Loading...
99-876Council File # —g��i Green Sheet # 101628 Presented by_ Referred To RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 13 Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the September 7, 2 1999, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Properiy Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 addresses: 4 Proroerty Ap en aled Ap eo Ilant 930, 944, 956 St. Paul Avenue Robert O. Mast for Johnson Estate Properties Decision: Variance granted on the nonconfomung doars with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconform.ing doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated dooxs, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 9 1978 Ashland Avenue Donovan L. McCain, Jr. 10 Decision; Vaziance granted on the nonconfornung doors with the following conditions: 1) when the ll nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with confornvng fire rated doors, 2) the 12 building must otherwise be in compliance. 13 1847 and 1853 Randolnh Avenue, 1807 and 1817 Ford Parkwav Lorrie Steffen 14 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 15 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 16 building must otherwise be in compliance. The appeal is denied on the latches for these doors. 17 1293, 1299, and 1305 Grand Avenue Eugene Sitzman 18 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 19 nonconforming doors need to be repiaced, they will be replaced with conforxning fire rated doors, 2) the 20 building must otherwise be in compliance. 21 1022 Arkwright Street Mian tlluned 22 Decision: Variance gxanted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 23 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doars, 2) the 24 building must otherwise be in compliance. 25 685 North Street (Laid over from 8-10-99) Ze Moua 26 Decision: Appeal denied. 27 28 405 Burlington Road Ed Webster for Elizabeth Ann Webster 29 Decision: Variance granted on the individual sewage treahnent system as long as the present owner is the only 30 occupant of this properry. Green Sheet 101628 1 852 and 854 Universitv Avenue West 2 Decision: Appeal denied. Winston T. Nguyen 3 1440 Edterton Street Bridget D. Budgetts 4 Decision: Laid over to the September 21, 1999, Property Code Enforcement meeting. 5 162 York Avenue East 6 Decision: Appeal denied. Leonazd Mackley °19-�9� 7 658 and 660 Lawson Avenue East Beverly Horn 8 Decision: Variance granted on the carpet in the bathrooms as long as the present tenants occupy the units. Once 9 the occupancy changes, the carpet will have to be removed. 10 180 Le�ngton Parkway North 11 Decision: Appeal denied. 12 340 Cedar Street 13 (Appeal withdrawn) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 -�� '� ��__ �__� ��__ : - . . �__ ��__ :� �__ ��__ �aas z� 22 23 Adopted by Council: Date �� �� \S �\�9� 24 25 Adoption Certified by Council Seeretary 26 By: `�� � ��.,�� �-- - 27 Approved b Mayor: 28 Date: �Z r� 29 By:�� Tad Gullickson for Lexicorp Requested by Department o£ : Form Approved by City Attomey ; Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � 2 qq'89s. Council Offices �:s GREEN SHEET N Gerry Strathman, 266-8575 September 15, 1999 xurem cae RWi1NG OR�FR TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES or...,�row� arvcaMn. ❑ CT'ATiOMEY ❑ 1.11YCtFMK ❑ wuxauamvicraon ❑ wwry�acavi�ccra ❑ wvai�ae�umrwn ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the 9-7-99 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement appeals for the following addresses: 930, 944, 956 St. Paul Avenue; 1978 Ashland Averiue; 1847 and 1853 Randolph Avenue, 1807 and 1817 Ford Parkway; 1293, 1299, 1305 Grand Avenue; 1022 Arkwright Street; 685 North Street; 405 Burlington Road; 852 and 854 University Avenue West; 1440 Edgerton Street; 162 York Avenue East; 658 and 660 Lawson Avenue East; 180 Lexington Parkway North; 340 Cedar Street. a PLANNING COMMISSION q6 COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION OPPOR7UNI7Y (Who. Whaf, When. Where. WhY) Has ihis personlfrtn ever vroriced untler a contract for thie departmeM7 VES NO H86 ihie P��Nfirm ever been a pty dnPloYee9 YES NO Does M�is pe�saNfirm possess a sltill rat nwmallyposeesseA by airyl wrteM city empbyce? YES NO b tltia peBONfifm a tafpeted vendoY! YES NO �i 1 � Ili i • tia _..._., . �.�:_-+�.:.wS.� - . ... .,,. ,.,,...s., . OF TRANSACTION SOURCE COST/REVENUE BUDfiETED (CIRCAE ONE) ACTNT'NUMBER YEE NO [ �1 -:r]r_ml �3, 'r 1 �- �� � NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, September 7, 1999 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer STAFF PRESENT: Peter Gallagher, Public Works; Thomas LeClair, License, Inspections, Environmental Protection (LIEP); Phillip Owens, Fire Prevention; Michael Urmann, Fire Prevention The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. 930. 944, 956 St. Paul Avenue Robert O. Mast, agent for Johnson Estate Properties, appeared and stated he is seeking to grandfather in the e�sting apaxtment doors. The doors have been there as long as Johnson has owned the properties. The buildings aze approximately 45 to 50 yeazs old. Mike Urmann, Fire Prevenfion, reported the Fire Department has no objections to a variance. The building is othenvise in good order. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: i) when the nonconfonni�g doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must othercvise be in compliance. 1978 Ashland Avenue Donovan L. McCain, Jr., owner, appeazed and stated he is appealing the 20 minute fire rating for the doors. Gerry Strathman stated it is indicated on the application for appeal that the proposal is for interconnected electrical smoke detectors. Mr. McCain responded that is already in place. Mike Urmann reported he has no objections to a standard variance. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: I) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with confornvng fire rated doars, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1847 and 1853 Rando�h Avenue.1807 and 1817 Ford Parkwav Lorrie Steffen, owner, appeazed and stated she is requesting a variance on all the doors at the properties listed above. She is also appealing the locking mechanisms on the doors because she is being asked to remove the chain locks. All these older doors had existing lower locks. Many of the doors had been reinforced with another chain or a slide bolt. This is the first time Ms. Steffen has been asked to remove the chain locks. It does not seem to be an issue for the tenants to get out quickly if there are two locks on the door plus a chain lock. �� D � l� NOTES OF 'THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING, 9-7-99 Page 2 Mike Urmann reported the fire code is specific regarding locking mechanisms on exit doors. They require a single motion lock. For security reasons this has been amended in the City to allow two locks so there would be two morions: if the door knob locks would unlock when the door knob is turned, that is still counted as one motion. On top of that, a deadbolt is allowed, which is required by code. If these two locks are in place, then they require the chain lock or slide bolt be removed. The reason is for the speed of egress and the ability of the tenants in a smoke situafion to e�t safely. It seems the door lock plus the dead bolt is suff cient security, stated Mr. Strathman. Ms. Steffen responded it is additional security for the tenant because the lock cannot be opened from the outside. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they wili be replaced with confornning fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. The appeal is denied on the latches for these doors citing he does not see a compelling reason to allow a variance from the code. 1293.1299, and 1305 Grand Avenue Michael Keller, caretaker, appeared and stated he is requesting a variance on the 20 minute fire rating on the gazden level apartments doors. Gerry Strathman stated the application for appeal also mentions the boiler test and chain locks. Mr. Keller responded the inspector granted a 30 day eatension on the boiler test and also said the bottom lock handle is okay. The only issue is the fire rated doors. Mike Urmann reported the situation on the doors is the standard appeal. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need Yo be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1022 Arkwright Street Mian I. Alnned, owner, appeared and stated he is applying for a variance from the 20 minute fire rated doors. Mike Urmann reported this is the same situation as the others. 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. t l D�� NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING, 9-7-99 Page 3 685 North Street (Laid over from 8-10-99) No one appeazed representing the property. Mike Urmann reported this was laid over from 8-10-99 to send the adjacent properiy owners through the Dispute Resolution Center. The owner of the tree sriunp was asked to get back in contact with Fire Prevention, but has not done so. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal citing the appellant did not appeaz and there has been ample tune to resolve this matter. 405 Burlington Road Ed Webster, son of owner Elizabeth Ann Webster, appeared and stated the house was built in 1939. It has a septic system and cess pool. The Websters appeared at a legislative hearing a few years ago, and was told everyfliing was on hold. They then received another notice January 1999 to connect to the City sewer. They have done some research on this and found that the basement has to be torn up to install a sewage ejector. A neighbor did this and the cost was over $14,000 to run the pipe into the house. The sewer ejector system requires a venting system, but Mr. Webster is not sure where the vent can go. Elizabeth Webster will be 79 years of age in December, and has lived in Highwood a11 of her life. No one else lives in the house except her. This could cost $20,000 to do this, and Ms. Webster is on a fixed income. Mr. Webster realizes the system has to be fixed, but how to pay for it is the probiem. (Tom LeClair handed in the Individual Sewage Treahnent System Annual Inspection Report.) Mr. LeClair reported this issue appeazed previously in front of the legislative hearing officer. The City ordinance states when a sewer is available, the properiy has to be connected to it, Peter Gallagher reported there is a sanitary sewer available on Burlington Road built in 1976, and 405 Burlington has about 100 feet of frontage on that road. Gerry Strathman asked how far would be the run of pipe. Ed Webster responded about 200 feet. Any active problems with the system, asked Mr.Strathman. Mr. LeClair responded not to his knowledge. Gerry Strathman granted a variance as long as the present owner is the only occupant of this property. However, this requirement is not going to go away; this matter will have to be dealt with eventually. 852 and 854 University Avenue West Joseph Barbeau, owner, and his attorney, appeared. The attorney stated they are appealing the condexnnation order following a fire that did damage on the inside of a building that was leased � l �� l� NOTES OF "I'HE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING, 9-7-99 Page 4 for commercial purposes. It is their desire to repair the building and let the tenants back in to run the restauraut. Plullip Owens reported there was a fire in the restaurant, which did significant damage. The properiy was condemned. It was to be repaired under permit and by competent people in the trades. Fire investigators feel tbat wiring may have been done by people other than competent tradesman. The building department has informed him that walls may have been constructed without a permit, and a second floor was being constructed without a permit. Mr. Owens has no objection to the building being repaired, but he is concerned that non skilled tradesman are doing the work and without a permit. Gerry Strathman stated the application for appeal reads that there is a permit enclosed; however, one was not enclosed. The attorney responded he had one copy. (The attorney gave Mr. Owens a copy of the permit to review.) The father of the owner appeared and stated he did haue a permit to do electrical work, and $1800 was paid for the work. There is just ceiling and smoke damage from the fire. Mr. Owens explained that once the appropriate permits aze secured, the work done, the work signed off by the trades inspector, then the properiy will be reinspected, and the certificate of occupancy will be reissued. The restaurant cannot be operated while repairs are being done. The attorney responded the appeal was filed so that they would have additional time to get permits and take caze of this matter. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal because the original orders are correct; however, it seems that everything is on track. 1440 EdEerton Street (This matter has been laid over to the September 21, 1999, Property Code Enforcement meeting per a request from John Betz, Code Enforcement.) 