there wiil be gaps in the caulk. Patching has not been done in a worlananlike manner. It is not water tight nor code compliant. The garage doors aze in an earlier stage of deteriozation than 1521 McAfee, but must be addressed. 1513 - Mr. Lindbeck stated he is appealing the following: Item 1(scrape and repaint garage wood trim and unprotected wooden surfaces; replace deteriorated wood panel garage doors), Item 2(replace the damaged door frame and brick mold to Unit #3), Item 4(repair and repaint damaged wa11s and ceiling damage in the bathroom of Unit #4 and as needed throughout; damage must be repaired in a professional manner), and Item 7(Replace damaged and missing bathroom tiles; also remove old caulk and recaulk azound ali bathtub enclosures). 1513 - Item 1 is not necessary, stated Mr. Lindbeck. The wood has a slight bubble, and is starting to deteriorate, but so is the whole building. Mr. Lindbeck will have to raise rent to cover the cost of the garage doors. A tenant locked himself out, and broke in the door frame. Mr. Lindbeck would like to repair the frame instead of replacing it. The leak in the ceiling was repaired, but Mr. Urmann says it was not done in a workmanlike manner. Scraping it will create a mess. Mr. Lindbeck could not find any missing tiles. There are one or rivo specks of mold on the caulk. 1513 - Mr. Urmann reported the frame has been kicked in more than once, and he does not think the deadbolt will secure in the frame anymore. This is a security issue. The brick mold �s to keep the moisture out of the frame. The garage doors aze the same situation as the other two addresses. For Item 4, a piece of sheetrock was put in place and molded over. It was a quick patch that was not done well nor under code. The material should be removed and done correctly. Some bathroom tiles were not adhered to the surfaces. Mr. Strathman asked about the urgency of the caulking. Mr. Urmann responded it is under the housing code. The purpose is to make sure the tub enclosure stays water tight in order for the structure around the tub to maintain its integrity. The more moisture that gets in, the less likely that the wood holding the walls up will stay structurally sound. ��- �s �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 8-17-99 Page 3 As for the certificates of occupancy, Mr. Lindbeck asked why he has to post them on the outside. His front enhies are never locked. Gerry Strathman made his decisions as follows: 1505 McAfee Street: Variance is granted on the garage doors and on the order to remove old caulk and recaullc azound ali bathtub enclosures until the ne� certificate of occupancy inspection. The certificate of occupancy can be posted in the entryway of the building as long as the entrance remains unlocked. 1513 McAfee Street: Variance is granted on the gazage doors and on the order to remove oid caulk and recaulk around a11 bathtub enclosures until the ne� certificate of occupancy inspection. The cer[ificate of occupancy can be posted in the enhyway of the building as long as the entrance remains unlocked. The appeal is denied on the damaged door frame and brick mold in Unit #3. The appeal is denied on the damaged wa11s and damaged ceiling in Unit #4. 1521 McAfee Street: Variance is granted on the gazage doors until the next certificate of occupancy inspection. The certificate of occupancy can be posted in the entsyway of the building as long as the entrance remains unlocked. 923 Agate Street Daniel Otto stated he is appealing the vacant building fee because he is not working and is being treated by a doctor for an illness. Paying the fee would be a financial hardship. Steve Magner reported the building has been condemned since December 1998, there is a possibility of illegal occupancy, and it is in a dilapidated condition. The owner has been ordered to vacate, and Code Enforcement has recently opened a vacant building file. It must haue a code compliance certificate before occupancy is allowed. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal and explained the vacant building fees are levied by the City because inspectors have to do more frequent inspections on these properties. Financial hardship is not a sufficient reason to waive the fee. 1115 Greenbrier Street James Jaszczak, Head Custodian of Arlington Hills Lutheran Church, appeared and stated he is appealing Item 5: Remove all locks other than panic hardwaze on southwest exit doors where panic hazdwaze is required. No other locks allowed. (Mr. Jaszczak presented photographs to Gerry Strathman and Phillip Owens.) Mr. Jaszczak installed the lower gate for security reasons because there is a preschool on the upstairs floor and a clothing giveaway store on the first floor. When the preschool is open, the gate is closed so no one can enter through that direction. When the building is occupied for Sunday school, the gates aze in the locked open posifion and the dead bolts are unlocked. When �� � �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 8-17-99 Page 4 the building is not occupied, the gates ate deadbolted shut, but two exits aze still there in an emergency. Mr. 7aszczak is hoping for a variance. Mr. Strathman asked is there a piace with no access to e�ts. Mr. Jaszczak responded only a certain doonvay when the gates aze closed. Mr. Sirathxnan asked if a person was standing in front of the locked gates, how would that person get out in case of a fire. About 100 feet north or east down the hallways, responded Mr. Jaszczak. Going east, a person would haue to go down steps, down a hallway, and out the front door. A person could also go into one of the classroom and push out the window screen. It would be a 