Loading...
01-536Council File # OI�S_2� Referred To Green Sheet # 106154 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAlNT PAUL, MINNESOTA �� Committee Date 1 SE TT RESOLVEA, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the May 15, 2001, 2 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 3 Propertv A� eo aled Ap elro lant 4 1705 Ha�ue Avenue Rebecca Wetterberg 5 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconfornvng doars on the following conditions: 1) when the 6 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 7 building must otherwise be in compliance. 8 1915 Marshall Avenue Brigid O'Malley 9 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconfornung doors on the following conditions: 1) when the 10 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they wiil be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 11 building must otherwise be in compliance. 12 2010 Marshall Avenue Dennis Eiynck 13 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconfornung doors on the following condifions: i) when the 14 nonconfonning doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 15 building must otherwise be in compliance. 16 575 Cleveland Avenue South Phyllis Smith 17 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the 18 nonconforming doars need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 19 building must otherwise be in compliance. 20 1522 Portland Avenue Wiliiams Stevenson 21 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconfonning doors on the following conditions: 1) when the 22 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with confornung fire rated doars, 2) the 23 building must otherwise be in compliance. 24 87 Prior Avenue North Michael J. Keller 25 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconformiug doors on the following conditions: 1) when the 26 nonconforming doars need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforxning fire rated doors, 2) the 27 building must otherwise be in compliance. This variance will not be effective until after the other issues are 28 resolved. Properry Code Enforcement, Resolution 106154 1 1838 Portland Avenue Lazry Laughlin O� —53¢ 2 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors on the foliowing condirions: 1) when the 3 nonconfonning doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforcuing fire rated doors, 2) the 4 building must otherwise be in compliance. 5 1846 Mazshall Avenue and 1810 Ashland Avenue Barry Star 6 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconformiug doors at both buildings on the following conditions: 1) 7 when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) 8 the building must otherwise be in compliance. 10 929 and 941 Lafond Avenue Sheryl Anderson for Amherst H. Wilder Foundation 11 Decision: Variance granted on the fire rated door closures on bedroom doors and the one inch throw single 12 cylinder deadboltlock. 13 2016 St. Clair Avenue Eric Petersen for Kleinman Kealty 14 Decision: Appeal denied, but the compliance date is extended for three months. 15 2650 Universitv Avenue Peter Lund for Transportation Components 16 Decision: Laid over to the June 19, 2001, Property Code Enforcement meeting. 17 444 Lynnhurst Avenue West Kristin McGregor and Susanne Lambert far 18 ReEnhy Metro 19 Decision: Variance granted with respect to the locks on the two bedroom doors that lead to the fire escape 20 because of the nature of the facility and staff is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 2 Properiy Code Enforcement, Resolution 106154 O1-53� 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey �/ Coleman �- Harris ,/ Benanav ,/ Reiter � Bostrom �/ Lantry � `1 D 'O 8 9 10 Adopted by Council: Date �_� 10 0� 11 12 Adoption Certified by Council Secretary 13 By: � � � 14 Approved by Mayor: Date �f��lQ �� �/ 15 By: - �u � Requested by Department o£ � Foxm Approved by City Attorney : Approved by Mayor for Submission to Councii � 3 O�-S3G ; •r_ City Council Offices 22, 20�1 GREEN SHEET N��osi5� Gerry Strathman, Z66-8560 TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES x.u�rewcerart arvcara arv�nemev ❑ anaruc wu�oLLaaUCFane ❑ wWCw.mN/�ccrn . Wlpl(ORYYfI1111) ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS POR SIGNATURE) Approving the May 15, 2001, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals on the following addresses: 1705 Hague Avenue, 1915 Marshall Avenue, 2010 Marshall Avenue, 575 Cleveland Avenue South, 1522 Portland Avenue, 87 Prior Avenue North, 1838 Portland Avenue, 1846 Marshall Avenue, 1810 Ashland Avenue, 929 and 941 Lafond Avenue, 2016 St. Clair Avenue, 2650 University Avenue, and 444 Lynnhurst Avenue West. PLANNING COMMISSION q6 COMMITTEE CNIL SERVICE COMMISSION IF Fiss thie persaNfitm euer� under e cantrxt for tlde tlepaAmeM7 VES NO Hes this P�� aver Daen a aty empbyee9 YES NO Dcec Uiis PersaMrm 7� a cldll not namal�YP�aesced bY anY artent citY emObyee4 YES NO M this persailfirtn a taryMetl ventloft YES NO �4r.