162 York Avenue East Leonard Mackley, General manager of Tiisner Carton, appeared and stated they aze disputing the pallet item on the Deficiency/Correction List. The code reads pallets can be stacked within zero feet of the building as long as it is masonry. The pallets are stacked against a masonry block wall. Phillip Owens reported the primary linear wall as Transite. He has been in discussion with Frank Berg, structural engineer, and Chris Cahill, fire protection engineer. Both have indicated that although Transite is a cement based masonry product, it is considered lightweight concrete and does not provide the fire resistant abilities of a standazd masonry construcrion wa1L Transite is not a masonry structure far the purposes of the code. Gerry Strathman asked is there a code for c 1�1-g�l (� NOTE5 OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING, 9-7-99 Page 5 that or an interpretarion. Mr. Owens responded it is their interpretation of the characteristics of the material. He is not disputing this is a masonry material, but he is saying it does not meet the intent of masonry construction. (Mr. Owens showed the code to Mr. Sha#hman.) Mr. Mackley stated there aze probably 15,000 to 20,OOQ pallets thexe, but there aze only about 200 against that wall and there is quite a distance between the rest of the pallets. The business needs every inch they can get. Transite is made out of cement and asbestos fibers. What is on the other side of the wall and how many workers are in this building, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Mackley responded a pallet office is on one end of the wall. There are 30 people in the building. Mr. Owens stated a fire in a stack of pallets is very intense and poses the highest chalienge to a sprinkler system. If there are no sprinklers, tlus is a terrible fire. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. He is lacking the expertise to determine whether Transite is a masonry material; therefore, he will accept the fire departmenYs determination that this is not a masonry material as intended by the fire code. However, if Mr. Mackley has evidence that refutes the fire departmenYs position, that evidence could be brought to the City Council meeting. He will need to show evidence that Transite does meet the intent of masonry construction. 658 and 660 Lawson Avenue East Beverly Horn, owner, appeazed and stated she has four apartments and they all have carpet in the bathrooms. All the tenants would like to keep it. Also, this was not mentioned in her application for appeal, but there aze some bazs on the windows in Apartment 3, which the tenants wouid like to keep for safety reasons. The tenants have moved their bedroom to another area that has a door and other windows. Mr. Stratlunan asked what would be the value of putting bars on one window and not the other. Ms. Horn responded the windows are skinnier. The tenants have lived there 17 yeazs. What is under the carpet in the bathrooms and what is located below the bathrooms, asked Mr. Strathman. Ms. Horn responded linoleum, but some floors she has not seen. Another bathroom is under these bathrooms. There has not been any leaking except in one bathroom. The entire building has been re-plumbed this year. Mike Urmann reported he did not know the windows were going to be an appeal issue and has not reseazched it; therefore, he cannot speak on the windows. However, the bars on the windows should be able to open from the inside. As for the bathroom, there aze two reasons for the bathroom floor to be of an impervious material: water leakage onto the floor and sanitation, which is addressed in the housing code. Carpet is not something tUax can be easily cleaned and sanitized in the bathroom azea. �- \��lp NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING, 9-7-99 Page 6 Ms. Aorn stated there are no cluldren in the building. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the carpet in the bathroom as long as the present tenants occupy the units citing there is no evidence of water leakage. Once the occupancy changes, the carpet will ha�e to be removed. With respect to the window, the inspector will look at the situation. If the owner still wants to appeal, the application will be accepted without another filing fee. 180 Le%ington Parkwav North Tad Gullickson, owner of Lexicorp, appeazed and stated the inspector asked for latching devices for a11 stairwell doors. Mr. Gullickson asked for a copy of the fire prevention uniform code. In that code, there aze two things required: one hour fire resistant doors and self ciosing devices. The doors have both of those. There is no requirement in the code for latching devices. Mike Urmann reported the door has to close and latch. In a fire condifion, there are currents of wind that will push a door open and make it non funcfional. The locking mechanisms hoid it in the frame. The requirement comes from the building code and was not in the code section supplied to Mr. Gullickson. (Mr. Urmann showed Mr. Gullickson the code for this requirement and explained it. Mr. Gullickson was later suppiied a copy of the code.) Mr. Gullickson stated he thought the issue was clear; the inspector recommended he appeal this. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal citing it is a requirement of the building code. If the doors do not latch, they may not be effective for their purpose. 340 Cedar Street (Appeal withdrawn per Greg Johnson, LIEP.) The meeting was adjourned at 2:24 pm. � Council File # —g��i Green Sheet # 101628 Presented by_ Referred To RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 13 Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the September 7, 2 1999, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Properiy Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 addresses: 4 Proroerty Ap en aled Ap eo Ilant 930, 944, 956 St. Paul Avenue Robert O. Mast for Johnson Estate Properties Decision: Variance granted on the nonconfomung doars with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconform.ing doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated dooxs, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 9 1978 Ashland Avenue Donovan L. McCain, Jr. 10 Decision; Vaziance granted on the nonconfornung doors with the following conditions: 1) when the ll nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with confornvng fire rated doors, 2) the 12 building must otherwise be in compliance. 13 1847 and 1853 Randolnh Avenue, 1807 and 1817 Ford Parkwav Lorrie Steffen 14 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 15 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 16 building must otherwise be in compliance. The appeal is denied on the latches for these doors. 17 1293, 1299, and 1305 Grand Avenue Eugene Sitzman 18 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 19 nonconforming doors need to be repiaced, they will be replaced with conforxning fire rated doors, 2) the 20 building must otherwise be in compliance. 21 1022 Arkwright Street Mian tlluned 22 Decision: Variance gxanted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 23 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doars, 2) the 24 building must otherwise be in compliance. 25 685 North Street (Laid over from 8-10-99) Ze Moua 26 Decision: Appeal denied. 27 28 405 Burlington Road Ed Webster for Elizabeth Ann Webster 29 Decision: Variance granted on the individual sewage treahnent system as long as the present owner is the only 30 occupant of this properry. Green Sheet 101628 1 852 and 854 Universitv Avenue West 2 Decision: Appeal denied. Winston T. Nguyen 3 1440 Edterton Street Bridget D. Budgetts 4 Decision: Laid over to the September 21, 1999, Property Code Enforcement meeting. 