30 foot drop. Phillip Owens reported he was not made awaze of these gates by the inspector. The gates are prohibited in the means of egress; the two doors in the photograph are required means of egress. The church and the day caze operation are places of assembly; therefore, they aze required to have the panic release door latches and no other. Not only are the doors padlocked, but they also have a padlocked gate in front of them. This obstructs the means of egress and causes a dead end conidor; which is another code violation. The building is not sprinkled, and the travel distance to the two remaining exits is in excess of the code allowed. Also, the corridors are not a simple configuration. It is a u-shaped corridor. There are several problems: egress obstructions, unlawful corridar obstructions, dead end corridors, and the travel distance issue. Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the September 21 Property Code Enforcement meeting. This will allow a fire department inspector and Mr. Jaszczak to meet and discuss a plan to allow the building to meet its security needs and be in conformance with fire codes. This decision was agreeable to Mr. Owens and Mr. Jaszczak. 2086 Marshall Avenne Lorri Steffen, owner, appeared and stated the property was purchased in February. Many repairs have been made. She would like the order waived to replace the fire doors. These are the original solid wood doors. Also, she is having a difficult time finding a contractor to handle some of the other items. (Ms. Steffen presented photographs to Gerry Strathman.) Mr. Strathman asked how much time she needed for the other items. Ms. Steffen responded she could haue things completed by spring. Mike Urmann reported some items should be dealt with prior to the winter: the boiler room ceiling, the heating system test, and the fire alarm system report. Ms. Steffen responded the boiler room ceiling is a disaster. She is assessing whether to install a sprinkler system or sheetrock over the open azeas. She should be able to fmd a contractor by this winter. �� � �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 8-17-99 Page 5 Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors (Item 8) on the following condifion: when the nonconfoimiug doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with confonuing fire rated doors. The owner has until November 1, 1999, to complete the following items: Item 4, the ceiling in boiler room; Item 7, the fire alarm system report; and Item 9, the test on the boiler and vent. The owner has unril April 1, 2000, to complete the corrections on all other items. 781 Lincoln Avenue (The DeBellis presented a booklet to Gerry Strathman and to Jon Hegner. This booklet was later retained for the file.) Robert and Fay DeBeliis, owners, appeared. Mr. DeBellis stated they are requesting a vaziance to consiruct a 14 foot long section of fence above the 6'6" fence height allowed by code. They built a berm, which is about 3 feet tall at the highest point. Between the gazage and the end of the berm is the14 foot section. They would like to install an eight foot fence. Why does it need to be eight feet high, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. DeBellis responded it will be the same height as the first 25 feet of the fence, and will match the neighbor's fence. The elevation of the alley goes downward, and the neighbars fence is 6'6". The berm has been built a11 the way to the neighbor's gazage. What the DeBellis would like to do is make the fence straight all the way across. All the neighbors and The Wild Onion are in support of the fence height. One of the reasons they are asking for an eight foot fence is because they back onto a commercial neighborhood. The elevafion for the Wild Onion is taller. With a 6'6" fence, the DeBellis' would still see vehicles. For sound, noise, esthetics, they aze asking for a variance. John Hegner reported if it was a natural grade with elevation changes, he would support a variance. Since it l�as been built up, the variance has been denied. If the DeBellis' get an eight foot fence, everyone may want one. Mr. Strathman asked for the rationale behind the City's limit of 6'/z feet. Mr. Hegner responded that maybe 6'6" is a decent height for privacy. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the fence height. However, the DeBeliis' should not encourage their neighbors to build eight foot fences; the situation here is unique, and Mr. Strathman is not attempting to set a precedent here. The meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m. rrn Note: The orders for 500 Como Avenue haue been withdrawn by Fire Prevention. Fire Prevention has come to an agreement with the owners. Therefore, the appeal is moot. council File # g_ q_ R 1 � JRICtNAL Presented Refesed To RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Green Sheet # 63281 Committee Date �S 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paui hereby certifies and approves the August 17, 2 1999, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Properiy Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 addresses: 4 Propert�pUealed Apnellant 5 1667 Ames Avenue Ruby Eggum 6 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 7 nonconfornaing doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 8 building must otherwise be in compliance. 9 243 Lexington Pazkwav South 10 (Appeal withdrawn.) ll 853 Randolph Avenue (Laid over from 7-20-99) 12 Decision: Appeal denied. 