�c� R�seFPc�t ��r���° 1( AMOUNT OF TRAMSACTION t COST/itEVDJUE BUOfiETED (GRGLE ON� YEE NO SOURCE ACTNRY NI�ER (FJfPWN) O 1- S'S �P NOTES OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, May 15, 2001 Room 330, City Ha11 Gerry Strathman, Legislative Heazing O�cer STAFF PRESENT: Pat Cahanes, Public Works; Michael Urmann, Fire Prevention; Thomas Zangs, Fire Prevention Gerry Sisathman called the meeting to order at 1:31 p.m. 1705 Hague Avenue Rebecca Wetterberg, owner, appeazed to request a variance on the fire rated doors. Mike Urmann reported he has no issues with this properry. Gerry Strathxnan granted a variance on the nonconforming doars on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1915 Marshall Avenue Brigid O'Malley, owner, appeazed to xequest a variance on the fire xated doors. Mike Urmann reported this is a standard appeal. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconfornung doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 2010 Marshall Avenue (No one appeared to represent the property.) Mike Urmann reported this is a standard appeal. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforniiug doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced wittt conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 575 Cleveland Avenue South Phyllis Smith, owner, appeared to request a variance on the fire rated doors. Mike Urmann stated there are no problems here. o�-53fP PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 5-15-01 Page 2 Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconformiug doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1522 Portland Avenue (No one appeared to represent the proper[y.) Mike Urmann reported there aze no issues with this property. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconfonning doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforxning fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 87 Prior Avenue North Michael J. Keller, catetaker, appeazed to request a variance on the fire rated doors. Mike Urmann reported there are some code issues that need to be taken care of, but he would not have a problem granting an appeal after the other compliance issues are completed. Mr. Keller responded that is not a problem. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. This variance will not be effective until after the other issues are resolved. 1838 Portland Avenue Lazry Laughlin, owner, appeazed to request a variance on the fire rated doors. Mike Urmann reported there aze no issues here. Gerry Strathxnan granted a variance on the nonconfornring doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1846 Marshall Avenue and 1810 Ashland Avenue Banry Staz, owner, 1784 Phalen Place, appeazed to request a variance on the fire rated doors. Mike Urmann reported this is a standazd appeal on both buildings. o�-s3� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 5-15-Oi Page 3 Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconfornuug doars at both buildings on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconfornung doors need to be replaced, they will be zeplaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must othercvise be in compliance. 929 and 941 Lafond Avenne Don Turvold, D'uector of the Anilierst H. Wilder Foundation, 180 Grotto Street South, appeared and stated he is requesting variances on two issues: 1) dooz closures on the bedroom, 2) dead bolt locks in the bedrooms. He is asking for the variances because of their clientele and they have 24 hour awake staff: This is a mental health residential program for children. They do serve potential predators. Closed doors represent things that aze not in the best interest of the clients. There are two people to a room. Gerry Strathman asked were there any appazent hazards or risks that would arise from granting these variance. Mike Urmann responded Fire Prevention does not oppose the appeal. Gerry Strathman granted variances on the fire rated door closures on the bedroom doors and the one inch throw single cylinder deadbolt lock. 2016 St. Clair Avenue Eric Petersen, Kleinman Realty, 1409 Willow Street, Minneapolis, appeared and stated he was given an order to replace the window in one building, and he does not feel it is a justifiable expense. The building has been there for 40 yeazs and the window has been overlooked ali that time. It is a$3,000 repair. It is a lower level window in an eleven unit apartment building bedroom. He would like to add an escape egress ladder under the window. He can build a box that would