96-1415 'T i r'' �'' E ". f �9 � '� ���� ��� -- �� I t 3 i 9� Council File# �I � - I�{,I,5
� � � ;�,' g � '.� ; : Green Sheet# 3�' 3
RESOLUTION
I SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �
Presented by
Referred To Committee Date
1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the November 5,
2 1996 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer:
3 Propertv Appealed A�pellant
4 800,824-840 Hampden Avenue Roger Greenberg
5 Decision: Deny appeal. ,
6 620 Burlington Road Barbara and Bruce Nemer
7 Decision: Laid over in Legislative Hearing to May, 1997
8 846 Western Avenue .� Michael and Donna Eisel
9 Decision: Deny appeal. z-� , �- ; s rot �o,r�,��� �,�.��,.:ti. -�- ;� e� S> c��_
0.S-�:r v�n�.i:v e_.._ c�c..��C;v� l.��\� �D L -E-�a��rv
10 365 Michigan Street 1 a\ t � �_�� Laurel Seversen
11 Decision: Den y a p peal. ���� U _
�
�.v��, � S';,�: � ��
12 448 Griffith Street Leo Reck
13 Decision: Grant appeal provided work is completed by November 26, 1996.
14 83 E. Isabel Zona Butler
15 Decision: Grant variance based on representation that exterior work sha.11 be completed next year; grant
16 variance for inspection of owner-occupied unit provided the owner provide proof that the fire alarm system was
17 operational.
18 1521 Westminster#201 Ruth Effion
19 Decision: Deny appeal.
20 1277 Charles Avenue David Parupsky
21 Decision: Deny appeal.
22 85 E. 7th Place(Golden Rule Building) Phillip Carlson
23 Decision: Grant variance concerning pressure test; deny variance for hangers where new work has been
24 completed; grant variance for sprinkler head.
25 45 S. Albert Street(Grand Albert Condominiums) Margaret Olson
26 Decision: Grant variance.
27 592 Portland Harlan Heichel
28 Decision: Laid over in Legislative Hearing to December 3, 1996.
29 1179-1181 Dayton Avenue Robert Burrichter
30 Decision: Grant one year variance for repair of reta.ining wall; grant variance for guardrails on first and second
31 floors.
1 46-48 W. Isabel Street Jeffrey Cody � �„ - � �{ �s
2 Decision: Appeal withdrawn by appellant.
3 FURTHER RESOLVED,that this action shall become effective immediately upon approval of the Mayor.
�"'� +�` '�' ' �� 1
.. e ,. . . L � . . �.....�
Yeas Na s Absent Requested by Department of:
Blakey �
Bostrom f
Guerin �
Harris �
Megard � By:
Rettman �
��e ✓ Form Approved by City Attorney
By:
Adopted by Council: Date �,r,� . �� �°�q �
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By: By:
Approved by Mayor: Date ( �D �f�
By: G
`� ` —��`S
crrY covivcu, �iiisi��� �'aREEN SHEET _N_ _3 5 6 9 3
a �oe�Nr aRE�rxr,uuo�r� �cnv couNCi� �+mwo�
Gerry Strathman 266-8575 ��� �CITY ATfORNEY �cm cxea�c
Il (DA 1 �Np �BUDGET DIRECTOR �flN.8 MGT.BERVICE8 DIR.
November 13, 1996 0R0E1 ��toa�sr�um �
TOTAL#F!�F SIGN�tJRE PAtiE8 (CUP ALL LOCATIONS FOR 8NiNATURE)
�craN nECUEBTEO:
Approving the cleeisicxi of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Praperly Gode Enforeement Appeals for the November 5, 1996 meeting.