13 Patrick Byrne Richard Lemke 14 1505 McAfee Street (Rescheduled from 8-10-99) Tom Lindbeck for Lindbeck Family Trust 15 Decisions: Variance is granted on the garage doors and the order to remove old caulk and recaulk around all 16 bathtub enclosures until the next certificate of occupancy inspection. The certificate of occupancy can be 17 posted in the entryway of the building as long as the entrance is unlocked. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1513 McAfee Street (Rescheduled from 8-10-99) Tom Lindbeck for Lindbeck Family Trust Decision: Variance is granted on the gazage doars and on the order to remove old caulk and recaulk around all bathtub enclosures until the next certificate of occupancy inspecrion. The certificate of occupancy can be posted in the entryway of the building as long as the entrance is unlocked. The appeal is denied on the damaged door frame and brick mold in Unit #3. The appeal is denied on the damaged walls and damaged ceiling in Unit #4. 1521 McAfee Street (Rescheduled from 8-10-99) Tom Lindbeck for Lindbeck Family Trust Decision: Variance is granted on the gazage doars until the ne� certificate of occupancy inspection. The certificate of occupancy can be posted in the entryway of the building as long as the entrance is unlocked. 923 Agate Street Decision: Appeal denied. Daniel Otto 30 1115 Greenbrier Street James 7aszczak for Arlington Hills Lutheran 31 Decision: Laid over to the September 21 Properiy Code Enforcement meeting. Green Sheet 63281 q9-8'1� 1 2086 Mazshall Avenue Lorri Steffen 2 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors (Item 8) with the following condition: when the 3 nonconforcrung doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors. The owner 4 has until November 1, 1999, to complete the following items: Item 4, the ceiling in boiler room; Item 7, the fire 5 alarm system report; and Item 9, the test on the boiler and vent. The owner has until April i, Z000, to complete 6 the corrections on all other items. 7 781 Lincoln Avenue Robert and Fay DeBellis 8 Decision: Variance ganted on fence height. 9 500 Como Avenue (rescheduled from 6-30-99) 10 (Orders withdrawn by Fire Prevention. They have come to an agreement with 500 Como Avenue; therefore, the 11 appeal is moot.) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey � Coleman Harris � Benanav � Reiter � Bostrom � Lantry ✓ � � O 22 Adopted by Council: 23 Date: � v-., . �.S \`�°�°� 24 Adopti Certified by Council Secretary 25 By: � 1. {� ,.�� � 26 Approved y ayor: 27 Date: l°�,a 28 By: Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney : Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council : City Council Offices Gerry Strathman, 266-8575 25, 1999 8-18-99 I GREEN SHEET oE.�.,re�ro.ccrae caa , ❑ rnr�newar 9q -pi'i No 63281 mx�aunate ancouc�. ❑ arvanuc nounxs � a �.,�� �.�,,.�a ❑���,�,� ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the 8-17-99 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 1667 Ames Avenue, 243 Lexington Parkway South, 853 Randolph Avenue, 1505-1513-1521 McAfee Street, 923 Agate Street, 1115 Greenbrier Street, 2086 Marshall Avenue, 781 Lincoln Avenue, and 500 Como Avenue. ra� PIANNING COMMISSION CIB COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION Has ihis perwNfirm everworked under a con6ac[ for this department'� YES NO Has Mis persoNfrm ever been a city empbY�7 YES NO Does this persoNfi�m possess a s�611 not iwrtnallypossessetl by any curteM city empbyee7 YES NO Is this persoNfirm a tarpeted vendM YES NO all ves answers on IFAPPROVED to TRANSACTION S C08T/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO ACTNITY NUMBER �� g �� NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, August 17, 1999 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer STAFF PRESENT: Jon Hegner, Code Enforcement; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement; Phillip Owens, Fire Prevention; Mike Urmann, Fire Prevention The meeting was called to order at 132 p.m. 1667 Ames Avenue Ruby Eggum, owner, appeared and stated she is appealing the fire doors issue. She does not care to replace them because it is very expensive. Gerry Strathman asked are there any concems about a variance being granted in this case. Mike Urmann responded no. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconfornung doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with confornung fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 243 Lexington Parkway South (Appeal withdrawn.) 853 Randolph Avenue (Laid over from 7-20-99) (No one appeared representing the property.) Mike Urmann reported the owner was given two options at the July 20 meeting: maintain bids to install an escape window or vacate the room being used for sleeping. The owner was then suppose to call Fire Prevention for approval. Mr. Urmann has not heard from him. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. 1505.1513,1521 McAfee Street (Rescheduled from 8-10-99) 1521 - Mike Urmann reported the gazage doors panels are deteriorating to the point they are emitting water into the surface of the gazage doors. Mr. Lindbeck responded it is $600 apiece to replace the four panels. Water is not entering the gazage. He has not received any complaints from the tenants. The outside is chipping away slightly, and a small portion of the outer panel is missing. G� � � PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 8-17-99 Page 2 1521 - Mr. Strathman asked was moisture observed entering the gazage. Mr. Urmann responded it is obvious from the deterioration of the doors that moisture is entering the door panels. The majority of the deterioration is towards the bottom of the door. Eventually the door will not be structurally sound; someone will open it and it will fall. 1505 - Mr. Lindbeck stated he is appealing Item 1(scrape and repaint unprotected wooden surfaces on gazage; replace deteriorated gazage door panels) and Item 5(remove old caulk around tub enclosure and recaulk to make water tight). The garage doors are in better shape than 1521 McAfee. Item 5 is unnecessary. There are slight dirt and brown spots in some azeas, but tlus is a housekeeping issue. 