96-1034 Council File# `� � — (03�
Green Sheet# 3(o�3 S
SOLUTION
TY O I T L, MINNESOTA �j�
Presented by
Referred To Committee Date
1 BE IT RESOLVED,that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the August 20,
2 1996 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer:
3 Prop�Annealed Apnellant
4 1265 W. Como Blvd. John Hamburger
5 Decision: Deny appeal.
6 484 W. Winona Street Yvonne Riley
7 Decision: Grant extension to November 1, 1996.
8 391 Pleasant R. David Reynolds
9 Decision: Grant variance on condition that the room be used for storage only.
10 475 Hopkins Donna Provencial
11 Decision: Grant extension to November 1, 1996 for repair of the chimney; grant extension to August 20, 1997
12 for repair of the roof.
13 1359 Blair Avenue Quoc Nguyen
14 Decision: Deny appeal.
15 300 Edmund Avenue Debra Brown
16 Decision: Appeal withdrawn by appellant.
17 1269 Payne Avenue William Wilcox
18 Decision: Grant variance.
19 2100 Gilbert Avenue R.C. Leonard and D.L. Harvey
20 Decision: Grant variance for locks and electronic monitoring of sprinkler system conditioned on current
21 ownership and operation of business.
22 872 E. Wheelock Pkwy. Brian and Debra Hanson
23 Decision: Grant five year variance.
24 1562 Sloan Street a/Wa 309-15 E. Hoyt Richards Properties
25 Decision: Grant variance for heating safety test; grant extension to November l, 1996 for repair of sidewalk.
26 334 Cherokee Avenue R.H. Belz
27 Decision: Grant variance.
28 830 Kansas Avenue Ann Myran
29 Decision: Grant variance conditioned on current ownership.
„�e �.n � F,_ L f.. , '
� - . � �- �0.��.
1 175 N. Lezington Pkwy. Larry Alexander
2 Decision: Certificate of Occupancy unwarranted.
3 29 Summit Court Sarah Sivertsen
4 Decision: Grant one year variance.
5 591-593 Payne Avenue Robert Bump
6 Decision: Laid over to September 17, 1996 Legislative Hearing.
7 419 Sherburne Avenue Chester Perkerwicz
8 Decision: Grant one year variance for egress windows, installation of chimney liner, cleanout stack and
9 electrical repairs for unit#1; deny variance for outdoor lighting.
10 2252 Falcon Avenue Judy Tschida Martinez
11 Decision: Appeal withdrawn by property owner.
12 FURTHER RESOLVED,that this action shall become effective immediately upon approval of the Mayor.
Yeas Na s Absent Requested by Department of:
Blakey
Bostrom �
Guerin �—
Harris �
Megard t/� By:
Rettman �
Thune Form Approved by City Attorney
By:
Adopted by Council: Date °` �o
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By: ~� �-1- . � R”'_
Approved by Mayor: Date Z �y
BY� l[�
°t�— lo3y
UN IL DJ►TE INITIA D O
crrY courrc�, 8���� Gl�EEN SHEET _N_ _3 6 4 3 5
�+�,Strathman 266-8575 ❑���ENT DIRECTOR ��� �cm couNC� �"mAUDA�
�""`' ��N �CITY ATfORNEY �CITY CIERK
IL Na1 BY(DA ) pQ��,�jp� �BUDOET DIRECTOFi �FNJ.8 MOT.8ERVICE8 DIR.
l�ll�USt�, 1� OWD6W �MAYOR(diA8818TAN'n �
TOTAL#OF SIGNA'?'tJRE PAOES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
ACTION REGUESTEO:
Approving the decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Praperty:Code Enforcement Appeals for the August 20, 1996 meeting.