5 162 York Avenue East 6 Decision: Appeal denied. Leonazd Mackley °19-�9� 7 658 and 660 Lawson Avenue East Beverly Horn 8 Decision: Variance granted on the carpet in the bathrooms as long as the present tenants occupy the units. Once 9 the occupancy changes, the carpet will have to be removed. 10 180 Le�ngton Parkway North 11 Decision: Appeal denied. 12 340 Cedar Street 13 (Appeal withdrawn) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 -�� '� ��__ �__� ��__ : - . . �__ ��__ :� �__ ��__ �aas z� 22 23 Adopted by Council: Date �� �� \S �\�9� 24 25 Adoption Certified by Council Seeretary 26 By: `�� � ��.,�� �-- - 27 Approved b Mayor: 28 Date: �Z r� 29 By:�� Tad Gullickson for Lexicorp Requested by Department o£ : Form Approved by City Attomey ; Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � 2 qq'89s. Council Offices �:s GREEN SHEET N Gerry Strathman, 266-8575 September 15, 1999 xurem cae RWi1NG OR�FR TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES or...,�row� arvcaMn. ❑ CT'ATiOMEY ❑ 1.11YCtFMK ❑ wuxauamvicraon ❑ wwry�acavi�ccra ❑ wvai�ae�umrwn ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the 9-7-99 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement appeals for the following addresses: 930, 944, 956 St. Paul Avenue; 1978 Ashland Averiue; 1847 and 1853 Randolph Avenue, 1807 and 1817 Ford Parkway; 1293, 1299, 1305 Grand Avenue; 1022 Arkwright Street; 685 North Street; 405 Burlington Road; 852 and 854 University Avenue West; 1440 Edgerton Street; 162 York Avenue East; 658 and 660 Lawson Avenue East; 180 Lexington Parkway North; 340 Cedar Street. a PLANNING COMMISSION q6 COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION OPPOR7UNI7Y (Who. Whaf, When. Where. WhY) Has ihis personlfrtn ever vroriced untler a contract for thie departmeM7 VES NO H86 ihie P��Nfirm ever been a pty dnPloYee9 YES NO Does M�is pe�saNfirm possess a sltill rat nwmallyposeesseA by airyl wrteM city empbyce? YES NO b tltia peBONfifm a tafpeted vendoY! YES NO �i 1 � Ili i • tia _..._., . �.�:_-+�.:.wS.� - . ... .,,. ,.,,...s., . OF TRANSACTION SOURCE COST/REVENUE BUDfiETED (CIRCAE ONE) ACTNT'NUMBER YEE NO [ �1 -:r]r_ml �3, 'r 1 �- �� � NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, September 7, 1999 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer STAFF PRESENT: Peter Gallagher, Public Works; Thomas LeClair, License, Inspections, Environmental Protection (LIEP); Phillip Owens, Fire Prevention; Michael Urmann, Fire Prevention The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. 930. 944, 956 St. Paul Avenue Robert O. Mast, agent for Johnson Estate Properties, appeared and stated he is seeking to grandfather in the e�sting apaxtment doors. The doors have been there as long as Johnson has owned the properties. The buildings aze approximately 45 to 50 yeazs old. Mike Urmann, Fire Prevenfion, reported the Fire Department has no objections to a variance. The building is othenvise in good order. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: i) when the nonconfonni�g doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must othercvise be in compliance. 1978 Ashland Avenue Donovan L. McCain, Jr., owner, appeazed and stated he is appealing the 20 minute fire rating for the doors. Gerry Strathman stated it is indicated on the application for appeal that the proposal is for interconnected electrical smoke detectors. Mr. McCain responded that is already in place. Mike Urmann reported he has no objections to a standard variance. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: I) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with confornvng fire rated doars, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1847 and 1853 Rando�h Avenue.1807 and 1817 Ford Parkwav Lorrie Steffen, owner, appeazed and stated she is requesting a variance on all the doors at the properties listed above. She is also appealing the locking mechanisms on the doors because she is being asked to remove the chain locks. All these older doors had existing lower locks. Many of the doors had been reinforced with another chain or a slide bolt. This is the first time Ms. Steffen has been asked to remove the chain locks. It does not seem to be an issue for the tenants to get out quickly if there are two locks on the door plus a chain lock. �� D � l� NOTES OF 'THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING, 9-7-99 Page 2 Mike Urmann reported the fire code is specific regarding locking mechanisms on exit doors. They require a single motion lock. For security reasons this has been amended in the City to allow two locks so there would be two morions: if the door knob locks would unlock when the door knob is turned, that is still counted as one motion. On top of that, a deadbolt is allowed, which is required by code. If these two locks are in place, then they require the chain lock or slide bolt be removed. The reason is for the speed of egress and the ability of the tenants in a smoke situafion to e�t safely. It seems the door lock plus the dead bolt is suff cient security, stated Mr. Strathman. Ms. Steffen responded it is additional security for the tenant because the lock cannot be opened from the outside. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they wili be replaced with confornning fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. The appeal is denied on the latches for these doors citing he does not see a compelling reason to allow a variance from the code. 1293.1299, and 1305 Grand Avenue Michael Keller, caretaker, appeared and stated he is requesting a variance on the 20 minute fire rating on the gazden level apartments doors. Gerry Strathman stated the application for appeal also mentions the boiler test and chain locks. Mr. Keller responded the inspector granted a 30 day eatension on the boiler test and also said the bottom lock handle is okay. The only issue is the fire rated doors. Mike Urmann reported the situation on the doors is the standard appeal. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need Yo be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1022 Arkwright Street Mian I. Alnned, owner, appeared and stated he is applying for a variance from the 20 minute fire rated doors. Mike Urmann reported this is the same situation as the others. 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. t l D�� NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING, 9-7-99 Page 3 685 North Street (Laid over from 8-10-99) No one appeazed representing the property. Mike Urmann reported this was laid over from 8-10-99 to send the adjacent properiy owners through the Dispute Resolution Center. The owner of the tree sriunp was asked to get back in contact with Fire Prevention, but has not done so. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal citing the appellant did not appeaz and there has been ample tune to resolve this matter. 