��PP�+(A)a Ry�ct(R) PER80NAl 86RViCE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWEW TME f't1l.LOWIMO C!lEaT10NS:
_PL/WNINO COAAAAIB810N _GVM.BERVICE(�AaS8bN 1. Has this pereoMtl►m evsr worlad undsr a oaNraot�0►�d�p�rtrnsnt? -
_��� _ YES NO
2. Has this pmroon/firm sver bs�n a dty srnployee4
—�� — YES NO
_oi8n+�cr couar _ s. Doss tn�s p.rsoNfirm passss a skiu na nonnaUy vicessased by anr oun�M�r�rtipNpyN4
BuPPORTS WFIK:FI CWNCIL OBJECTNE4 YE3 NO
Ezp1aM all yN�nsw�n on ap�nb�M�t a�d�tNOh to�wn sM�t
INr11ATM10 PROBLEMI.IBSUE.OPPARTUNITY(VMO.VVhd.1lVh�n,VYhsn�WMY
A�IAI�f TAt1E81F APPROYEO:
�/ANTAOES IF APPROVED:
. Cuunc� R����rch C�rtt�r
NOV 0 7 1996
������o:
TDTAL AMOUNT OR TRANBACTION i COST/REVENUE BUDGETED(CIRCI.E ONE) YE8 NO
FUNDINA iOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER
RMIAtiCII�L INWRMATION:(EXPLAIN)
���
Property Code Enforcement Meeting
November 5,1996 �� �l,�`�
,
800,824-840 Hampden Avenue
Appellant did not appear.
Phil Owens, Fire Prevention, stated that he had received a message from the property owner that they were
withdrawing their appeal as they had worked out an agreement with the Fire Inspector.
Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer, denied the appeal.
846 Western Avenue
Michael Eisel, property owner, appeared and stated that he owned a duplex and was appealing the
condemnation of his house and the condemnation of the second floor of his house. He lived with his family
on the first floor of the house. He had suffered personal and financial hardship and was not able meet the
timelines set forth in the order. He requested an extension of time to complete the repairs to the exterior of
his property and believed he could complete these repairs by July, 1997.
David Weisberg,Public Health, stated that the second floor of the house was condemned in December, 1992
for interior violations and the entire house was condemned in September, 1996. He presented pictures of the
building. He had reinspected the property and noted that some work had been done,however, there was still
a lot of work that needed to be completed. He was concerned that little progress had been made to complete
the repairs.
Scott Feyen, neighborhood activist, appeared and stated that he owned and maintained several properties
within the neighborhood and was concerned with the condition of this property. It was opinion that not only
was the exterior of the house unsightly, there were other violations concerning excess vehicles on the
property, a semi-trailer parked on the property. He presented pictures of the property.
Mr. Strathman stated that given the history of the property,he denied the appeal.
365 Michigan Street
Laurel Severson appeared with her attorney Thomas Schroeder, representing the Uppertown Preservation
League,the property owners. Mr. Schroeder stated that they were appealing the vacant building registration
fee and status of the building. They had received a variance in 1995 which was conditioned that the building
be painted and that the property be maintained in that Public Health would not find it necessary to issue
summary abatement or nuisance orders. It was his contention that the house was not being used as a residence
and was merely a meeting place for the organization. He also pointed out that he believed the house was
protected under historical preservation status and did not believe that the house fit under the definition of a
vacant property.
Mike Budka,Public Health,acknowledged that the building had been well maintained over the past year. The
issue from Public Health's stand point was that they had made 27 visits to the building over the previous two
years and he believed this was an excessive precedence as they do monitor other historical properties in the
city and they are required to pay the fee. The$200 vacant building fee covers the monitoring of the property
and should be required in this case.
Property Code Enforcement ���y 1�
November 5, 1996 �
Page - 2 -
Mr. Schroeder stated that the property was zoned light commercial and agreed that the organization should
pay the fee for monitoring,however,the problem was in the property having a vacant building status as the
property could not be re-occupied without a certificate of occupancy which would require a code compliance
inspection as well as posting a $2,000 bond and that all improvements would need to be performed by a
licensed contractor. This would be very costly for any potential buyer.
