96-1607 � ' ' !',. �: /7s�yl��D�� �z�ZG��� Council File#�� \�U`'j
' - _ Green Sheet# �C�3Z�S
RESOLUTION
I O SAINT PAU MINNESOTA (p�
Presented by
�
Referred To � Committee Date
1 BE IT RESOLVED,that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the December 10,
2 1996 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer:
3 Pr4pertv A�ealed A�nellant
4 1621 Marshall Avenue Samuel Ng
5 Decision: Grant variances for bathrooms in each unit,venting of plumbing in kitchen sinks,�est�e�e�
6 �g, apartment unit doors, and installation of glass in exterior stairwell.
7 1506 Hague Avenue Lois Curtis
8 Decision: Deny appeal.
9 54 Crocus Place Beverly Abbuzahab
10 Decision: Grant two year extension to disconnect rainleader.
11 130 E. 7th Street ReliaStar Life Insurance Company
12 Decision: Grant additional one year extension to disconnect rainleader.
13 1125 Chatsworth Street N. Jeff Weed
14 Decision: Grant variances for bathroom venting and window in unit#7.
Yeas Na s Absent Requested by Department o£
Blakey �/
Bostrom ✓
Guerin �
Harris ,i
Megard ,/ By:
Rethnan ,�
��e ✓ Form Approved by City Attorney
By:
Adopted by Council: Date � ���
7
Adoptio ertified y Counci c et Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By: � By:
Approved by Ma r: Date / /
By: lG
�1�.:���`Z
403�8
IOFFICE/COUNCIL DATE INITIATED
crrY courrc�. 12/10/96 GREEN SHEET
INITIAUDATE INRIAUDATE
CONTACT PER30N 6 PHONE �DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR �CITY COUNCIL
Gerry Strathman 266-8575 ASSION �CITY ATTORNEY �CITY CLERK
NUNBER FOR O gUDGET DIRECTOR �FIN.6 MOT.$ERVICES DIq.
MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENDA BY(DATE) ROUTING
December 26, 1996 ORDER �MAYOR(OR A3SI3TAN� �
TOTAL#OF SIC�NATURE PAGES (C�IP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
ACTION REQUE3TED:
Approving the decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the December 10, 1996 meeting.
RECOMMENDATIONS:Approve(A)or Reject(R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUBT AN3WER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
_PLANNING COMMI981QN _ CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION �• Has this persOn/firm ever worked under a contract for this depa�tmentT
_CIB COMMITfEE _ YES NO
2. Has this person/firm aver been a city employee?
_STAPF — YES NO
_DI3TRICT COURT _ 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed
by eny current city employeeT
8UPPORTS WHICH COUI�IL OBJECTIVE4 YES NO
Explaln ell yss answsrs on seperets sheet end attach to ynen sh�st
INITIATINO PROBLEM,ISSUE,OPPpRTUNITY(Who,Whffi,When,Where,Why):
ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
DI3ADVANTACiES IF APPROVED:
�'°+ i ,�;
�IJ�J����9 E;dC�t ,�`�t �,r :e.:
Dt�C 1 l �J:,�
�
�_ .-�---
DISADVANTAQES IF NOT APPROVED:
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S COST/REVENUE BUD(iETEO(CIRCLE ONE) YES NO
FUNDIW(i SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER
FINANCIAL INFORNfATION:(EXPLAIN)
��-����'l
Property Code Enforcement Meeting
December 10, 1996
1621 Marshall Avenue
Samuel Ng, property owner, appeared and stated that he had met with the Fire Prevention inspector and
discussed what work would need to be done to bring the building up to code. He was requesting a variance
to install bathrooms in each of the apartment units as this would be very costly and there wasn't enough space
for a bathroom in each unit. He also requested a variance to vent the plumbing in the kitchen sink in each unit
and to have the plumbing inspected. It would be very costly to tear up the walls to be able to vent the
plumbing. He also requested a variance for the escape windows in some of the units. He had measured the
windows and some of the windows were approximately four inches short in width of the required size. He
requested a variance to install wired glass to the exterior stair case from the third floor of the building. He
also requested a variance to replace the doors to the units with solid core or metal doors. The doors were
original and had been on the units since he had purchased the building. It would be very expensive to replace
all of the doors.
