The URL can be used to link to this page

00-28Council File # �0=� �� RESOLUTION CITY OF SAtNT PAUL, MINNESOTA Green Sheet # 101645 Presented Referred To Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the January 4, 2 2000, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Properiy Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 addresses: 4 Properry AQpealed 5 /6 Ap elp lant 6 1844 Grand Avenue Dennis Conoryea 7 Decision: Variance granted with respect to the escape window size in Unit #5; a variance is granted on the 8 nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, 9 they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doars, 2) the buiiding must otherw3se be in compliance. 10 1086 Ielehart Avenue #4 Kathy Brannon 11 Decision: Extension granted to February 29, 2000, to vacate the apariment. 12 111 Emoire Drive Gearge Fredericks for Hi-Way Credit Union 13 Decision: Appeal denied with respect to the 27 sprinkler heads in the lobby area. No vaziance is required for 14 the remaining sprinkler heads in the building. 15 73 Leech Street Laurie Colbeck for Women of Nations 16 Decision: Laid over to the April 18, 2000, Properry Code Enforcement Meeting. 17 924-926 Rice Street Tim Fitzgerald 18 Decision: Variance granted with respect to the flue gas analysis subject to the condirion that the smoke and 19 carbon monoxide detectars are maintained in each of the residential units and the common areas of the building 20 as they currently exist. 21 1861-1871 Randol�,h Avenue Ann Krebes 22 Decision: Appeal denied. 23 1045 Cromwell Avenue (Rescheduled from 1-18-001 Steve Lindholm 24 Decision: Variance granted with respect to adding another fixll bath to the building as long as the occupancy 25 load does not exceed six people. 26 133 7 Arkwrieht Street James Marry 27 Decision: Variance granted on the light fixtures subject to the condition that there must be at least 18 inches of 28 clearance around the light fixtures at all rimes. �d �� 1 1084 Sims Avenue Monica Freeman 2 Decision: Laid over to the March 7, 2000, Property Code Enforcement Meeting. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey � Coleman ,/ Harris ,/ Benanav � Reiter ,/ Bostrom ✓ Lantry � `� O O 11 12 13 Adopted by Council: Date:�. \�, �o �z� 14 —�— 15 Adopfion Certified by Council Secretary — 16 By: �� , � 17 Approved by Mayor: Date c�t �� 18 By: Requested by Department o£ � Form Approved by City Attorney : Approved by Mayar for Submission to Council By: G �v-z� DFPARTMEM/OFFICE7COUNCiL oATE wmAim City Council �-s-z000 GREEN SHEET No �� i 5 G 5 GONiACT PERSpN 8 PFiONE MIUa11Da0s NIUaVDm Gerry Strathman, 266-8560 oE.µ,�sanccra� arccaa�a. MUST BE ON WUNCIL AGENQ4 BY (DA"fE) January 12, 2000 tissww IAAIBFRFOR Grv4iTOR1EY piYQiNlt � �� H1�IIOLLmIYIi.'EiGR AiIf11C111L�FRV/ACCl3 ❑wra�tortumr�xn ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CIJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) CTION RE�UESTm Approving the 1-4-2000 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code En£orcement Appeals for the following addresses: 1844 Grand Avenue, 1086 Iglehart Avenue �{4, 111 Empire Drive, 73 Leech Street, 924-926 Rice Street, 1861-1871 Randolph Avenue, 1045 Cromwell Avenue, 1337_ Arkwright Street, and 1084 Sims Aveaue R COMMENDA IONApprove(A)orReject(R) PERSONALSERVICEMN7RACiSMUSTANSWERTXEFOLLOWINGQUESTIONS: 'I. Hac mic aersonMrm ererworkea mwer a conUacttw mis aepanmem� PLANNING COMMISSION � YES NO CIB COMMITTEE 2. Has thie pereonASrm ever been a City empbyee7 CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION YES NO 3. Does thie peiswufiim poesass a sldll not namallypossesseC by arry curreM cky employee? VES NO 4. Is Nis petsoMrm e ta�pMed verMal YES NO E+�lain a11 Ya answers on seParate sheet aM attech M Oreen sheet MITIATING PROBLEM ISSYJE. OPPORTUNI7Y (Wtw. What. When. Wtwse, WAY) ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED � 4��93y'i,aii �v��"-,`A'v;,:l�'.s+�'sr�!is`L:� �� DISADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED 70TAL AMOUNT OP 7RANSAC7lON S COET/REVENUE BUOGETED (qRCLE ONE� YES NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTNITY NUMBER FlNPNCNL MFORMATION (FXPWI� S� C�-'�� NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING ` ' Tuesday, January 4, 2000 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Stratluuan, Legislative Heating Officer The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Chris Cahill, Fire Prevention; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement; Richard Singerhouse, Code Enforcement; Mike Urmann, Fire Prevention 1844 Grand Avenne Dennis Conoryea stated he would like a variance on the 20 minute fire rated doors. Also, he would like to amend his appeal to include a variance for the escape window in the basement unit, Unit #5. The escape window was grandfathered into the building. The window is 3 inches undex the minimum requirement. The building is brick and right outside of it is the sidewalk. It would be costly to enlazge it. Mike Urmann reported it should be 5.7 square feet. It is a little short of their requirement. Gerry Strathman granted a vaziance with respect to the escape window si2e in Unit #5; a variance is granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be repiaced, they will be replaced with confornung fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1086 Iglehart Avenue #4 The following appeared: Perry deStefano, Southern Minnesota Renional Lega1 Services, and Kathy Brannon, tenant. Mr. deStefano stated the apartment was cited for being overcrowded, but it has not been condemned. His understanding is that the City has purchased the property. Mr. Brannon is asking for an extension to vacate to Februaiy 29, 2000, at which time Ms. Brannon will be moving into a home she is purchasing from Habitat for Humanity. There is parallel litigation in housing court. Ms. Brannon will be court ordered to be out by February 29 anyway. Mike Urmann reported the house is overcrowded. Tt is occupied by seven individuals, and the unit is only lazge enough for foux. He is not opposed to granting a specific time eactension. Gerry Strathman granted an ea�tension to February 29, 2000, to vacate the apartrnent. ill Empire Drive The following appeazed: Larry Raymond, New Mech Companies, and George Fredericks, Hi- Way Credit Union. Mr. Raymond stated they are challenging the order to change the existing standard response sprinklers in a remodeled portion of the building to a quick response sprinkler, which is a requirement of the code. There was an addition added to the building, and a minor modification was done in the e�sting portion of the building. �U-Zg PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT, 1-4-2000 Page 2 Mr. Fredericks stated one of the problems