1505 - Mr. Urmann responded the caulk is deteriorating with mold and mildew, and is not adhering in a11 azeas. The only way to fix it is to recaulk, otherwise there wiil be gaps in the caulk. Patching has not been done in a worlananlike manner. It is not water tight nor code compliant. The garage doors aze in an earlier stage of deteriozation than 1521 McAfee, but must be addressed. 1513 - Mr. Lindbeck stated he is appealing the following: Item 1(scrape and repaint garage wood trim and unprotected wooden surfaces; replace deteriorated wood panel garage doors), Item 2(replace the damaged door frame and brick mold to Unit #3), Item 4(repair and repaint damaged wa11s and ceiling damage in the bathroom of Unit #4 and as needed throughout; damage must be repaired in a professional manner), and Item 7(Replace damaged and missing bathroom tiles; also remove old caulk and recaulk azound ali bathtub enclosures). 1513 - Item 1 is not necessary, stated Mr. Lindbeck. The wood has a slight bubble, and is starting to deteriorate, but so is the whole building. Mr. Lindbeck will have to raise rent to cover the cost of the garage doors. A tenant locked himself out, and broke in the door frame. Mr. Lindbeck would like to repair the frame instead of replacing it. The leak in the ceiling was repaired, but Mr. Urmann says it was not done in a workmanlike manner. Scraping it will create a mess. Mr. Lindbeck could not find any missing tiles. There are one or rivo specks of mold on the caulk. 1513 - Mr. Urmann reported the frame has been kicked in more than once, and he does not think the deadbolt will secure in the frame anymore. This is a security issue. The brick mold �s to keep the moisture out of the frame. The garage doors aze the same situation as the other two addresses. For Item 4, a piece of sheetrock was put in place and molded over. It was a quick patch that was not done well nor under code. The material should be removed and done correctly. Some bathroom tiles were not adhered to the surfaces. Mr. Strathman asked about the urgency of the caulking. Mr. Urmann responded it is under the housing code. The purpose is to make sure the tub enclosure stays water tight in order for the structure around the tub to maintain its integrity. The more moisture that gets in, the less likely that the wood holding the walls up will stay structurally sound. ��- �s �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 8-17-99 Page 3 As for the certificates of occupancy, Mr. Lindbeck asked why he has to post them on the outside. His front enhies are never locked. Gerry Strathman made his decisions as follows: 1505 McAfee Street: Variance is granted on the garage doors and on the order to remove old caulk and recaullc azound ali bathtub enclosures until the ne� certificate of occupancy inspection. The certificate of occupancy can be posted in the entryway of the building as long as the entrance remains unlocked. 1513 McAfee Street: Variance is granted on the gazage doors and on the order to remove oid caulk and recaulk around a11 bathtub enclosures until the ne� certificate of occupancy inspection. The cer[ificate of occupancy can be posted in the enhyway of the building as long as the entrance remains unlocked. The appeal is denied on the damaged door frame and brick mold in Unit #3. The appeal is denied on the damaged wa11s and damaged ceiling in Unit #4. 1521 McAfee Street: Variance is granted on the gazage doors until the next certificate of occupancy inspection. The certificate of occupancy can be posted in the entsyway of the building as long as the entrance remains unlocked. 923 Agate Street Daniel Otto stated he is appealing the vacant building fee because he is not working and is being treated by a doctor for an illness. Paying the fee would be a financial hardship. Steve Magner reported the building has been condemned since December 1998, there is a possibility of illegal occupancy, and it is in a dilapidated condition. The owner has been ordered to vacate, and Code Enforcement has recently opened a vacant building file. It must haue a code compliance certificate before occupancy is allowed. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal and explained the vacant building fees are levied by the City because inspectors have to do more frequent inspections on these properties. Financial hardship is not a sufficient reason to waive the fee. 1115 Greenbrier Street James Jaszczak, Head Custodian of Arlington Hills Lutheran Church, appeared and stated he is appealing Item 5: Remove all locks other than panic hardwaze on southwest exit doors where panic hazdwaze is required. No other locks allowed. (Mr. Jaszczak presented photographs to Gerry Strathman and Phillip Owens.) Mr. Jaszczak installed the lower gate for security reasons because there is a preschool on the upstairs floor and a clothing giveaway store on the first floor. When the preschool is open, the gate is closed so no one can enter through that direction. When the building is occupied for Sunday school, the gates aze in the locked open posifion and the dead bolts are unlocked. When �� � �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 8-17-99 Page 4 the building is not occupied, the gates ate deadbolted shut, but two exits aze still there in an emergency. Mr. 7aszczak is hoping for a variance. Mr. Strathman asked is there a piace with no