reduce the distance between the lower window sill and the top of the box or they can build a ladder and install it on the wa11. Mike Urmann reported the overall glazed area of the window is 2.5 square feet. The window is required for egress and ingress for firefighting and rescue. The window sill height is six feet from the ground. The only thing that would be required under the code is an approved stair well with an approved rise and run. A ladder cannot be used for an escape anymore under the building code because it would take up the whole room to get the correct rise and run to raise it to the level to get someone out of the room if it was big enough. Gerry Strathman stated the difference is minor in a lot of these issues, but the difference in this case is major between what is required and what e�sts. The requirement is 5.7 square feet. Mr. Strathman asked are there any ideas about how the window could be enlarged. Thomas Zangs responded the bedroom has two of these windows next to each other with building construction between them. bt-S3� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 5-15-01 Page 4 Mr. Strathman asked is there a reason why this is only now called to their attention. Mr. Urmann responded he cannot answer that specifically, but it could be a change in the room. If it was used for anything other than a bedroom, it would not require an escape window. Mr. Peterson stated the building is over 40 yeazs old and now he is azbiirarily being forced to tear out a wall which forms the uifiaslniciure of the building. It has been a bedroom for over 30 yeazs. There is no return on it. It will not make the aparlment more easily rentable nor make the tenant happy. It may make the apartment safer. In principle, he supports the code, but he has reservations aboutthe $3,000 expense. Mr. Strathman stated the two options Mr. Peterson proposed aze not acceptable under the code. Even if they were, there still is the problem of the window being too sma11. He cannot say why it was not cited before. Different inspectors see things that were not noted before. However, once the inspector notes it as a violation, the City cannot ignore it when there are life safety issues involved; if there was an accident, the City could be liable. Mr. Strathman could give additional time. Mr. Peterson responded he will need additional time. He understands the rafionale and has no hard feelings or ill will toward any of the parties here. Mr. Strathman asked what is a reasonable time to get this matter done. Mr. Peterson responded three months. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal, but extended the compliance date for three months. 2650 Universit�Avenue (Dauid Ciarck gave Mr. Strathman photographs. They were later returned.) David Clazck, Transportation Components, appeared and stated on the front of the properiy, that section of roof drains into an interior pipe into a sanitary sewage drain in front. They were here a few years ago to ask for a variance. Mr. Clazck hopes they will get another one. If they drain it to the front of the building, one concern is the amount of water across the sidewalk could post a hazard in the winter. There is not a good way to do this. In order to comply with getting it onto the grass, there is major renovation. Pat Cahanes reported this issue was visited a few times. Back in November 1995, the business was granted a 180 day 6me e�ension to complete the sepazation. They completed the sepazation on the south half of the building. What is left is the roof drain on the north side. In April 1996, they were given a five year time extension. The situation is still the same: they were stiil connected to the sanitary. There aze some options: i) connecting to the storm sewer, 2) connecting into the existing system that he has and discharging out the east side, 3) dischazging out the north side to the grass azea. Option 1: Mr. Cahanes stated there is a storm sewer stub installed in 1994 or 1995 for the new building on their properry. To get to the storm sewer from the center roof drain would be a matter of D t-S3 6 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 5-15-01 Page 5 trenching outside the building, bringing the pipe to the exterior wall, and then trenching to the storm sewer. Part of the building drain system is connected to the storm sewer. It is the newest addition. Mr. Strathman stated the building has no basement, so the business would pick up the roof drain from the ceiling azea or the first floor, bring it to an outside wall, bring it down from there into the ground, trench to wherever the storm sewer is located, and connect. Mr. Cahanes stated most of the building is warehouse. Mr. Clazck stated the majority of the brick area is two floors with offices on top. The remaining