405 Burlington Road Ed Webster, son of owner Elizabeth Ann Webster, appeared and stated the house was built in 1939. It has a septic system and cess pool. The Websters appeared at a legislative hearing a few years ago, and was told everyfliing was on hold. They then received another notice January 1999 to connect to the City sewer. They have done some research on this and found that the basement has to be torn up to install a sewage ejector. A neighbor did this and the cost was over $14,000 to run the pipe into the house. The sewer ejector system requires a venting system, but Mr. Webster is not sure where the vent can go. Elizabeth Webster will be 79 years of age in December, and has lived in Highwood a11 of her life. No one else lives in the house except her. This could cost $20,000 to do this, and Ms. Webster is on a fixed income. Mr. Webster realizes the system has to be fixed, but how to pay for it is the probiem. (Tom LeClair handed in the Individual Sewage Treahnent System Annual Inspection Report.) Mr. LeClair reported this issue appeazed previously in front of the legislative hearing officer. The City ordinance states when a sewer is available, the properiy has to be connected to it, Peter Gallagher reported there is a sanitary sewer available on Burlington Road built in 1976, and 405 Burlington has about 100 feet of frontage on that road. Gerry Strathman asked how far would be the run of pipe. Ed Webster responded about 200 feet. Any active problems with the system, asked Mr.Strathman. Mr. LeClair responded not to his knowledge. Gerry Strathman granted a variance as long as the present owner is the only occupant of this property. However, this requirement is not going to go away; this matter will have to be dealt with eventually. 852 and 854 University Avenue West Joseph Barbeau, owner, and his attorney, appeared. The attorney stated they are appealing the condexnnation order following a fire that did damage on the inside of a building that was leased � l �� l� NOTES OF "I'HE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING, 9-7-99 Page 4 for commercial purposes. It is their desire to repair the building and let the tenants back in to run the restauraut. Plullip Owens reported there was a fire in the restaurant, which did significant damage. The properiy was condemned. It was to be repaired under permit and by competent people in the trades. Fire investigators feel tbat wiring may have been done by people other than competent tradesman. The building department has informed him that walls may have been constructed without a permit, and a second floor was being constructed without a permit. Mr. Owens has no objection to the building being repaired, but he is concerned that non skilled tradesman are doing the work and without a permit. Gerry Strathman stated the application for appeal reads that there is a permit enclosed; however, one was not enclosed. The attorney responded he had one copy. (The attorney gave Mr. Owens a copy of the permit to review.) The father of the owner appeared and stated he did haue a permit to do electrical work, and $1800 was paid for the work. There is just ceiling and smoke damage from the fire. Mr. Owens explained that once the appropriate permits aze secured, the work done, the work signed off by the trades inspector, then the properiy will be reinspected, and the certificate of occupancy will be reissued. The restaurant cannot be operated while repairs are being done. The attorney responded the appeal was filed so that they would have additional time to get permits and take caze of this matter. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal because the original orders are correct; however, it seems that everything is on track. 1440 EdEerton Street (This matter has been laid over to the September 21, 1999, Property Code Enforcement meeting per a request from John Betz, Code Enforcement.) 162 York Avenue East Leonard Mackley, General manager of Tiisner Carton, appeared and stated they aze disputing the pallet item on the Deficiency/Correction List. The code reads pallets can be stacked within zero feet of the building as long as it is masonry. The pallets are stacked against a masonry block wall. Phillip Owens reported the primary linear wall as Transite. He has been in discussion with Frank Berg, structural engineer, and Chris Cahill, fire protection engineer. Both have indicated that although Transite is a cement based masonry product, it is considered lightweight concrete and does not provide the fire resistant abilities of a standazd masonry construcrion wa1L Transite is not a masonry structure far the purposes of the code. Gerry Strathman asked is there a code for c 1�1-g�l (� NOTE5 OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING, 9-7-99 Page 5 that or an interpretarion. Mr. Owens responded it is their interpretation of the characteristics of the material. He is not disputing this is a masonry material, but he is saying it does not meet the intent of masonry construction. (Mr. Owens showed the code to Mr. Sha#hman.) Mr. Mackley stated there aze probably 15,000 to 20,OOQ pallets thexe, but there aze only about 200 against that wall and there is quite a distance between the rest of the pallets. The business needs every inch they can get. Transite is made out of cement and asbestos fibers. What is on the other side of the wall and how many workers are in this building, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Mackley responded a pallet office is on one end of the wall. There are 30 people in the building. Mr. Owens stated a fire in a stack of pallets is very intense and poses the highest chalienge to a sprinkler system. If there are no sprinklers, tlus is a terrible fire. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. He is lacking the expertise to determine whether Transite is a masonry material; therefore, he will accept the fire departmenYs determination that this is not a masonry material as intended by the fire code. However, if Mr. Mackley has evidence that refutes the fire departmenYs position, that evidence could be brought to the City Council meeting. He will need to show evidence that Transite does meet the intent of masonry construction. 658 and 660 Lawson Avenue East Beverly Horn, owner, appeazed and stated she has four apartments and they all have carpet in the bathrooms. All the tenants would like to keep it. Also, this was not mentioned in her application for appeal, but there aze some bazs on the windows in Apartment 3, which the tenants wouid like to keep for safety reasons. The tenants have moved their bedroom to another area that has a door and other windows. Mr. Stratlunan asked what would be the value of putting bars on one window and not the other. Ms. Horn responded the windows are skinnier. The tenants have lived there 17 yeazs. What is under the carpet in the bathrooms and what is located below the bathrooms, asked Mr. Strathman. Ms. Horn responded linoleum, but some floors she has not seen. Another bathroom is under these bathrooms. There has not been any leaking except in one bathroom. The entire building has been re-plumbed this year. Mike Urmann reported he did not know the windows were going to be an appeal issue and has not reseazched it; therefore, he cannot speak on the windows. However, the bars on the windows should be able to open from the inside. As for the bathroom, there aze two reasons for the bathroom floor to be of an impervious material: water leakage onto the floor and sanitation, which is addressed in the housing code. Carpet is not something tUax can be easily cleaned and sanitized in the bathroom azea. �- \��lp NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING, 9-7-99 Page 6 Ms. Aorn stated there are no cluldren in the building. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the carpet in the bathroom as long as the present tenants occupy the units citing there is no evidence of water leakage. Once the occupancy changes, the carpet will ha�e to be removed. With respect to the window, the inspector will look at the situation. If the owner still wants to appeal, the application will be accepted without another filing fee. 180 Le%ington Parkwav North Tad Gullickson, owner of Lexicorp, appeazed and stated the inspector asked for latching devices for a11 stairwell doors. Mr. Gullickson asked for a copy of the fire prevention uniform code. In that code, there aze two things required: one hour fire resistant doors and self ciosing devices. The doors have both of those. There is no requirement in the code for latching devices. Mike Urmann reported the door has to close and latch. In a fire condifion, there are currents of wind that will push a door open and make it non funcfional. The locking mechanisms hoid it in the frame. The requirement comes from the building code and was not in the code section supplied to Mr. Gullickson. (Mr. Urmann showed Mr. Gullickson the code for this requirement and explained it. Mr. Gullickson was later suppiied a copy of the code.) Mr. Gullickson stated he thought the issue was clear; the inspector recommended he appeal this. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal citing it is a requirement of the building code. If the doors do not latch, they may not be effective for their purpose. 340 Cedar Street (Appeal withdrawn per Greg Johnson, LIEP.) The meeting was adjourned at 2:24 pm. � Council File # —g��i Green Sheet # 101628 Presented by_ Referred To RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 13 Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the September 7, 2 1999, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Properiy Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 addresses: 4 Proroerty Ap en aled Ap eo Ilant 930, 944, 956 St. Paul Avenue Robert O. Mast for Johnson Estate Properties Decision: Variance granted on the nonconfomung doars with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconform.ing doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated dooxs, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 9 1978 Ashland Avenue Donovan L. McCain, Jr. 10 Decision; Vaziance granted on the nonconfornung doors with the following conditions: 1) when the ll nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with confornvng fire rated doors, 2) the 12 building must otherwise be in compliance. 13 1847 and 1853 Randolnh Avenue, 1807 and 1817 Ford Parkwav Lorrie Steffen 14 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 15 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 16 building must otherwise be in compliance. The appeal is denied on the latches for these doors. 17 1293, 1299, and 1305 Grand Avenue Eugene Sitzman 18 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 19 nonconforming doors need to be repiaced, they will be replaced with conforxning fire rated doors, 2) the 20 building must otherwise be in compliance. 21 1022 Arkwright Street Mian tlluned 22 Decision: Variance gxanted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the 23 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doars, 2) the 24 building must otherwise be in compliance. 25 685 North Street (Laid over from 8-10-99) Ze Moua 26 Decision: Appeal denied. 27 28 405 Burlington Road Ed Webster for Elizabeth Ann Webster 29 Decision: Variance granted on the individual sewage treahnent system as long as the present owner is the only 30 occupant of this properry. Green Sheet 101628 1 852 and 854 Universitv Avenue West 2 Decision: Appeal denied. Winston T. Nguyen 3 1440 Edterton Street Bridget D. Budgetts 4 Decision: Laid over to the September 21, 1999, Property Code Enforcement meeting. 5 162 York Avenue East 6 Decision: Appeal denied. Leonazd Mackley °19-�9� 7 658 and 660 Lawson Avenue East Beverly Horn 8 Decision: Variance granted on the carpet in the bathrooms as long as the present tenants occupy the units. Once 9 the occupancy changes, the carpet will have to be removed. 10 180 Le�ngton Parkway North 11 Decision: Appeal denied. 12 340 Cedar Street 13 (Appeal withdrawn) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 -�� '� ��__ �__� ��__ : - . . �__ ��__ :� �__ ��__ �aas z� 22 23 Adopted by Council: Date �� �� \S �\�9� 24 25 Adoption Certified by Council Seeretary 26 By: `�� � ��.,�� �-- - 27 Approved b Mayor: 28 Date: �Z r� 29 By:�� Tad Gullickson for Lexicorp Requested by Department o£ : Form Approved by City Attomey ; Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � 2 qq'89s. Council Offices �:s GREEN SHEET N Gerry Strathman, 266-8575 September 15, 1999 xurem cae RWi1NG OR�FR TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES or...,�row� arvcaMn. ❑ CT'ATiOMEY ❑ 1.11YCtFMK ❑ wuxauamvicraon ❑ wwry�acavi�ccra ❑ wvai�ae�umrwn ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the 9-7-99 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement appeals for the following addresses: 930, 944, 956 St. Paul Avenue; 1978 Ashland Averiue; 1847 and 1853 Randolph Avenue, 1807 and 1817 Ford Parkway; 1293, 1299, 1305 Grand Avenue; 1022 Arkwright Street; 685 North Street; 405 Burlington Road; 852 and 854 University Avenue West; 1440 Edgerton Street; 162 York Avenue East; 658 and 660 Lawson Avenue East; 180 Lexington Parkway North; 340 Cedar Street. a PLANNING COMMISSION q6 COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION OPPOR7UNI7Y (Who. Whaf, When. Where. WhY) Has ihis personlfrtn ever vroriced untler a contract for thie departmeM7 VES NO H86 ihie P��Nfirm ever been a pty dnPloYee9 YES NO Does M�is pe�saNfirm possess a sltill rat nwmallyposeesseA by airyl wrteM city empbyce? YES NO b tltia peBONfifm a tafpeted vendoY! YES NO �i 1 � Ili i • tia _..._., . �.�:_-+�.:.wS.� - . ... .,,. ,.,,...s., . OF TRANSACTION SOURCE COST/REVENUE BUDfiETED (CIRCAE ONE) ACTNT'NUMBER YEE NO [ �1 -:r]r_ml �3, 'r 1 �- �� � NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, September 7, 1999 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer STAFF PRESENT: Peter Gallagher, Public Works; Thomas LeClair, License, Inspections, Environmental Protection (LIEP); Phillip Owens, Fire Prevention; Michael Urmann, Fire Prevention The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. 