access to e�ts. Mr. Jaszczak responded only a certain doonvay when the gates aze closed. Mr. Sirathxnan asked if a person was standing in front of the locked gates, how would that person get out in case of a fire. About 100 feet north or east down the hallways, responded Mr. Jaszczak. Going east, a person would haue to go down steps, down a hallway, and out the front door. A person could also go into one of the classroom and push out the window screen. It would be a 30 foot drop. Phillip Owens reported he was not made awaze of these gates by the inspector. The gates are prohibited in the means of egress; the two doors in the photograph are required means of egress. The church and the day caze operation are places of assembly; therefore, they aze required to have the panic release door latches and no other. Not only are the doors padlocked, but they also have a padlocked gate in front of them. This obstructs the means of egress and causes a dead end conidor; which is another code violation. The building is not sprinkled, and the travel distance to the two remaining exits is in excess of the code allowed. Also, the corridors are not a simple configuration. It is a u-shaped corridor. There are several problems: egress obstructions, unlawful corridar obstructions, dead end corridors, and the travel distance issue. Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the September 21 Property Code Enforcement meeting. This will allow a fire department inspector and Mr. Jaszczak to meet and discuss a plan to allow the building to meet its security needs and be in conformance with fire codes. This decision was agreeable to Mr. Owens and Mr. Jaszczak. 2086 Marshall Avenne Lorri Steffen, owner, appeared and stated the property was purchased in February. Many repairs have been made. She would like the order waived to replace the fire doors. These are the original solid wood doors. Also, she is having a difficult time finding a contractor to handle some of the other items. (Ms. Steffen presented photographs to Gerry Strathman.) Mr. Strathman asked how much time she needed for the other items. Ms. Steffen responded she could haue things completed by spring. Mike Urmann reported some items should be dealt with prior to the winter: the boiler room ceiling, the heating system test, and the fire alarm system report. Ms. Steffen responded the boiler room ceiling is a disaster. She is assessing whether to install a sprinkler system or sheetrock over the open azeas. She should be able to fmd a contractor by this winter. �� � �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 8-17-99 Page 5 Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors (Item 8) on the following condifion: when the nonconfoimiug doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with confonuing fire rated doors. The owner has until November 1, 1999, to complete the following items: Item 4, the ceiling in boiler room; Item 7, the fire alarm system report; and Item 9, the test on the boiler and vent. The owner has unril April 1, 2000, to complete the corrections on all other items. 781 Lincoln Avenue (The DeBellis presented a booklet to Gerry Strathman and to Jon Hegner. This booklet was later retained for the file.) Robert and Fay DeBeliis, owners, appeared. Mr. DeBellis stated they are requesting a vaziance to consiruct a 14 foot long section of fence above the 6'6" fence height allowed by code. They built a berm, which is about 3 feet tall at the highest point. Between the gazage and the end of the berm is the14 foot section. They would like to install an eight foot fence. Why does it need to be eight feet high, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. DeBellis responded it will be the same height as the first 25 feet of the fence, and will match the neighbor's fence. The elevation of the alley goes downward, and the neighbars fence is 6'6". The berm has been built a11 the way to the neighbor's gazage. What the DeBellis would like to do is make the fence straight all the way across. All the neighbors and The Wild Onion are in support of the fence height. One of the reasons they are asking for an eight foot fence is because they back onto a commercial neighborhood. The elevafion for the Wild Onion is taller. With a 6'6" fence, the DeBellis' would still see vehicles. For sound, noise, esthetics, they aze asking for a variance. John Hegner reported if it was a natural grade with elevation changes, he would support a variance. Since it l�as been built up, the variance has been denied. If the DeBellis' get an eight foot fence, everyone may want one. Mr. Strathman asked for the rationale behind the City's limit of 6'/z feet. Mr. Hegner responded that maybe 6'6" is a decent height for privacy. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the fence height. However, the DeBeliis' should not encourage their neighbors to build eight foot fences; the situation here is unique, and Mr. Strathman is not attempting to set a precedent here. The meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m. rrn Note: The orders for 500 Como Avenue haue been withdrawn by Fire Prevention. Fire Prevention has come to an agreement with the owners. Therefore, the appeal is moot. council File # g_ q_ R 1 � JRICtNAL Presented Refesed To RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Green Sheet # 63281 Committee Date �S 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paui hereby certifies and approves the August 17, 2 1999, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Properiy Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 addresses: 4 Propert�pUealed Apnellant 5 1667 Ames Avenue Ruby Eggum 6 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 7 nonconfornaing doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 8 building must otherwise be in compliance. 