with the remodeling is it was done in six phases. In that process, ceiling heights were changed in the lobby. Sprinklers could have been left at the elevation they were. A soffited light was installed in the center, which caused some heads to be xelocated. Mr. Strathman asked how many sprinklers heads there are. Mr. Fredericks responded 350 in the remodeling portion, 42 of which aze relocated and not changed. About 350 would have to be changed, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Raymond responded that is their understanding in the arder they received. Chris Cahili reported he is not talking about the 300 sprinkler heads installed eazlier this year or last year. What is at issue is a pernut taken in June for the remodeling of 27 sprinkler heads. The sprinkler system may not operate properly because there is one type of head in one area and another type of head in another area, and they aze immediately adjacent with no separations. A fire starting on one side may cause the sprinklers on the other side to operate, doing no good because that is not where the fire is located. Given this new understanding, asked Mr. Strathxnan, is there still an objec6on to repiacing the 27 in the lobby area. Mr. Raymond responded he still has an objection because there is a clear definition between new and existing. Mr. Strathxnan asked what about Mr. Cahiii's concern that in a fire situaxion, the wrong sprinkier heads would be activated. Mr. Raymond responded sensitivity to a quick response and a standazd response sprinkler is an exaggeration of a fire problem. The activation of a particular sprinkler and standard response to quick response is so minute that there wouid not be a pxoblem. Mr. Strathman stated it could consfitute a negative effect on the fire prevention capabilities in the sprinkier system. It is addressed in a different section of that code, added Mr. Cahill, that the situation of different temperature response heads is prokubited in the same room. Mr. Fredericks stated there were six phases before this lobby was finished, and this issue could have been brought up prior to that time. It was not cleazly stated what Mr. Cahill wanted in the lobby. Mr. Strathman denied the request for a variance for the sprinkler system citing the sprinkler heads in the lobby will need to be replaced with a quick response type. No variance is required for the sprinkler system in the rest of the construction. The decision of the fire department is a reasonable interpretation, and Mr. Strattiman is concemed about the functionality-more than the language-of the code. It is not an unreasonable hardship to ask that the 27 heads be replaced with a quick response system. The safety concems are legitimate. 73 Leech Street Kim Moralez-Ha11 for Women of Nations appeared and stated Fire Prevention would like them to cut there occupancy down to 25. They aze now at 46. The building is in compliance of 0o z� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT, 1-4-2000 Page 3 eveiything except for the occupancy. They aze riirniug an office into another bedroom. Come January 8, all the rooms will be painted. They just need time to renovate the bathroom and the laundry room, which will give them ten full bathrooms. 5he is hoping to get an extension to the end of Mazch or April. Mike Urmann reported the sleeping rooms total occupants should be 24 at this time. If their intent is to e�pand the sleeping azea, then he could address expanding the occupancy load as the sleeping rooms increase. (Gerry Strathman and Mike Urmann viewed the blueprints. The blueprints were later retumed.) When they aze fuushed, asked Mr. Strathman, they will be in compliance with the code. Ms. Hall responded yes. The Zoning Committee gave her permission to have 26 to 46 occupancy. She cannot cut it down to 26 because there is nowhere for the women to go. Are there any other concerns with the building. Mr. Urmann responded no because he can come into agreement with the occupants on the other issues. Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the April 18, 2000, Properry Code Enforcement meering. The building will be able to maintain the current occupancy load until that date. Also, the Zoning Committee cannot override the codes regarding occupancy. 924-926 Rice Street (No one appeared representing the properiy.) Mike Urmann stated the owner has hard wired combination smoke and carbon monoxide detectors throughout his residential units. Mr. Urmann is willing to allow that in place of flue gas analysis as long as the detectors are maintained. Gerry Sfrathman granted the variance with respect to the flue gas analysis subject to the condition that the smoke and cazbon monoxide detectors are maintained in each of the residential units and the common areas of the building as they currently e�st. 1861-1&71 Randolph Avenue (No one appeazed representing the property.) Mike Urmann reported there are several orders within this building for which Fire Prevention has revoked the certificate of occupancy and cited the owner. Mr. Urmann wouid be opposed to an ` appeal for 20 minute fire rated doars because the building is not otherwise in compliance. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. • r : PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT, 1-4-2000 1045 Cromwell Avenue (Rescheduled from 1-1&00} Page 4 Steve Lindholm, owner, appeazed and stated this is a fourplex. One unit occupies the Third Floor. There are six bedrooms, one bathroom, and an additional sink in one of the bedrooms. The requirement is to have one full bathroom for every five people; therefore, he is one person over for a full bath, but he does have an additional sink. This building configuration was developed in 1985 by a previous owner, who submitted the plan to the City of Saint Paul. That plan was approved at that time. Mr. Lindholm's intention is to continue to operate the building as it was operated in 1986. Mike Urmann reported he is not opposed to this appeal as long as the occupancy does not increase above six people. Mr. Lindholm responded he is okay with this. Gerry Strathman granted a variance with respect to adding another full bath to the building as long as the occupancy load does not exceed six people. 