Steve Magner,Public Health, stated that the building was never removed from the registered vacant building
list and that the State Building Code requires that any work done on a vacant building must be completed by
a licensed contractor. Since the building needed significant repairs, an inspection of the property would be
required prior to work being done to determine whether all repairs were made. They would also require.
permits be obtained for all work done on the property.
Mr. Strathman stated that since the building did not have a certificate of occupancy, the current use of the
building was not legal. Since the building cauld not be occupied legally, it was considered vacant and the
$200 vacant building fee was due. He denied the appeal.
448 Griffith Street
Leo Reck, property owner, appeared and stated that there was a room in the basement which was used as a
bedroom. T'he window in the room was cited for being 10 inches too high in height for egress. He requested
that some remedy be suggested in order to a11ow the room to remain as a bedroom.
Don Juenemann,Public Health, suggested that the owner could build a shelf or step ten inches in height and
12 inches in width and permanently secure it to the wall so that it could not be moved. Mr. Reck agreed to
do this.
Mr. Strathman stated that he would grant the appeal provided the step or shelf be installed within the next
three weeks.
83 E. Isabel
Zona Butler,property owner, appeared and stated that she owned a four unit row house. She lived in one of
the units and was requesting an exemption from the certificate of occupancy inspection for her own unit as
she wished to maintain her privacy. She questioned whether she was required to have a certificate of
occupancy since each unit was self contained and share nothing in common other than a yard area.
Concerning the exterior work, she had spoken with Ms. Fish and she agreed to extend the time to complete
the work.
Pat Fish,Fire Prevention, sta.ted that the building was similar to a row house. The only thing lacking in fire
separation and determining factor for needing a certificate of occupancy is that the attic area is not separated.
Any problem in one unit would affect the surrounding units. There was no authority to exempt her unit from
inspection.
Mr. Strathman stated that he would grant a variance based on the representation that the exterior work would
be completed within the next year. He also granted a variance for inspection of the owner-occupied unit
Property Code Enforcement �� V
November 5, 1996
��.,
Page- 3 -
provided the owner provide proof that the fire alarm system was operational.
1521 Westminster#201
Ruth Effion,appellant,appeared and stated that she was appealing the order to clean and repair her apartment
to sanitary conditions. She explained that the evening prior to the inspection, she had cooked stockfish which
has a very unpleasant order and takes about 24 hours to get rid of the smell. She was also ordered to paint
the walls as there were coloring crayon marks and she stated that she had painted the walls.
Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that the inspector met again with the appellant and the issue had been
resolved and there would be no further action taken.
Mr. Strathman denied the appeal with the understanding that Fire Prevention take no further enforcement
action.
1277 Charles Avenue
The property owner did not appear.
Mr. Strathman read a letter received from the property concerning his appeal. He was appealing the order to
replace the front steps and stairs on the side of the house as he believed they were completely solid and were
not dangerous. Concerning the guardrail around the porch,the railing was two feet in height and one foot in
width and he believed that replacement of the railing would ruin the esthetics of the building. Concerning
a hole in the window screen,there was only one tiny hole in a screen and he did not believe it needed to be
replaced. Concerning lighting over the fire escape, he believed this was a total waste as everyone used the
front porch as an entrance. Concerning removing the claw foot tub which was in the yard,this was used as
a planter and he questioned why this needed to be removed. Concerning locking the boiler room door, he
could not see a reason as there was no outside access to this room. Concerning painting specific items in
separate units, it was his contention that the units were clean and had been painted within the previous 18
months and he believed it was not necessary to do again at this point in time. Concerning installing a step
for an egress window in one of the units,he explained that the tenants had their bed against the window and
this made for a better escape than a step. He did not believe they should be required to move their bed in
order to install a step as this was a very small unit. Concerning replacing the bathroom floor in one of the
units,he believed that the floor was in very good shape except for a few tiny chips out a few corners of tile.
He did not believe it needed to be replaced. Concerning removing fuel tank from basement, it was his
contention that there wasn't a fuel tank in the basement to his knowledge.