REOOMMENDATION8:Approve(A)a Ry�ct(R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTB MUST AN�WER TNE FOLLOMIINQ CUE�TIONS:
_PLANNN�i COA�A1881q�1 �_qV�8ERVICE OOMMIS810M 1. Has this pefsoMlrm ever worked under a�tor thls dspatrner�tT -
_��E _ YE3 NO
2. Has thk psraoNflrm e�rer bssn a city amployee?
—�� — YE3 NO
_DI8TRICT CaIRT _ 3. Does thie psrson/firm posssss 8 skUl not normal�Y P�eusd bY�Y W��Y��?
BUPPORTB NMICFI f�UNCIL 09J[CTIVE4 YES NO
Explain ell y�s�n�w�n on s�nb tM�t�nd�ch to�n�n sMst
INITIATNrO Pf�BLEM�188UE�OPPORTUNITY(Who.Whtl.Whsn.Whsrs.WhYY
ADVANTAOE8IF APPFiOVED:
� � ��
AUG � 1 19�
__ ..�.. . _.__ �
DISADYANTAOES IF APPROVED:
DIBAD�tANTAOE8IF NOT APPRdVED:
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION = COST/REVENUE 6UDGETEO{CIRGLE ON8) YES NO .
RUNDING SOURCE ACTIYITY NUMSER
FlNANCIAL II�ATION:(EXPL.AIN)
Property Code Enforcement Meeting q �� ����,
August 20, 1996
1265 W. Como Blvd.
No one appeared; recommended denial of the appeal.
484 W. Winona Street
Yvonne Riley,property owner,appeared and requested additional time to complete the repairs to the exterior
of her home. She was in the process of getting estimates and obtaining a loan to do the repairs.
Dennis Senty, Public Health, stated that the order was to complete the repairs by October 2, 1996.
Mr. Strathman granted an extension to November 1, 1996 to complete the repairs.
391 Pleasant
Fred Macthager appeared on behalf of the property owner, R. David Reynolds. He was appealing the order
to install an outlet in a bathroom which was being used strictly for storage.
Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that the bathroom was functional, however, it was her observation that the
room was used only for storage.
Mr. Strathman granted a variance on the condition that the room be used only for storage.
475 Hopkins
Donna Provencial, property owner, appeared and requested additional time to make repairs to the chimney
and the roof of the house. She had applied for a loan with the City to be able to afford to make the necessary
repairs and she was unsure as to the status of the loan.
Dick Lippert, Public Health, stated that it was his belief that the roof was not in need of immediate repair.
He was concerned with the disrepair of the chimney. There were many loose bricks and some were lying on
the roof. He suggested that temporary repairs be made to the chimney and that it be completely repaired by
the beginning of the heating season.
Mr. Strathman granted an extension to November 1, 1996 to repair the chimney and granted an extension to
August 20, 1997 to repair the roof.
1359 Blair Avenue
Jim Halvorson,Public Health,stated that the building was condemned and was currently unoccupied. He had
inspected the property on August 16, 1996 and none of the listed violations had been corrected.
Quoc Nguyen,property owner,appeared and stated that he had removed trash and debris from the house and
believed the house was habitable. The house had been raided the end of July and he had been in jail. He
complained that every time he was on the property to make repairs and clean it up,the police arrived and order
him to leave the premises.
Property Code Enforcement Meeting � �" ��� 6
August 20, 1996
Page- 2 -
Winston Nguyen,father of the property owner,appeared and stated that he had deeded the property to his son.
He was upset that the neighbors complained about the property and would call the police on his son.
Mr. Strathman stated that they did have the right to make repairs to the property,however, he was prohibited
from living in the house. Once the repairs were completed, the building inspector would need to re-inspect
the property and if all deficiencies were corrected, they would be authorized to remove the condemnation
order. He denied the appeal.
300 Edmund Avenue
Appeal was withdrawn by the appellant.
1269 Payne Avenue
William Wilcox,property owner,appeared and stated that he was appealing the order for an egress window
in a bedroom in one of the units in the building.
Pat Fish,Fire Prevention, stated that the condition was not extremely hazardous. There was another egress
window located within ten feet of the bedroom.