1337 Arkwright Street James Marty, owner, appeazed and stated he is in the process of a certificate of occupancy inspection. One requirement is to provide giobes on all the lights in all the closets in the building. This is a 62 unit building and there are 125 of these fiatures, which have been there since 1975 when the building was constructed. The buiiding has gone through numerous certificate of occupancy inspections, and the globes have not been mentioned. It is a UL approved porcelain base fixture attached to the electrical box on the ceiling, eight feet off the floor, centered in the middle of the walk in closets, and two feet or more away from any items. Replacing them may cost over $3,000. A globe will not fit over the porcelain fixture. An electrician would have to pull off the entire thing. Mr. Marty is asking for a vaziance to leave the light fixtures as is. Mike Urmann reported the fire code requires a minimum of 18 inch cleazance around light fixtures that haue open exposed bulbs. If the owner can maintain the storage at 18 inches away, a variance will not be a problem. Mr. Marty responded they aze centered in the middle of 6' X 6' walk in closets. If there is something close to a fixhue, those individual fixtures will be replaced. Gerry Strathuian granted a variance on the light fixtures sub}ect to the condition that there must be at least 18 inches of cleazance around the bulbs at all times. 1084 Sims Avenue T4ie following appeared: Perry deStefano, Southern Minnesota Regional L,egal Services, and Monica Freeman, tenant. Mr. deStefano stated there was a condemnation at 1084 Sims. Ms. Freeman and her husband rented out this premises from the owner. It was a vacant property and did not have the proper certificate, which makes it illegal to rent. The place was condemned by an inspector driving on the outside of the property. Mr. de5tefano°s understanding is the inside has to be inspected for code compliance. The list does not contain life threatening repairs. Ms. Freeman and her husband are innocent third parties. The husband is a cazetaker and was to UU-`Z� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT, 1-4-20Q0 Page 5 receive a reduction of rent for services; this is why they cannot file an escrow because they do not have a full amount of rent. Mr. deStefano is asking for an e�rtension to vacate to February 29, 2000, and Ms. Freeman would be referred to the Housing Information Office (HIO) to obtain the $250 in relocafion benefits. Then they could move from the premises. Gerry Strathman asked aze they paying rent now. Mr. deStefano responded he instructed them not to pay rent. They do not have any money. Mr. Strathman asked aze the tenants stiil providing maintenance work. Ms. Freeman responded her husband has not been contacted by David Medin (the owner) to go back to work. The agreement was that after they pay the deposit of $925 and pay the rent of $815 for December, the following month her husband Chris would work and bring the place up to proper conditions for them to live there. Mr. Strathman stated if the order is suspended, it would not be condemned, and the rent would be due and owing. Mr. deStefano responded tecluucally that would be tnxe, but the property could remain condemned so Ms. Freeman can go to the Housing Information Office (HIO). It is a tight housing market. She may be able to find housing the end of February. At that time, she would have accumulated one months rent. Monica Freeman stated she is a Section 8 recipient also. Ifthe property was up to code, she would be able to get Section 8 to pay the rent. She did not know she was in a condexnned unit. Steve Magner reported the issue is murky because there were a number of exterior violations issued to the owner. The owner did not make the needed repairs, and he was notified, This is a registered vacant building, and the property needs a code compliance certificate before Code Enfarcement will release the certificate of occupancy for that unit. It should not have been occupied without a completed code compliance inspection. The tenant has been duped to rent a properry that is unfit. It was condemned by Code Enforcement to provide Ms. Freeman the means to go to HIO for emergency assistance. Code Enfarcement is not against setting a time limit for Ms. Freeman to vacate. The owner has a tendency to be lackadaisical. Also, the repairs cannot be done overnight. The property is condemned to make the tenant eligible for relocation assistance, sta#ed Mr. Strathxnan. If the appeal of the condemnation order is granted, then the property will not be condemned. Mr. Magner responded a layover may be the way to handle this. Mr. deStefano responded that would be a good idea and suggested a lay over after Febraary 29. Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the March 7, 2000, Property Code Enfarcement meeting. This properry will remain condemned and the enforcement of the vacate order wiil be suspended until the matter is discussed again. The meeting was adj oumed at 2:15 p.m. C"i'"i�l Council File # �0=� �� RESOLUTION CITY OF SAtNT PAUL, MINNESOTA Green Sheet # 101645 Presented Referred To Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the January 4, 2 2000, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Properiy Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 addresses: 4 Properry AQpealed 5 /6 Ap elp lant 6 1844 Grand Avenue Dennis Conoryea 7 Decision: Variance granted with respect to the escape window size in Unit #5; a variance is granted on the 8 nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, 9 they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doars, 2) the buiiding must otherw3se be in compliance. 10 1086 Ielehart Avenue #4 Kathy Brannon 11 Decision: Extension granted to February 29, 2000, to vacate the apariment. 12 111 Emoire Drive Gearge Fredericks for Hi-Way Credit Union 13 Decision: Appeal denied with respect to the 27 sprinkler heads in the lobby area. No vaziance is required for 14 the remaining sprinkler heads in the building. 15 73 Leech Street Laurie Colbeck for Women of Nations 16 Decision: Laid over to the April 18, 2000, Properry Code Enforcement Meeting. 17 924-926 Rice Street Tim Fitzgerald 18 Decision: Variance granted with respect to the flue gas analysis subject to the condirion that the smoke and 19 carbon monoxide detectars are maintained in each of the residential units and the common areas of the building 20 as they currently exist. 21 1861-1871 Randol�,h Avenue Ann Krebes 22 Decision: Appeal denied. 23 1045 Cromwell Avenue (Rescheduled from 1-18-001 Steve Lindholm 24 Decision: Variance granted with respect to adding another fixll bath to the building as long as the occupancy 25 load does not exceed six people. 26 133 7 Arkwrieht Street James Marry 27 Decision: Variance granted on the light fixtures subject to the condition that there must be at least 18 inches of 28 clearance around the light fixtures at all rimes. �d �� 1 1084 Sims Avenue Monica Freeman 2 Decision: Laid over to the March 7, 2000, Property Code Enforcement Meeting. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey � Coleman ,/ Harris ,/ Benanav � Reiter ,/ Bostrom ✓ Lantry � `� O O 11 12 13 Adopted by Council: Date:�. \�, �o �z� 14 —�— 15 Adopfion Certified by Council Secretary — 16 By: �� , � 17 Approved by Mayor: Date c�t �� 18 By: Requested by Department o£ � Form Approved by City Attorney : Approved by Mayar for Submission to Council By: G �v-z� DFPARTMEM/OFFICE7COUNCiL oATE wmAim City Council �-s-z000 GREEN SHEET No �� i 5 G 5 GONiACT PERSpN 8 PFiONE MIUa11Da0s NIUaVDm Gerry Strathman, 266-8560 oE.µ,�sanccra� arccaa�a. MUST BE ON WUNCIL AGENQ4 BY (DA"fE) January 12, 2000 tissww IAAIBFRFOR Grv4iTOR1EY piYQiNlt � �� H1�IIOLLmIYIi.'EiGR AiIf11C111L�FRV/ACCl3 ❑wra�tortumr�xn ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CIJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) CTION RE�UESTm Approving the 1-4-2000 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code En£orcement Appeals for the following addresses: 1844 Grand Avenue, 1086 Iglehart Avenue �{4, 111 Empire Drive, 73 Leech Street, 924-926 Rice Street, 1861-1871 Randolph Avenue, 1045 Cromwell Avenue, 1337_ Arkwright Street, and 1084 Sims Aveaue R COMMENDA IONApprove(A)orReject(R) PERSONALSERVICEMN7RACiSMUSTANSWERTXEFOLLOWINGQUESTIONS: 'I. Hac mic aersonMrm ererworkea mwer a conUacttw mis aepanmem� PLANNING COMMISSION � YES NO CIB COMMITTEE 2. Has thie pereonASrm ever been a City empbyee7 CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION YES NO 3. Does thie peiswufiim poesass a sldll not namallypossesseC by arry curreM cky employee? VES NO 4. Is Nis petsoMrm e ta�pMed verMal YES NO E+�lain a11 Ya answers on seParate sheet aM attech M Oreen sheet MITIATING PROBLEM ISSYJE. OPPORTUNI7Y (Wtw. What. When. Wtwse, WAY) ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED � 4��93y'i,aii �v��"-,`A'v;,:l�'.s+�'sr�!is`L:� �� DISADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED 70TAL AMOUNT OP 7RANSAC7lON S COET/REVENUE BUOGETED (qRCLE ONE� YES NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTNITY NUMBER FlNPNCNL MFORMATION (FXPWI� S� C�-'�� NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING ` ' Tuesday, January 4, 2000 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Stratluuan, Legislative Heating Officer The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Chris Cahill, Fire Prevention; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement; Richard Singerhouse, Code Enforcement; Mike Urmann, Fire Prevention 1844 Grand Avenne Dennis Conoryea stated he would like a variance on the 20 minute fire rated doors. Also, he would like to amend his appeal to include a variance for the escape window in the basement unit, Unit #5. The escape window was grandfathered into the building. The window is 3 inches undex the minimum requirement. The building is brick and right outside of it is the sidewalk. It would be costly to enlazge it. Mike Urmann reported it should be 5.7 square feet. It is a little short of their requirement. Gerry Strathman granted a vaziance with respect to the escape window si2e in Unit #5; a variance is granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be repiaced, they will be replaced with confornung fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1086 Iglehart Avenue #4 The following appeared: Perry deStefano, Southern Minnesota Renional Lega1 Services, and Kathy Brannon, tenant. Mr. deStefano stated the apartment was cited for being overcrowded, but it has not been condemned. His understanding is that the City has purchased the property. Mr. Brannon is asking for an extension to vacate to Februaiy 29, 2000, at which time Ms. Brannon will be moving into a home she is purchasing from Habitat for Humanity. There is parallel litigation in housing court. Ms. Brannon will be court ordered to be out by February 29 anyway. Mike Urmann reported the house is overcrowded. Tt is occupied by seven individuals, and the unit is only lazge enough for foux. He is not opposed to granting a specific time eactension. Gerry Strathman granted an ea�tension to February 29, 2000, to vacate the apartrnent. ill Empire Drive The following appeazed: Larry Raymond, New Mech Companies, and George Fredericks, Hi- Way Credit Union. Mr. Raymond stated they are challenging the order to change the existing standard response sprinklers in a remodeled portion of the building to a quick response sprinkler, which is a requirement of the code. There was an addition added to the building, and a minor modification was done in the e�sting portion of the building. �U-Zg PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT, 1-4-2000 Page 2 Mr. Fredericks stated one of the problems with the remodeling is it was done in six phases. In that process, ceiling heights were changed in the lobby. Sprinklers could have been left at the elevation they were. A soffited light was installed in the center, which caused some heads to be xelocated. Mr. Strathman asked how many sprinklers heads there are. Mr. Fredericks responded 350 in the remodeling portion, 42 of which aze relocated and not changed. About 350 would have to be changed, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Raymond responded that is their understanding in the arder they received. Chris Cahili reported he is not talking about the 300 sprinkler heads installed eazlier this year or last year. What is at issue is a pernut taken in June for the remodeling of 27 sprinkler heads. The sprinkler system may not operate properly because there is one type of head in one area and another type of head in another area, and they aze immediately adjacent with no separations. A fire starting on one side may cause the sprinklers on the other side to operate, doing no good because that is not where the fire is located. Given this new understanding, asked Mr. Strathxnan, is there still an objec6on to repiacing the 27 in the lobby area. Mr. Raymond responded he still has an objection because there is a clear definition between new and existing. Mr. Strathxnan asked what about Mr. Cahiii's concern that in a fire situaxion, the wrong sprinkier heads would be activated. Mr. Raymond responded sensitivity to a quick response and a standazd response sprinkler is an exaggeration of a fire problem. The activation of a particular sprinkler and standard response to quick response is so minute that there wouid not be a pxoblem. Mr. Strathman stated it could consfitute a negative effect on the fire prevention capabilities in the sprinkier system. It is addressed in a different section of that code, added Mr. Cahill, that the situation of different temperature response heads is prokubited in the same room. Mr. Fredericks stated there were six phases before this lobby was finished, and this issue could have been brought up prior to that time. It was not cleazly stated what Mr. Cahill wanted in the lobby. Mr. Strathman denied the request for a variance for the sprinkler system citing the sprinkler heads in the lobby will need to be replaced with a quick response type. No variance is required for the sprinkler system in the rest of the construction. The decision of the fire department is a reasonable interpretation, and Mr. Strattiman is concemed about the functionality-more than the language-of the code. It is not an unreasonable hardship to ask that the 27 heads be replaced with a quick response system. The safety concems are legitimate. 