Pat Fish,Fire Prevention, stated that according to the inspector's notes,the stairs that were not used by more
than 10 people were allowed to remain, however, the front steps were not built correctly and therefore
constituted a hazard. Concerning the guardrail around the porch,the Code requires the rail to be 42 inches
in height which the present railing is not. Concerning storm windows,there was more than one screen which
needed to be repaired. Concerning lighting over the fire escape, it was her opinion that the owner was not
requested to change what presently existed, only that the light needed to be on from dusk until dawn.
Concerning removal of the claw foot tub, this was not the main issue and they would allow it to remain.
However, the debris around the building, including air conditioners and fencing, needed to be removed.
Property Code Enforcement p� �, ����
November 5, 1996 �
Page-4 -
Concerning locking the boiler room door, the owner was only required to provide a latch to the door.
Concerning a step for the egress window in one of the units,the window sill did not meet the required height
and the step could be made to fold up against the wall so long as it was permanently attached to the wall.
Concerning the bathroom floor in one of the units, the Code requires that the floor has to be impervious to
water which this floor is not.
Mr. Strathman stated that based on the responses of Fire Prevention and the information contained in the
letter from the property owner, it was his opinion that there was no basis for the appeal. Therefore,he denied
the appeal.
85 E. 7th Place (Golden Rule Building�
Wayne Leek,property manager,appeared with Phillip Carlson, sprinkler contractor who completed the work
on the building. Mr. Carlson stated that they were appealing the requirement to test the sprinkler system at
200 pounds of pressure. He believed that this amount of pressure would cause the system to collapse in other
areas of the building which had not been worked on. They were also appealing the order to remove all
hangers from the piping which were double hung. He was uncertain as to whether they were being required
to remove a11 hangers or just the hangers were work had been completed. He did not believe that they should
have to remove the hangers in areas were they had not done work. They were also appealing the order to add
a sprinkler head at the entrance of the first floor office space as this was a glass opening and he did not
believe, according to the rules,that this was required. He presented pictures of the office space.
Bob Seifert,Fire Prevention,stated that concerning the 200 pound pressure test,they were only requiring the
first level area be tested at this pressure weight were work had been completed as pipes had been added and
this was the primary reason for the test. The remainder of the building could be isolated from this testing.
Concerning the hangers,this was specifically related to the work which was recently completed on the first
floor of the building. All hangers are required to be hung from the structure of the building and in this
particular instance, some of the hangers were double hung and being supported by overhead sprinkler pipe.
These hangers would need to be removed. Concerning the additional sprinkler head at the entrance of the
first floor office,they measured this area and found that there was not adequate coverage for this area which
was not in compliance with the standards.
Mr. Strathman stated that he would grant a variance for the 200 pound pressure test and grant a variance for
the sprinkler head. He denied the variance for the hangers which had been double hung in the area were new
work had been completed.
45 S.Albert Street(Grand Albert Condominiums�
Mazgaret Olson, representing the condominium association, appeared and stated that she was requesting a
variance for the dimensions of the egress windows in the garden level unit. The windows were 28 inches in
width and 16 inches in height.
Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that the requirement for egress windows is that they be 20 inches in width
by 24 inches in height and these windows did not meet the requirement. Presented pictures. She stated that
the windows do meet the requirement for the total amount of glazed area.
Property Code Enforcement � � - 1��� S
November 5, 1996
Page- 5 -
Mr. Strathman stated that the standards for egress windows required approximately 480 square inches and the
measurements for these windows was approximately 464 square inches. He believed that this was adequate
space for egress and he granted the variance.
592 Portland
Harlan Hackle,appeared on behalf of his father Raymond,the property owner. He was appealing the order
to have exterior work on the house completed by November 13, 1996. They were requesting additional time
to paint the e�cterior of the building.
Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that the order was for condemnation of the building and was not based on
the exterior work that needed to be completed,but that an inspection of the interior has never been done. The
owner continuously denies access to the interior of the property.