Mr. Strathman granted the variance.
2100 Gilbert Avenue
Ron Leonard, property owner, appeared and stated that he was appealing the order to install an electronic
monitor on the sprinkler system. The business was a metal stamping company and employed five people.
The sprinkler system was inspected annually and he did not believe the monitoring device was necessary.
He said that he would chain the system so that it could not be turned off. He was also appealing the order to
remove latching locks on the exit doors. He had experienced numerous break-ins on his property and the
locks were installed to prevent people from illegally entering the building.
Phil Owens, Fire Prevention, stated that the electronic monitor would secure water flow to the sprinkler
system and would sound an alarm if the system shut down. The monitor was required with a system of 100
sprinkler heads or more. The locks on the exit doors were not in compliance with the code.
Mr. Strathman granted a variance for the locks and electronic monitor for the sprinkler system conditioned
on the current ownership and operation of the business.
872 E. Wheelock Pkwv.
Brian Hanson, property owner, appeared and stated that he was appealing the order to disconnect one
rainleader. He had already disconnected three of the rainleaders and the one remaining rainleader would cause
the water to drain onto the sidewalk. His wife had a disability which would cause a hazard to her health if
the rainleader were disconnected.
Property Code Enforcement Meeting 1 p � ��'`� L
August 20, 1996
Page- 3 -
Pat Cahanes, Public Works, stated that it was his opinion that the rainleader could be disconnected with
drainage to the south of the building.
Mr. Strathman granted a variance for five years.
1562 Sloan Street a/Wa 309-15 E Hoy�
Connie Sagstetter appeared on behalf of the property owner,Richards Properties. She stated that she did not
believe the 10 day timeframe to appeal a correction order was adequate time to assess the situation. She was
appealing the order to provide a heating safety test form. The boilers in the buildings were cleaned and tested
every two years and she, along with other professionals that she had consulted, believed that there wasn't a
risk of carbon monoxide poisoning. She also requested an extension of time to complete repairs to the
sidewalk.
Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that the tests were required of all heating systems.
Mr. Strathman granted a variance for the heating safety test on the condition that the boiler be cleaned once
every two years or install a carbon monoxide tester that meets Fire Prevention requirements. He granted an
extension to November 1, 1996 to repair the sidewalk.
334 Cherokee Avenue
Erma McGuire appeared on behalf of the River Ridge Condominium Association. She stated that they were
appealing the order to keep the garage doors unlocked at all times. The building contained 42 units and
housed mostly senior citizens. There had been numerous burglaries in the building and the residents feared
for their safety. They had installed a security system which required they place locks on the garage doors.
She requested that they be allowed to continue keeping the garage doors locked.
Pat Fish,Fire Prevention, stated that she had recommended that they place panic bars on the doors or a type ,
of lock that would allow access to exit but not re-entry into the building. It was her opinion that everyone
should be allowed to exit through the doors rather than just tenants who possessed a key.
Mr. Strathman granted the variance for the locks on the garage doors and suggested that they consider
alternatives as suggested by Fire Prevention.
830 Kansas Avenue
Ann Myran,property owner, appeared and stated that she was appealing the order to remove a wood burning
stove from her garage. She stated that it was operable and it was previously used in their home which was
a permitted use. They moved the stove to the garage as it created a mess in the house and was not needed for
heat. The stove was basically a hobby for her husband who was blind.
Pat Fish,Fire Prevention, stated that a wood burning stove was not a permitted use in an area where gasoline
or gasoline vapors were present, as was the case with the garage.
Property Code Enforcement Meeting � �r �3�
August 20, 1996
Page -4 -
Mr. Strathman stated that he would grant the variance, however, it would be conditioned on the current
ownership of the property.