930. 944, 956 St. Paul Avenue Robert O. Mast, agent for Johnson Estate Properties, appeared and stated he is seeking to grandfather in the e�sting apaxtment doors. The doors have been there as long as Johnson has owned the properties. The buildings aze approximately 45 to 50 yeazs old. Mike Urmann, Fire Prevenfion, reported the Fire Department has no objections to a variance. The building is othenvise in good order. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: i) when the nonconfonni�g doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must othercvise be in compliance. 1978 Ashland Avenue Donovan L. McCain, Jr., owner, appeazed and stated he is appealing the 20 minute fire rating for the doors. Gerry Strathman stated it is indicated on the application for appeal that the proposal is for interconnected electrical smoke detectors. Mr. McCain responded that is already in place. Mike Urmann reported he has no objections to a standard variance. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: I) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with confornvng fire rated doars, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1847 and 1853 Rando�h Avenue.1807 and 1817 Ford Parkwav Lorrie Steffen, owner, appeazed and stated she is requesting a variance on all the doors at the properties listed above. She is also appealing the locking mechanisms on the doors because she is being asked to remove the chain locks. All these older doors had existing lower locks. Many of the doors had been reinforced with another chain or a slide bolt. This is the first time Ms. Steffen has been asked to remove the chain locks. It does not seem to be an issue for the tenants to get out quickly if there are two locks on the door plus a chain lock. �� D � l� NOTES OF 'THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING, 9-7-99 Page 2 Mike Urmann reported the fire code is specific regarding locking mechanisms on exit doors. They require a single motion lock. For security reasons this has been amended in the City to allow two locks so there would be two morions: if the door knob locks would unlock when the door knob is turned, that is still counted as one motion. On top of that, a deadbolt is allowed, which is required by code. If these two locks are in place, then they require the chain lock or slide bolt be removed. The reason is for the speed of egress and the ability of the tenants in a smoke situafion to e�t safely. It seems the door lock plus the dead bolt is suff cient security, stated Mr. Strathman. Ms. Steffen responded it is additional security for the tenant because the lock cannot be opened from the outside. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they wili be replaced with confornning fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. The appeal is denied on the latches for these doors citing he does not see a compelling reason to allow a variance from the code. 1293.1299, and 1305 Grand Avenue Michael Keller, caretaker, appeared and stated he is requesting a variance on the 20 minute fire rating on the gazden level apartments doors. Gerry Strathman stated the application for appeal also mentions the boiler test and chain locks. Mr. Keller responded the inspector granted a 30 day eatension on the boiler test and also said the bottom lock handle is okay. The only issue is the fire rated doors. Mike Urmann reported the situation on the doors is the standard appeal. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need Yo be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1022 Arkwright Street Mian I. Alnned, owner, appeared and stated he is applying for a variance from the 20 minute fire rated doors. Mike Urmann reported this is the same situation as the others. 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. t l D�� NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING, 9-7-99 Page 3 685 North Street (Laid over from 8-10-99) No one appeazed representing the property. Mike Urmann reported this was laid over from 8-10-99 to send the adjacent properiy owners through the Dispute Resolution Center. The owner of the tree sriunp was asked to get back in contact with Fire Prevention, but has not done so. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal citing the appellant did not appeaz and there has been ample tune to resolve this matter. 405 Burlington Road Ed Webster, son of owner Elizabeth Ann Webster, appeared and stated the house was built in 1939. It has a septic system and cess pool. The Websters appeared at a legislative hearing a few years ago, and was told everyfliing was on hold. They then received another notice January 1999 to connect to the City sewer. They have done some research on this and found that the basement has to be torn up to install a sewage ejector. A neighbor did this and the cost was over $14,000 to run the pipe into the house. The sewer ejector system requires a venting system, but Mr. Webster is not sure where the vent can go. Elizabeth Webster will be 79 years of age in December, and has lived in Highwood a11 of her life. No one else lives in the house except her. This could cost $20,000 to do this, and Ms. Webster is on a fixed income. Mr. Webster realizes the system has to be fixed, but how to pay for it is the probiem. (Tom LeClair handed in the Individual Sewage Treahnent System Annual Inspection Report.) Mr. LeClair reported this issue appeazed previously in front of the legislative hearing officer. The City ordinance states when a sewer is available, the properiy has to be connected to it, Peter Gallagher reported there is a sanitary sewer available on Burlington Road built in 1976, and 405 Burlington has about 100 feet of frontage on that road. Gerry Strathman asked how far would be the run of pipe. Ed Webster responded about 200 feet. Any active problems with the system, asked Mr.Strathman. Mr. LeClair responded not to his knowledge. Gerry Strathman granted a variance as long as the present owner is the only occupant of this property. However, this requirement is not going to go away; this matter will have to be dealt with eventually. 