73 Leech Street Kim Moralez-Ha11 for Women of Nations appeared and stated Fire Prevention would like them to cut there occupancy down to 25. They aze now at 46. The building is in compliance of 0o z� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT, 1-4-2000 Page 3 eveiything except for the occupancy. They aze riirniug an office into another bedroom. Come January 8, all the rooms will be painted. They just need time to renovate the bathroom and the laundry room, which will give them ten full bathrooms. 5he is hoping to get an extension to the end of Mazch or April. Mike Urmann reported the sleeping rooms total occupants should be 24 at this time. If their intent is to e�pand the sleeping azea, then he could address expanding the occupancy load as the sleeping rooms increase. (Gerry Strathman and Mike Urmann viewed the blueprints. The blueprints were later retumed.) When they aze fuushed, asked Mr. Strathman, they will be in compliance with the code. Ms. Hall responded yes. The Zoning Committee gave her permission to have 26 to 46 occupancy. She cannot cut it down to 26 because there is nowhere for the women to go. Are there any other concerns with the building. Mr. Urmann responded no because he can come into agreement with the occupants on the other issues. Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the April 18, 2000, Properry Code Enforcement meering. The building will be able to maintain the current occupancy load until that date. Also, the Zoning Committee cannot override the codes regarding occupancy. 924-926 Rice Street (No one appeared representing the properiy.) Mike Urmann stated the owner has hard wired combination smoke and carbon monoxide detectors throughout his residential units. Mr. Urmann is willing to allow that in place of flue gas analysis as long as the detectors are maintained. Gerry Sfrathman granted the variance with respect to the flue gas analysis subject to the condition that the smoke and cazbon monoxide detectors are maintained in each of the residential units and the common areas of the building as they currently e�st. 1861-1&71 Randolph Avenue (No one appeazed representing the property.) Mike Urmann reported there are several orders within this building for which Fire Prevention has revoked the certificate of occupancy and cited the owner. Mr. Urmann wouid be opposed to an ` appeal for 20 minute fire rated doars because the building is not otherwise in compliance. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. • r : PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT, 1-4-2000 1045 Cromwell Avenue (Rescheduled from 1-1&00} Page 4 Steve Lindholm, owner, appeazed and stated this is a fourplex. One unit occupies the Third Floor. There are six bedrooms, one bathroom, and an additional sink in one of the bedrooms. The requirement is to have one full bathroom for every five people; therefore, he is one person over for a full bath, but he does have an additional sink. This building configuration was developed in 1985 by a previous owner, who submitted the plan to the City of Saint Paul. That plan was approved at that time. Mr. Lindholm's intention is to continue to operate the building as it was operated in 1986. Mike Urmann reported he is not opposed to this appeal as long as the occupancy does not increase above six people. Mr. Lindholm responded he is okay with this. Gerry Strathman granted a variance with respect to adding another full bath to the building as long as the occupancy load does not exceed six people. 1337 Arkwright Street James Marty, owner, appeazed and stated he is in the process of a certificate of occupancy inspection. One requirement is to provide giobes on all the lights in all the closets in the building. This is a 62 unit building and there are 125 of these fiatures, which have been there since 1975 when the building was constructed. The buiiding has gone through numerous certificate of occupancy inspections, and the globes have not been mentioned. It is a UL approved porcelain base fixture attached to the electrical box on the ceiling, eight feet off the floor, centered in the middle of the walk in closets, and two feet or more away from any items. Replacing them may cost over $3,000. A globe will not fit over the porcelain fixture. An electrician would have to pull off the entire thing. Mr. Marty is asking for a vaziance to leave the light fixtures as is. Mike Urmann reported the fire code requires a minimum of 18 inch cleazance around light fixtures that haue open exposed bulbs. If the owner can maintain the storage at 18 inches away, a variance will not be a problem. Mr. Marty responded they aze centered in the middle of 6' X 6' walk in closets. If there is something close to a fixhue, those individual fixtures will be replaced. Gerry Strathuian granted a variance on the light fixtures sub}ect to the condition that there must be at least 18 inches of cleazance around the bulbs at all times. 1084 Sims Avenue T4ie following appeared: Perry deStefano, Southern Minnesota Regional L,egal Services, and Monica Freeman, tenant. Mr. deStefano stated there was a condemnation at 1084 Sims. Ms. Freeman and her husband rented out this premises from the owner. It was a vacant property and did not have the proper certificate, which makes it illegal to rent. The place was condemned by an inspector driving on the outside of the property. Mr. de5tefano°s understanding is the inside has to be inspected for code compliance. The list does not contain life threatening repairs. Ms. Freeman and her husband are innocent third parties. The husband is a cazetaker and was to UU-`Z� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT, 1-4-20Q0 Page 5 receive a reduction of rent for services; this is why they cannot file an escrow because they do not have a full amount of rent. Mr. deStefano is asking for an e�rtension to vacate to February 29, 2000, and Ms. Freeman would be referred to the Housing Information Office (HIO) to obtain the $250 in relocafion benefits. Then they could move from the premises. Gerry Strathman asked aze they paying rent now. Mr. deStefano responded he instructed them not to pay rent. They do not have any money. Mr. Strathman asked aze the tenants stiil providing maintenance work. Ms. Freeman responded her husband has not been contacted by David Medin (the owner) to go back to work. The agreement was that after they pay the deposit of $925 and pay the rent of $815 for December, the following month her husband Chris would work and bring the place up to proper conditions for them to live there. Mr. Strathman stated if the order is suspended, it would not be condemned, and the rent would be due and owing. Mr. deStefano responded tecluucally that would be tnxe, but the property could remain condemned so Ms. Freeman can go to the Housing Information Office (HIO). It is a tight housing market. She may be able to find housing the end of February. At that time, she would have accumulated one months rent. Monica Freeman stated she is a Section 8 recipient also. Ifthe property was up to code, she would be able to get Section 8 to pay the rent. She did not know she was in a condexnned unit. Steve Magner reported the issue is murky because there were a number of exterior violations issued to the owner. The owner did not make the needed repairs, and he was notified, This is a registered vacant building, and the property needs a code compliance certificate before Code Enfarcement will release the certificate of occupancy for that unit. It should not have been occupied without a completed code compliance inspection. The tenant has been duped to rent a properry that is unfit. It was condemned by Code Enforcement to provide Ms. Freeman the means to go to HIO for emergency assistance. Code Enfarcement is not against setting a time limit for Ms. Freeman to vacate. The owner has a tendency to be lackadaisical. Also, the repairs cannot be done overnight. The property is condemned to make the tenant eligible for relocation assistance, sta#ed Mr. Strathxnan. If the appeal of the condemnation order is granted, then the property will not be condemned. Mr. Magner responded a layover may be the way to handle this. Mr. deStefano responded that would be a good idea and suggested a lay over after Febraary 29. Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the March 7, 2000, Property Code Enfarcement meeting. This properry will remain condemned and the enforcement of the vacate order wiil be suspended until the matter is discussed again. The meeting was adj oumed at 2:15 p.m. C"i'"i�l Council File # �0=� �� RESOLUTION CITY OF SAtNT PAUL, MINNESOTA Green Sheet # 101645 Presented Referred To Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the January 4, 2 2000, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Properiy Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 addresses: 4 Properry AQpealed 5 /6 Ap elp lant 6 1844 Grand Avenue Dennis Conoryea 7 Decision: Variance granted with respect to the escape window size in Unit #5; a variance is granted on the 8 nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, 9 they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doars, 2) the buiiding must otherw3se be in compliance. 10 1086 Ielehart Avenue #4 Kathy Brannon 11 Decision: Extension granted to February 29, 2000, to vacate the apariment. 12 111 Emoire Drive Gearge Fredericks for Hi-Way Credit Union 13 Decision: Appeal denied with respect to the 27 sprinkler heads in the lobby area. No vaziance is required for 14 the remaining sprinkler heads in the building. 15 73 Leech Street Laurie Colbeck for Women of Nations 16 Decision: Laid over to the April 18, 2000, Properry Code Enforcement Meeting. 17 924-926 Rice Street Tim Fitzgerald 18 Decision: Variance granted with respect to the flue gas analysis subject to the condirion that the smoke and 19 carbon monoxide detectars are maintained in each of the residential units and the common areas of the building 20 as they currently exist. 21 1861-1871 Randol�,h Avenue Ann Krebes 22 Decision: Appeal denied. 23 1045 Cromwell Avenue (Rescheduled from 1-18-001 Steve Lindholm 24 Decision: Variance granted with respect to adding another fixll bath to the building as long as the occupancy 25 load does not exceed six people. 26 133 7 Arkwrieht Street James Marry 27 Decision: Variance granted on the light fixtures subject to the condition that there must be at least 18 inches of 28 clearance around the light fixtures at all rimes. �d �� 1 1084 Sims Avenue Monica Freeman 2 Decision: Laid over to the March 7, 2000, Property Code Enforcement Meeting. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey � Coleman ,/ Harris ,/ Benanav � Reiter ,/ Bostrom ✓ Lantry � `� O O 11 12 13 Adopted by Council: Date:�. \�, �o �z� 14 —�— 15 Adopfion Certified by Council Secretary — 16 By: �� , � 17 Approved by Mayor: Date c�t �� 18 By: Requested by Department o£ � Form Approved by City Attorney : Approved by Mayar for Submission to Council By: G �v-z� DFPARTMEM/OFFICE7COUNCiL oATE wmAim City Council �-s-z000 GREEN SHEET No �� i 5 G 5 GONiACT PERSpN 8 PFiONE MIUa11Da0s NIUaVDm Gerry Strathman, 266-8560 oE.µ,�sanccra� arccaa�a. MUST BE ON WUNCIL AGENQ4 BY (DA"fE) January 12, 2000 tissww IAAIBFRFOR Grv4iTOR1EY piYQiNlt � �� H1�IIOLLmIYIi.'EiGR AiIf11C111L�FRV/ACCl3 ❑wra�tortumr�xn ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CIJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) CTION RE�UESTm Approving the 1-4-2000 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code En£orcement Appeals for the following addresses: 1844 Grand Avenue, 1086 Iglehart Avenue �{4, 111 Empire Drive, 73 Leech Street, 924-926 Rice Street, 1861-1871 Randolph Avenue, 1045 Cromwell Avenue, 1337_ Arkwright Street, and 1084 Sims Aveaue R COMMENDA IONApprove(A)orReject(R) PERSONALSERVICEMN7RACiSMUSTANSWERTXEFOLLOWINGQUESTIONS: 'I. Hac mic aersonMrm ererworkea mwer a conUacttw mis aepanmem� PLANNING COMMISSION � YES NO CIB COMMITTEE 2. Has thie pereonASrm ever been a City empbyee7 CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION YES NO 3. Does thie peiswufiim poesass a sldll not namallypossesseC by arry curreM cky employee? VES NO 4. Is Nis petsoMrm e ta�pMed verMal YES NO E+�lain a11 Ya answers on seParate sheet aM attech M Oreen sheet MITIATING PROBLEM ISSYJE. OPPORTUNI7Y (Wtw. What. When. Wtwse, WAY) ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED � 4��93y'i,aii �v��"-,`A'v;,:l�'.s+�'sr�!is`L:� �� DISADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED 70TAL AMOUNT OP 7RANSAC7lON S COET/REVENUE BUOGETED (qRCLE ONE� YES NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTNITY NUMBER FlNPNCNL MFORMATION (FXPWI� S� C�-'�� NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING ` ' Tuesday, January 4, 2000 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Stratluuan, Legislative Heating Officer The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Chris Cahill, Fire Prevention; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement; Richard Singerhouse, Code Enforcement; Mike Urmann, Fire