9 243 Lexington Pazkwav South 10 (Appeal withdrawn.) ll 853 Randolph Avenue (Laid over from 7-20-99) 12 Decision: Appeal denied. 13 Patrick Byrne Richard Lemke 14 1505 McAfee Street (Rescheduled from 8-10-99) Tom Lindbeck for Lindbeck Family Trust 15 Decisions: Variance is granted on the garage doors and the order to remove old caulk and recaulk around all 16 bathtub enclosures until the next certificate of occupancy inspection. The certificate of occupancy can be 17 posted in the entryway of the building as long as the entrance is unlocked. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1513 McAfee Street (Rescheduled from 8-10-99) Tom Lindbeck for Lindbeck Family Trust Decision: Variance is granted on the gazage doars and on the order to remove old caulk and recaulk around all bathtub enclosures until the next certificate of occupancy inspecrion. The certificate of occupancy can be posted in the entryway of the building as long as the entrance is unlocked. The appeal is denied on the damaged door frame and brick mold in Unit #3. The appeal is denied on the damaged walls and damaged ceiling in Unit #4. 1521 McAfee Street (Rescheduled from 8-10-99) Tom Lindbeck for Lindbeck Family Trust Decision: Variance is granted on the gazage doars until the ne� certificate of occupancy inspection. The certificate of occupancy can be posted in the entryway of the building as long as the entrance is unlocked. 923 Agate Street Decision: Appeal denied. Daniel Otto 30 1115 Greenbrier Street James 7aszczak for Arlington Hills Lutheran 31 Decision: Laid over to the September 21 Properiy Code Enforcement meeting. Green Sheet 63281 q9-8'1� 1 2086 Mazshall Avenue Lorri Steffen 2 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors (Item 8) with the following condition: when the 3 nonconforcrung doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors. The owner 4 has until November 1, 1999, to complete the following items: Item 4, the ceiling in boiler room; Item 7, the fire 5 alarm system report; and Item 9, the test on the boiler and vent. The owner has until April i, Z000, to complete 6 the corrections on all other items. 7 781 Lincoln Avenue Robert and Fay DeBellis 8 Decision: Variance ganted on fence height. 9 500 Como Avenue (rescheduled from 6-30-99) 10 (Orders withdrawn by Fire Prevention. They have come to an agreement with 500 Como Avenue; therefore, the 11 appeal is moot.) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey � Coleman Harris � Benanav � Reiter � Bostrom � Lantry ✓ � � O 22 Adopted by Council: 23 Date: � v-., . �.S \`�°�°� 24 Adopti Certified by Council Secretary 25 By: � 1. {� ,.�� � 26 Approved y ayor: 27 Date: l°�,a 28 By: Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney : Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council : City Council Offices Gerry Strathman, 266-8575 25, 1999 8-18-99 I GREEN SHEET oE.�.,re�ro.ccrae caa , ❑ rnr�newar 9q -pi'i No 63281 mx�aunate ancouc�. ❑ arvanuc nounxs � a �.,�� �.�,,.�a ❑���,�,� ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the 8-17-99 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 1667 Ames Avenue, 243 Lexington Parkway South, 853 Randolph Avenue, 1505-1513-1521 McAfee Street, 923 Agate Street, 1115 Greenbrier Street, 2086 Marshall Avenue, 781 Lincoln Avenue, and 500 Como Avenue. ra� PIANNING COMMISSION CIB COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION Has ihis perwNfirm everworked under a con6ac[ for this department'� YES NO Has Mis persoNfrm ever been a city empbY�7 YES NO Does this persoNfi�m possess a s�611 not iwrtnallypossessetl by any curteM city empbyee7 YES NO Is this persoNfirm a tarpeted vendM YES NO all ves answers on IFAPPROVED to TRANSACTION S C08T/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO ACTNITY NUMBER �� g �� NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, August 17, 1999 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer STAFF PRESENT: Jon Hegner, Code Enforcement; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement; Phillip Owens, Fire Prevention; Mike Urmann, Fire Prevention The meeting was called to order at 132 p.m. 1667 Ames Avenue Ruby Eggum, owner, appeared and stated she is appealing the fire doors issue. She does not care to replace them because it is very expensive. Gerry Strathman asked are there any concems about a variance being granted in this case. Mike Urmann responded no. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconfornung doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with confornung fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 243 Lexington Parkway South (Appeal withdrawn.) 853 Randolph Avenue (Laid over from 7-20-99) (No one appeared representing the property.) Mike Urmann reported the owner was given two options at the July 20 meeting: maintain bids to install an escape window or vacate the room being used for sleeping. The owner was then suppose to call Fire Prevention for approval. Mr. Urmann has not heard from him. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. 