Mr. Strathman questioned whether Mr. Hackle would be willing to cooperate for an interior inspection of the
property. Mr. Hackle stated that he would be willing to meet with the inspector for an interior inspection.
Ms. Fish suggested continuing the matter to December in order to arrange for an interior inspection of the
property.
Mr. Strathman laid the matter over to the December 3, 1996 Legislative Hearing.
1179-1181 Dayton Avenue
Robert Burrichter,property owner,appeared and stated that he was appealing the order to repair the retaining
wall as it was his intention to replace the retaining wall next year and he was presently in the process of
obtaining estimates to do the work. He was also appealing the order to replace the guardrails on the first and
second floor front porch area. The railing was 34 inches in height and he believed that this was adequate in
height. He presented pictures of the property. Concerning an evacuation plan, he had made up a plan and
provided a copy for each tenant. Concerning the fire extinguishers,he was not required to provide them and
they had been serviced recently. Concerning the hallway lighting,he had previously been granted a variance
on this and believed it would be too costly to change at this time. Concerning the heater and boilers,this had
been tested within the past two years and believed that this was within the requirement. Concerning the
backflow preventor,he was not sure what this related to. Concerning the smoke detector affidavit,he did not
believe that this should be necessary since the inspector tested every smoke detector when he was there.
Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that concerning the retaining wall, she agreed to a one yeaz extension to
replace the retaining wall. Concerning the guardrails, she believed that the current height would be
acceptable. Concerning the evacuation plan,she explained that Fire Prevention provided a plan with the letter
to the owner and the owner was only required to distribute this plan to the tenants. Concerning the fire
extinguishers,she stated that they were not required for a three unit building,however,if they were there,they
had to provide proof of service. Concerning the hallway light switch,this was only to verify that indeed a
variance e�sted for this item. Concerning the testing of the heater and boilers, if this had been done within
the past year,this would be acceptable. Concerning the backflow preventor, this was a valve on the boiler
which was only referenced on the list as it was an item which the Water Department was responsible for.
Property Code Enforcement � �. ���.S
November 5, 1996
Page - 6 -
Concerning testing of the smoke detectors, she explained that the owner was only required to go through the
building and test the systems and file a report with Fire Prevention verifying that they are operational.
Mr. Strathman granted an extension for one year for replacement of the retaining wall. He also granted a
variance for the guardrails on the first and second floors of the building. All other matters were resolved.
620 Burlington Road
Barbara Nemer,property owner, appeared and stated that she was appealing the order to connect to the City
water and sewer system. She stated that her house was built on top of a hill and she had five acres of land.
In order to connect to the nearest sewer system,many trees would have to be destroyed and she was opposed
to ruining the environment. The other option would be to construct the system down the driveway which
would interfere with the e�sting garage and could cause it to collapse. She also stated that she had received
an estimate for constructing the system and it was estimated at over$20,000. She could not afford this cost
at this time. It was her intention to tear down the existing home and rebuild the house within the next three
to five years. She planned to connect to the sewer and water system at that time. She was aware that the
septic system was failing and had been informed by experts that it was because she had a vertical, rather than
a horizontal, drainfield and that because it was located so high up on the hill, it acted in the same manor as
a horizontal drainfield. She presented pictures of the property.
Tom LeClair, LIEP, stated that according to the inspection report dated July 11, 1996, there wasn't a
drainfield to the system. The report stated that there was a double septic system that did not contain a bottom.
Therefore,the seepage was going into the ground. This was not a conforming system according to Minnesota
Pollution Control laws and was not allowable.
Dave Dickhut,Public Works,stated that there was a new development to the north east of this property where
a connection to the city sewer and water system could be made. The distance between the property and the
connection was approximately 350 feet.
Mr. Strathman stated that given the cost factors involved and the fact that no work could begin until next
spring,he laid the matter over in the Legislative Hearing to June, 1997.
4(-48 W. Isabel Street
Appeal withdrawn by appellant.
vms