Prevention 1844 Grand Avenne Dennis Conoryea stated he would like a variance on the 20 minute fire rated doors. Also, he would like to amend his appeal to include a variance for the escape window in the basement unit, Unit #5. The escape window was grandfathered into the building. The window is 3 inches undex the minimum requirement. The building is brick and right outside of it is the sidewalk. It would be costly to enlazge it. Mike Urmann reported it should be 5.7 square feet. It is a little short of their requirement. Gerry Strathman granted a vaziance with respect to the escape window si2e in Unit #5; a variance is granted on the nonconforming doors with the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be repiaced, they will be replaced with confornung fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1086 Iglehart Avenue #4 The following appeared: Perry deStefano, Southern Minnesota Renional Lega1 Services, and Kathy Brannon, tenant. Mr. deStefano stated the apartment was cited for being overcrowded, but it has not been condemned. His understanding is that the City has purchased the property. Mr. Brannon is asking for an extension to vacate to Februaiy 29, 2000, at which time Ms. Brannon will be moving into a home she is purchasing from Habitat for Humanity. There is parallel litigation in housing court. Ms. Brannon will be court ordered to be out by February 29 anyway. Mike Urmann reported the house is overcrowded. Tt is occupied by seven individuals, and the unit is only lazge enough for foux. He is not opposed to granting a specific time eactension. Gerry Strathman granted an ea�tension to February 29, 2000, to vacate the apartrnent. ill Empire Drive The following appeazed: Larry Raymond, New Mech Companies, and George Fredericks, Hi- Way Credit Union. Mr. Raymond stated they are challenging the order to change the existing standard response sprinklers in a remodeled portion of the building to a quick response sprinkler, which is a requirement of the code. There was an addition added to the building, and a minor modification was done in the e�sting portion of the building. �U-Zg PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT, 1-4-2000 Page 2 Mr. Fredericks stated one of the problems with the remodeling is it was done in six phases. In that process, ceiling heights were changed in the lobby. Sprinklers could have been left at the elevation they were. A soffited light was installed in the center, which caused some heads to be xelocated. Mr. Strathman asked how many sprinklers heads there are. Mr. Fredericks responded 350 in the remodeling portion, 42 of which aze relocated and not changed. About 350 would have to be changed, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Raymond responded that is their understanding in the arder they received. Chris Cahili reported he is not talking about the 300 sprinkler heads installed eazlier this year or last year. What is at issue is a pernut taken in June for the remodeling of 27 sprinkler heads. The sprinkler system may not operate properly because there is one type of head in one area and another type of head in another area, and they aze immediately adjacent with no separations. A fire starting on one side may cause the sprinklers on the other side to operate, doing no good because that is not where the fire is located. Given this new understanding, asked Mr. Strathxnan, is there still an objec6on to repiacing the 27 in the lobby area. Mr. Raymond responded he still has an objection because there is a clear definition between new and existing. Mr. Strathxnan asked what about Mr. Cahiii's concern that in a fire situaxion, the wrong sprinkier heads would be activated. Mr. Raymond responded sensitivity to a quick response and a standazd response sprinkler is an exaggeration of a fire problem. The activation of a particular sprinkler and standard response to quick response is so minute that there wouid not be a pxoblem. Mr. Strathman stated it could consfitute a negative effect on the fire prevention capabilities in the sprinkier system. It is addressed in a different section of that code, added Mr. Cahill, that the situation of different temperature response heads is prokubited in the same room. Mr. Fredericks stated there were six phases before this lobby was finished, and this issue could have been brought up prior to that time. It was not cleazly stated what Mr. Cahill wanted in the lobby. Mr. Strathman denied the request for a variance for the sprinkler system citing the sprinkler heads in the lobby will need to be replaced with a quick response type. No variance is required for the sprinkler system in the rest of the construction. The decision of the fire department is a reasonable interpretation, and Mr. Strattiman is concemed about the functionality-more than the language-of the code. It is not an unreasonable hardship to ask that the 27 heads be replaced with a quick response system. The safety concems are legitimate. 73 Leech Street Kim Moralez-Ha11 for Women of Nations appeared and stated Fire Prevention would like them to cut there occupancy down to 25. They aze now at 46. The building is in compliance of 0o z� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT, 1-4-2000 Page 3 eveiything except for the occupancy. They aze riirniug an office into another bedroom. Come January 8, all the rooms will be painted. They just need time to renovate the bathroom and the laundry room, which will give them ten full bathrooms. 5he is hoping to get an extension to the end of Mazch or April. Mike Urmann reported the sleeping rooms total occupants should be 24 at this time. If their intent is to e�pand the sleeping azea, then he could address expanding the occupancy load as the sleeping rooms increase. (Gerry Strathman and Mike Urmann viewed the blueprints. The blueprints were later retumed.) When they aze fuushed, asked Mr. Strathman, they will be in compliance with the code. Ms. Hall responded yes. The Zoning Committee gave her permission to have 26 to 46 occupancy. She cannot cut it down to 26 because there is nowhere for the women to go. Are there any other concerns with the building. Mr. Urmann responded no because he can come into agreement with the occupants on the other issues. Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the April 18, 2000, Properry Code Enforcement meering. The building will be able to maintain the current occupancy load until that date. Also, the Zoning Committee cannot override the codes regarding occupancy. 