175 N. Lexin_gton Pkw�,
Larry Alexander, property owner, appeared and stated that his property was residentially zoned and he had
a non-conforming use permit to do business out of his home. Since he was not operating any business out
of his residence,he believed that he was not required to have a Certificate of Occupancy. His property was
inspected by Fire Prevention and he was ordered to make corrections in order to obtain a Certificate of
Occupancy. It was his intention to operate a beauty salon in his home sometime in the future and at that point
in time, he would obtain the necessary Certificate of Occupancy certificate.
Phil Owens, Fire Prevention, stated that the property was zoned residential and the owner had not secured a
non-conforming use permit. In order to operate a commercial business, it is necessary to hire licensed
contractors to do the work. The first floor was currently set up with six work stations for a beauty salon and
there was no record of permits being issued which would mean that licensed contractors were not hired to do
the work. He was aware that the owner had applied for a state cosmetology license. There was a history of
the property being used for commercial purposes in the past. The owner goes back and forth from operating
businesses out of his residence to a simple single-family dwelling.
Mr. Strathman stated that since no business was being conducted at the present time at the residence, a
Certificate of Occupancy was unwarranted.
29 Summit Court
Martin Fisk,attorney representing the property owners, appeared and stated that he was appealing the order
to disconnect the rainleaders. The home was built in 1886 and is part of the historic Summit-Hill District.
There was a brick alley behind the home which sloped down towards the property. There was a problem with
water accumulating and running into the yard of the property particularly when the snow melted. The
property owners were quite elderly and had a continuous battle with water in their basement because of the
yard situation and they did not wish to make the problem worse by disconnecting the rainleaders.
Don Stein, Public Works, stated that it was his belief that if the rainleaders were merely capped off, there
would be a problem with water in the basement. There was an area drain which ran directly into the sanitary
sewer. He had recommended that they run a pipe underground which would drain into the street area. There
were five rainleaders which were still connected and one that had been disconnected.
Mr. Strathman stated that he would grant a variance for one year, however, the property owners should
explore options in disconnecting as many rainleaders as possible as suggested by Public Works.
591-593 Payne Avenue
Robert Bump,property owner, appeared and stated that he was appealing the order to install a sink in a small
bathroom on the first floor of the building. The bathroom had been installed by the previous owner as he was
disabled and could not climb the stairs to use the only bathroom in the house. The problem with installing
Property Code Enforcement Meeting �r �, �Q �
August 20, 1996 j°
Page - S -
a sink in this bathroom was that there wasn't enough space. The only other option would be to take the toilet
out of this room and the tenant of this unit did not want the toilet removed.
Dick Lippert, Public Health, stated that not having a sink in a room with a toilet created a health hazard
particularly since the closest sink to the toilet was the kitchen sink. He believed it was unsanitary to use a sink
where food was being prepared.
Patrice Harris,tenant in the building,pleaded that the toilet not be removed from the first floor of her home.
Mr. Strathman recommended laying this matter over to the September 17, 1996 Legislative Hearing. Within
that time,the owner should meet with Public Health and explore options to install a sink in area close to the
bathroom.
419 Sherburne Avenue
Va1 Davis,appeared with the property owner, Chester Perkerwicz. Ms. Davis stated that the property owner
needed to obtain the Certificate of Occupancy in order to complete the necessary repairs to the building.
Since the building was unoccupied,he was unable to collect income that would a11ow him to be able to afford
the more costly repairs. He was appealing the order to install ingress/egress windows on the third floor,
installing a chimney liner and cleanout stack. He was also appealing the order to make necessary electrical
repairs to unit#1 as well as to provide an additional light on the outside back door.
Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that the building had been condemned. The egress windows did meet the
minimum width and height requirement, however, there was not adequate openable space in the unit.
Concerning the electrical repairs to unit #1, these were items which need to be brought up to code.
Concerning outdoor lighting, every entrance and exit was required to have adequate lighting.
Mr. Strathman granted a variance for one year for the egress windows, installation of the chimney liner,
cleanout stack and electrical repairs for unit#1. He denied the variance request for outdoor lighting.
2252 Falcon Avenue
Appeal was withdrawn by the property owner.
vms