852 and 854 University Avenue West Joseph Barbeau, owner, and his attorney, appeared. The attorney stated they are appealing the condexnnation order following a fire that did damage on the inside of a building that was leased � l �� l� NOTES OF "I'HE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING, 9-7-99 Page 4 for commercial purposes. It is their desire to repair the building and let the tenants back in to run the restauraut. Plullip Owens reported there was a fire in the restaurant, which did significant damage. The properiy was condemned. It was to be repaired under permit and by competent people in the trades. Fire investigators feel tbat wiring may have been done by people other than competent tradesman. The building department has informed him that walls may have been constructed without a permit, and a second floor was being constructed without a permit. Mr. Owens has no objection to the building being repaired, but he is concerned that non skilled tradesman are doing the work and without a permit. Gerry Strathman stated the application for appeal reads that there is a permit enclosed; however, one was not enclosed. The attorney responded he had one copy. (The attorney gave Mr. Owens a copy of the permit to review.) The father of the owner appeared and stated he did haue a permit to do electrical work, and $1800 was paid for the work. There is just ceiling and smoke damage from the fire. Mr. Owens explained that once the appropriate permits aze secured, the work done, the work signed off by the trades inspector, then the properiy will be reinspected, and the certificate of occupancy will be reissued. The restaurant cannot be operated while repairs are being done. The attorney responded the appeal was filed so that they would have additional time to get permits and take caze of this matter. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal because the original orders are correct; however, it seems that everything is on track. 1440 EdEerton Street (This matter has been laid over to the September 21, 1999, Property Code Enforcement meeting per a request from John Betz, Code Enforcement.) 162 York Avenue East Leonard Mackley, General manager of Tiisner Carton, appeared and stated they aze disputing the pallet item on the Deficiency/Correction List. The code reads pallets can be stacked within zero feet of the building as long as it is masonry. The pallets are stacked against a masonry block wall. Phillip Owens reported the primary linear wall as Transite. He has been in discussion with Frank Berg, structural engineer, and Chris Cahill, fire protection engineer. Both have indicated that although Transite is a cement based masonry product, it is considered lightweight concrete and does not provide the fire resistant abilities of a standazd masonry construcrion wa1L Transite is not a masonry structure far the purposes of the code. Gerry Strathman asked is there a code for c 1�1-g�l (� NOTE5 OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING, 9-7-99 Page 5 that or an interpretarion. Mr. Owens responded it is their interpretation of the characteristics of the material. He is not disputing this is a masonry material, but he is saying it does not meet the intent of masonry construction. (Mr. Owens showed the code to Mr. Sha#hman.) Mr. Mackley stated there aze probably 15,000 to 20,OOQ pallets thexe, but there aze only about 200 against that wall and there is quite a distance between the rest of the pallets. The business needs every inch they can get. Transite is made out of cement and asbestos fibers. What is on the other side of the wall and how many workers are in this building, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Mackley responded a pallet office is on one end of the wall. There are 30 people in the building. Mr. Owens stated a fire in a stack of pallets is very intense and poses the highest chalienge to a sprinkler system. If there are no sprinklers, tlus is a terrible fire. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. He is lacking the expertise to determine whether Transite is a masonry material; therefore, he will accept the fire departmenYs determination that this is not a masonry material as intended by the fire code. However, if Mr. Mackley has evidence that refutes the fire departmenYs position, that evidence could be brought to the City Council meeting. He will need to show evidence that Transite does meet the intent of masonry construction. 658 and 660 Lawson Avenue East Beverly Horn, owner, appeazed and stated she has four apartments and they all have carpet in the bathrooms. All the tenants would like to keep it. Also, this was not mentioned in her application for appeal, but there aze some bazs on the windows in Apartment 3, which the tenants wouid like to keep for safety reasons. The tenants have moved their bedroom to another area that has a door and other windows. Mr. Stratlunan asked what would be the value of putting bars on one window and not the other. Ms. Horn responded the windows are skinnier. The tenants have lived there 17 yeazs. What is under the carpet in the bathrooms and what is located below the bathrooms, asked Mr. Strathman. Ms. Horn responded linoleum, but some floors she has not seen. Another bathroom is under these bathrooms. There has not been any leaking except in one bathroom. The entire building has been re-plumbed this year. Mike Urmann reported he did not know the windows were going to be an appeal issue and has not reseazched it; therefore, he cannot speak on the windows. However, the bars on the windows should be able to open from the inside. As for the bathroom, there aze two reasons for the bathroom floor to be of an impervious material: water leakage onto the floor and sanitation, which is addressed in the housing code. Carpet is not something tUax can be easily cleaned and sanitized in the bathroom azea. �- \��lp NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING, 9-7-99 Page 6 Ms. Aorn stated there are no cluldren in the building. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the carpet in the bathroom as long as the present tenants occupy the units citing there is no evidence of water leakage. Once the occupancy changes, the carpet will ha�e to be removed. With respect to the window, the inspector will look at the situation. If the owner still wants to appeal, the application will be accepted without another filing fee. 180 Le%ington Parkwav North Tad Gullickson, owner of Lexicorp, appeazed and stated the inspector asked for latching devices for a11 stairwell doors. Mr. Gullickson asked for a copy of the fire prevention uniform code. In that code, there aze two things required: one hour fire resistant doors and self ciosing devices. The doors have both of those. There is no requirement in the code for latching devices. Mike Urmann reported the door has to close and latch. In a fire condifion, there are currents of wind that will push a door open and make it non funcfional. The locking mechanisms hoid it in the frame. The requirement comes from the building code and was not in the code section supplied to Mr. Gullickson. (Mr. Urmann showed Mr. Gullickson the code for this requirement and explained it. Mr. Gullickson was later suppiied a copy of the code.) Mr. Gullickson stated he thought the issue was clear; the inspector recommended he appeal this. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal citing it is a requirement of the building code. If the doors do not latch, they may not be effective for their purpose. 340 Cedar Street (Appeal withdrawn per Greg Johnson, LIEP.) The meeting was adjourned at 2:24 pm. �