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.