924-926 Rice Street (No one appeared representing the properiy.) Mike Urmann stated the owner has hard wired combination smoke and carbon monoxide detectors throughout his residential units. Mr. Urmann is willing to allow that in place of flue gas analysis as long as the detectors are maintained. Gerry Sfrathman granted the variance with respect to the flue gas analysis subject to the condition that the smoke and cazbon monoxide detectors are maintained in each of the residential units and the common areas of the building as they currently e�st. 1861-1&71 Randolph Avenue (No one appeazed representing the property.) Mike Urmann reported there are several orders within this building for which Fire Prevention has revoked the certificate of occupancy and cited the owner. Mr. Urmann wouid be opposed to an ` appeal for 20 minute fire rated doars because the building is not otherwise in compliance. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. • r : PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT, 1-4-2000 1045 Cromwell Avenue (Rescheduled from 1-1&00} Page 4 Steve Lindholm, owner, appeazed and stated this is a fourplex. One unit occupies the Third Floor. There are six bedrooms, one bathroom, and an additional sink in one of the bedrooms. The requirement is to have one full bathroom for every five people; therefore, he is one person over for a full bath, but he does have an additional sink. This building configuration was developed in 1985 by a previous owner, who submitted the plan to the City of Saint Paul. That plan was approved at that time. Mr. Lindholm's intention is to continue to operate the building as it was operated in 1986. Mike Urmann reported he is not opposed to this appeal as long as the occupancy does not increase above six people. Mr. Lindholm responded he is okay with this. Gerry Strathman granted a variance with respect to adding another full bath to the building as long as the occupancy load does not exceed six people. 1337 Arkwright Street James Marty, owner, appeazed and stated he is in the process of a certificate of occupancy inspection. One requirement is to provide giobes on all the lights in all the closets in the building. This is a 62 unit building and there are 125 of these fiatures, which have been there since 1975 when the building was constructed. The buiiding has gone through numerous certificate of occupancy inspections, and the globes have not been mentioned. It is a UL approved porcelain base fixture attached to the electrical box on the ceiling, eight feet off the floor, centered in the middle of the walk in closets, and two feet or more away from any items. Replacing them may cost over $3,000. A globe will not fit over the porcelain fixture. An electrician would have to pull off the entire thing. Mr. Marty is asking for a vaziance to leave the light fixtures as is. Mike Urmann reported the fire code requires a minimum of 18 inch cleazance around light fixtures that haue open exposed bulbs. If the owner can maintain the storage at 18 inches away, a variance will not be a problem. Mr. Marty responded they aze centered in the middle of 6' X 6' walk in closets. If there is something close to a fixhue, those individual fixtures will be replaced. Gerry Strathuian granted a variance on the light fixtures sub}ect to the condition that there must be at least 18 inches of cleazance around the bulbs at all times. 1084 Sims Avenue T4ie following appeared: Perry deStefano, Southern Minnesota Regional L,egal Services, and Monica Freeman, tenant. Mr. deStefano stated there was a condemnation at 1084 Sims. Ms. Freeman and her husband rented out this premises from the owner. It was a vacant property and did not have the proper certificate, which makes it illegal to rent. The place was condemned by an inspector driving on the outside of the property. Mr. de5tefano°s understanding is the inside has to be inspected for code compliance. The list does not contain life threatening repairs. Ms. Freeman and her husband are innocent third parties. The husband is a cazetaker and was to UU-`Z� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT, 1-4-20Q0 Page 5 receive a reduction of rent for services; this is why they cannot file an escrow because they do not have a full amount of rent. Mr. deStefano is asking for an e�rtension to vacate to February 29, 2000, and Ms. Freeman would be referred to the Housing Information Office (HIO) to obtain the $250 in relocafion benefits. Then they could move from the premises. Gerry Strathman asked aze they paying rent now. Mr. deStefano responded he instructed them not to pay rent. They do not have any money. Mr. Strathman asked aze the tenants stiil providing maintenance work. Ms. Freeman responded her husband has not been contacted by David Medin (the owner) to go back to work. The agreement was that after they pay the deposit of $925 and pay the rent of $815 for December, the following month her husband Chris would work and bring the place up to proper conditions for them to live there. Mr. Strathman stated if the order is suspended, it would not be condemned, and the rent would be due and owing. Mr. deStefano responded tecluucally that would be tnxe, but the property could remain condemned so Ms. Freeman can go to the Housing Information Office (HIO). It is a tight housing market. She may be able to find housing the end of February. At that time, she would have accumulated one months rent. Monica Freeman stated she is a Section 8 recipient also. Ifthe property was up to code, she would be able to get Section 8 to pay the rent. She did not know she was in a condexnned unit. Steve Magner reported the issue is murky because there were a number of exterior violations issued to the owner. The owner did not make the needed repairs, and he was notified, This is a registered vacant building, and the property needs a code compliance certificate before Code Enfarcement will release the certificate of occupancy for that unit. It should not have been occupied without a completed code compliance inspection. The tenant has been duped to rent a properry that is unfit. It was condemned by Code Enforcement to provide Ms. Freeman the means to go to HIO for emergency assistance. Code Enfarcement is not against setting a time limit for Ms. Freeman to vacate. The owner has a tendency to be lackadaisical. Also, the repairs cannot be done overnight. The property is condemned to make the tenant eligible for relocation assistance, sta#ed Mr. Strathxnan. If the appeal of the condemnation order is granted, then the property will not be condemned. Mr. Magner responded a layover may be the way to handle this. Mr. deStefano responded that would be a good idea and suggested a lay over after Febraary 29. Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the March 7, 2000, Property Code Enfarcement meeting. This properry will remain condemned and the enforcement of the vacate order wiil be suspended until the matter is discussed again. The meeting was adj oumed at 2:15 p.m. C"i'"i�l