1505.1513,1521 McAfee Street (Rescheduled from 8-10-99) 1521 - Mike Urmann reported the gazage doors panels are deteriorating to the point they are emitting water into the surface of the gazage doors. Mr. Lindbeck responded it is $600 apiece to replace the four panels. Water is not entering the gazage. He has not received any complaints from the tenants. The outside is chipping away slightly, and a small portion of the outer panel is missing. G� � � PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 8-17-99 Page 2 1521 - Mr. Strathman asked was moisture observed entering the gazage. Mr. Urmann responded it is obvious from the deterioration of the doors that moisture is entering the door panels. The majority of the deterioration is towards the bottom of the door. Eventually the door will not be structurally sound; someone will open it and it will fall. 1505 - Mr. Lindbeck stated he is appealing Item 1(scrape and repaint unprotected wooden surfaces on gazage; replace deteriorated gazage door panels) and Item 5(remove old caulk around tub enclosure and recaulk to make water tight). The garage doors are in better shape than 1521 McAfee. Item 5 is unnecessary. There are slight dirt and brown spots in some azeas, but tlus is a housekeeping issue. 1505 - Mr. Urmann responded the caulk is deteriorating with mold and mildew, and is not adhering in a11 azeas. The only way to fix it is to recaulk, otherwise there wiil be gaps in the caulk. Patching has not been done in a worlananlike manner. It is not water tight nor code compliant. The garage doors aze in an earlier stage of deteriozation than 1521 McAfee, but must be addressed. 1513 - Mr. Lindbeck stated he is appealing the following: Item 1(scrape and repaint garage wood trim and unprotected wooden surfaces; replace deteriorated wood panel garage doors), Item 2(replace the damaged door frame and brick mold to Unit #3), Item 4(repair and repaint damaged wa11s and ceiling damage in the bathroom of Unit #4 and as needed throughout; damage must be repaired in a professional manner), and Item 7(Replace damaged and missing bathroom tiles; also remove old caulk and recaulk azound ali bathtub enclosures). 1513 - Item 1 is not necessary, stated Mr. Lindbeck. The wood has a slight bubble, and is starting to deteriorate, but so is the whole building. Mr. Lindbeck will have to raise rent to cover the cost of the garage doors. A tenant locked himself out, and broke in the door frame. Mr. Lindbeck would like to repair the frame instead of replacing it. The leak in the ceiling was repaired, but Mr. Urmann says it was not done in a workmanlike manner. Scraping it will create a mess. Mr. Lindbeck could not find any missing tiles. There are one or rivo specks of mold on the caulk. 1513 - Mr. Urmann reported the frame has been kicked in more than once, and he does not think the deadbolt will secure in the frame anymore. This is a security issue. The brick mold �s to keep the moisture out of the frame. The garage doors aze the same situation as the other two addresses. For Item 4, a piece of sheetrock was put in place and molded over. It was a quick patch that was not done well nor under code. The material should be removed and done correctly. Some bathroom tiles were not adhered to the surfaces. Mr. Strathman asked about the urgency of the caulking. Mr. Urmann responded it is under the housing code. The purpose is to make sure the tub enclosure stays water tight in order for the structure around the tub to maintain its integrity. The more moisture that gets in, the less likely that the wood holding the walls up will stay structurally sound. ��- �s �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 8-17-99 Page 3 As for the certificates of occupancy, Mr. Lindbeck asked why he has to post them on the outside. His front enhies are never locked. Gerry Strathman made his decisions as follows: 1505 McAfee Street: Variance is granted on the garage doors and on the order to remove old caulk and recaullc azound ali bathtub enclosures until the ne� certificate of occupancy inspection. The certificate of occupancy can be posted in the entryway of the building as long as the entrance remains unlocked. 1513 McAfee Street: Variance is granted on the gazage doors and on the order to remove oid caulk and recaulk around a11 bathtub enclosures until the ne� certificate of occupancy inspection. The cer[ificate of occupancy can be posted in the enhyway of the building as long as the entrance remains unlocked. The appeal is denied on the damaged door frame and brick mold in Unit #3. The appeal is denied on the damaged wa11s and damaged ceiling in Unit #4. 1521 McAfee Street: Variance is granted on the gazage doors until the next certificate of occupancy inspection. The certificate of occupancy can be posted in the entsyway of the building as long as the entrance remains unlocked. 923 Agate Street Daniel Otto stated he is appealing the vacant building fee because he is not working and is being treated by a doctor for an illness. Paying the fee would be a financial hardship. Steve Magner reported the building has been condemned since December 1998, there is a possibility of illegal occupancy, and it is in a dilapidated condition. The owner has been ordered to vacate, and Code Enforcement has recently opened a vacant building file. It must haue a code compliance certificate before occupancy is allowed. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal and explained the vacant building fees are levied by the City because inspectors have to do more frequent inspections on these properties. Financial hardship is not a sufficient reason to waive the fee. 1115 Greenbrier Street James Jaszczak, Head Custodian of Arlington Hills Lutheran Church, appeared and stated he is appealing Item 5: Remove all locks other than panic hardwaze on southwest exit doors where panic hazdwaze is required. No other locks allowed. (Mr. Jaszczak presented photographs to Gerry Strathman and Phillip Owens.) Mr. Jaszczak installed the lower gate for security reasons because there is a preschool on the upstairs floor and a clothing giveaway store on the first floor. When the preschool is open, the gate is closed so no one can enter through that direction. When the building is occupied for Sunday school, the gates aze in the locked open posifion and the dead bolts are unlocked. When �� � �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 8-17-99 Page 4 the building is not occupied, the gates ate deadbolted shut, but two exits aze still there in an emergency. Mr. 7aszczak is hoping for a variance. Mr. Strathman asked is there a piace with no access to e�ts. Mr. Jaszczak responded only a certain doonvay when the gates aze closed. Mr. Sirathxnan asked if a person was standing in front of the locked gates, how would that person get out in case of a fire. About 100 feet north or east down the hallways, responded Mr. Jaszczak. Going east, a person would haue to go down steps, down a hallway, and out the front door. A person could also go into one of the classroom and push out the window screen. It would be a 30 foot drop. Phillip Owens reported he was not made awaze of these gates by the inspector. The gates are prohibited in the means of egress; the two doors in the photograph are required means of egress. The church and the day caze operation are places of assembly; therefore, they aze required to have the panic release door latches and no other. Not only are the doors padlocked, but they also have a padlocked gate in front of them. This obstructs the means of egress and causes a dead end conidor; which is another code violation. The building is not sprinkled, and the travel distance to the two remaining exits is in excess of the code allowed. Also, the corridors are not a simple configuration. It is a u-shaped corridor. There are several problems: egress obstructions, unlawful corridar obstructions, dead end corridors, and the travel distance issue. Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the September 21 Property Code Enforcement meeting. This will allow a fire department inspector and Mr. Jaszczak to meet and discuss a plan to allow the building to meet its security needs and be in conformance with fire codes. This decision was agreeable to Mr. Owens and Mr. Jaszczak. 2086 Marshall Avenne Lorri Steffen, owner, appeared and stated the property was purchased in February. Many repairs have been made. She would like the order waived to replace the fire doors. These are the original solid wood doors. Also, she is having a difficult time finding a contractor to handle some of the other items. (Ms. Steffen presented photographs to Gerry Strathman.) Mr. Strathman asked how much time she needed for the other items. Ms. Steffen responded she could haue things completed by spring. Mike Urmann reported some items should be dealt with prior to the winter: the boiler room ceiling, the heating system test, and the fire alarm system report. Ms. Steffen responded the boiler room ceiling is a disaster. She is assessing whether to install a sprinkler system or sheetrock over the open azeas. She should be able to fmd a contractor by this winter. �� � �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 8-17-99 Page 5 Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors (Item 8) on the following condifion: when the nonconfoimiug doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with confonuing fire rated doors. The owner has until November 1, 1999, to complete the following items: Item 4, the ceiling in boiler room; Item 7, the fire alarm system report; and Item 9, the test on the boiler and vent. The owner has unril April 1, 2000, to complete the corrections on all other items. 781 Lincoln Avenue (The DeBellis presented a booklet to Gerry Strathman and to Jon Hegner. This booklet was later retained for the file.) Robert and Fay DeBeliis, owners, appeared. Mr. DeBellis stated they are requesting a vaziance to consiruct a 14 foot long section of fence above the 6'6" fence height allowed by code. They built a berm, which is about 3 feet tall at the highest point. Between the gazage and the end of the berm is the14 foot section. They would like to install an eight foot fence. Why does it need to be eight feet high, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. DeBellis responded it will be the same height as the first 25 feet of the fence, and will match the neighbor's fence. The elevation of the alley goes downward, and the neighbars fence is 6'6". The berm has been built a11 the way to the neighbor's gazage. What the DeBellis would like to do is make the fence straight all the way across. All the neighbors and The Wild Onion are in support of the fence height. One of the reasons they are asking for an eight foot fence is because they back onto a commercial neighborhood. The elevafion for the Wild Onion is taller. With a 6'6" fence, the DeBellis' would still see vehicles. For sound, noise, esthetics, they aze asking for a variance. John Hegner reported if it was a natural grade with elevation changes, he would support a variance. Since it l�as been built up, the variance has been denied. If the DeBellis' get an eight foot fence, everyone may want one. Mr. Strathman asked for the rationale behind the City's limit of 6'/z feet. Mr. Hegner responded that maybe 6'6" is a decent height for privacy. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the fence height. However, the DeBeliis' should not encourage their neighbors to build eight foot fences; the situation here is unique, and Mr. Strathman is not attempting to set a precedent here. The meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m. rrn Note: The orders for 500 Como Avenue haue been withdrawn by Fire Prevention. Fire Prevention has come to an agreement with the owners. Therefore, the appeal is moot.