Pat Fish,Fire Prevention,stated that she had met with the property owners and she was aware that they needed
a variance on the bathrooms, however, they had not discussed any of the other variances that they were
requesting. Regarding the plumbing items, it was her contention that the plumbing should be inspected by
a licensed contractor to deternune whether the plumbing was sufficient to meet the needs of the tenants in the
building. Regarding the egress windows, she was unwilling to agree to a variance for a window that was not
large enough for escape in a sleeping room.
Mr. Strathman granted a variance for installing bathrooms in every unit; a variance for venting the plumbing
on the condition that if a problem arose in the future,the variance would be revoked; a variance for inspection
of the plumbing; a variance for replacing the doors; a variance for the escape windows; and a variance for
enclosing the stair case with wired glass.
15Q6 Hague Avenue
The property owner did not appear.
Mr. Strathman denied the appeal.
54 Crocus Place
Beverly Abbuzahab,property owner,appeared and stated that she was requesting a variance to disconnect the
rainleader on her home. She had disconnected the rainleaders at the time of the sewer separation project in
her area and since that time, had continuously experienced water in her basement every time it rained. She
had 13 gutters installed and had added extensions to the gutters,however,this did not help. She then had the
foundation around the house dug up and filled in with plastic and gravel. She also had the entire yard re-
graded to make the water go away from the house. This did not help either. She then hired a sheet metal
company to inspect the gutters and they replaced part of the gutters. She also contacted a structural engineer
to solicit his advice and he agreed with the work that had been done. In 1994, she decided to reconnect the
ra.inleaders and had no further problems with water in her basement. She then refinished the basement from
the water damage that had been done. She was then notified by Public Works ordering her to disconnect the
rainleaders. She requested additional time to be able to find a solution to disconnecting the rainleaders.
����c�~1
Property Code Enforcement
December 10, 1996
Page -2 -
Don Stein, Public Works, stated that he had inspected the property and believed that it was possible to
disconnect the rainleaders and run the gutters out further into the yard.
Mr. Strathman stated that he could not grant a permanent variance, however, he would grant a two yeaz
extension of time to disconnect the rainleaders.
130 E. 7th Street
Clayton Shonka and Gary Buckley,property managers of ReliaStar Life Insurance Company, appeared. Mr.
Shonka stated that they were requesting a variance to disconnect the rainleaders from their building. They
had replaced the roof on one of the buildings in 1991 and made sure that the rainleaders had been
disconnected at that time. They had the roof replaced on the smaller building in 1994 and had believed that
the rainleaders had been disconnected,however,they were notified by Public Works that the rainleader was
still connected. They had obtained an estimate on the cost to disconnect the rainleader and it was
approximately $40,000. They could not afford the cost to disconnect the rainleader at this time.
Jim Vanderhoof, Public Works, stated that they had granted a time extension to December 1, 1998 to
disconnect the rainleader.
Mr. Strathman sta.ted that Federal law mandated that all storm sewers be disconnected from the sanitary sewer
and therefore,he was unable to grant a permanent variance. He granted an additional one year extension to
disconnect the rainleader.
1125 Chatsworth Street N.
Jeff Weed, property owner, appeared and stated that he was appealing the order to vent three bathrooms in
his building. The bathrooms contained window vents with wired glass which had been installed pursuant
to previous orders under the certificate of occupancy. Now they were being required to install power vents
in each bathroom which would cost approximately $1,800 and he could not afford this cost. He was also
appealing the order to provide a larger escape window in one of the units. He was aware that this window
did not qualify as an escape window for a bedroom,however,this room was being used as a living room and
the bedroom did have a window which qualified as an escape window.
Mr. Strathman granted variances for venting the bathrooms and the escape window.
vms