back area is wide open wazehouse. The business would have to go into the office area and then divert it into one direction or another. The division between the first and second floor is concrete. This is a major renovation. Option 2: Mr. Cahanes stated they could run it out of an exterior wall on the north side or into the existing system of the building just south of it. That runs out to the east side of the pazking lot. Both of them discharge to grade. Mr. Clarck responded that azea is all part of their wazehouse and it might be a little difficult to tie into. The north side would be coming out the front. Mr. Strathman asked is the north area large enough to absorb the dischazge. Mr. Clarck responded that in the fa11 and winter of the year, the drainage typically ends up in ice anyway. The concern is safety. Option 3: Mr. Cahanes stated this is to eliminate the roof drain and install three sided down spouts in more than one azea to disperse the water. Mr. Stratlunan responded this has been done elsewhere. Especially on dead flat roofs, added Mr. Cahanes, where there is not a large slope to the grade. There are areas of settlement which is not where the roof drain is located. There is ponding already, so ponding would not be an issue for adding down spouts on the side. Mr. Clarck stated he is not familiar with the top of that roof and would like the opporhxnity to explore it. The construction of that building, as it was explained to him, is not that way. He was under the impression there was more of a pitch. Mr. Strathman stated no one under the current ordinance has the authority to grant variances in that situation as a result of an agreement between Saint Paul and the Federal Government that did not provide for variances. The best he can do is grant time ea�tensions. The business needs to fmd a solufion that will not create an unnecessary expense or disruption to the business. The City is willing to a11ow some reasonable fvne. He will continue this for a month which will give Mr. Clarck tune to look at the roof, consult with City staff, and come up with an effective and inexpensive solution. Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the June 19, 2001, Property Code Enforcement meeting. at-53� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCENIENT NOTES OF 5-15-Oi 444 Lynnhurst Avenue West Page 6 The following appeared for ReEntry Metro: Kristin McGregor, Interim Program Director, Susanue Lambert, 357 Oneida Street. Ms. McGregor stated they aze requesting a variance from the requirement of locks on two of the doors within the facility. Both lead to a fire escape. Gerry Strathman asked why there is a requirement for locks on a fire escape. David Weisberg responded these aze rooming units. There aze two different ordinances which conflict with each other: 1) there is a requirement for access to a fire escape, 2) there is a requirement for rooming units to have locked doors for the security of the people that live there. One solution may be to discontinue the use of these two rooms as rooming units. Mr. Strathman stated these two rooms aze used for sleeping rooms. The xooms have locked on the enUy door. Mr. Weisberg responded no. Anyone can wallc into these rooms because there is a fire escape on the other side of the room. To utilize the fire escape, someone has to walk through the room. Mike Urmann stated there is a required second e�t off the second and third floor. This is an exterior fire escape from the building. The only access to that exterior fire escape comes out of two of the sleepSng rooms. The fire inspectors have not required those rooms to be locked because of the fire escape, but the housing code requires that they be locked. The fire escape is secured from the outside, but not secured from the interior hallway so the other rooms can have access to the fire escape. Ms. McGregor stated they aze a correctional halfway house and aze staffed 24 hours a day with random head counts and room checks. Within those two rooms, there are two closets that are locked for personal belongings. Also, each client has a foot locker. Mr. Strathman asked are they concerned about protecting the residents in these rooms from other residents. Ms. Lambert responded all the rooms aze shazed room. They opened the door of this facility in 1986, and they have never had any problems in terms of roommates, fights among the clientele. Gerry Strathman granted a variance with respect to the locks on the two bedroom doors thai lead to the fire escape because of the nature of the facility and staff is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The meeting was adjourned at 2:09 p.m. 0 Council File # OI�S_2� Referred To Green Sheet # 106154 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAlNT PAUL, MINNESOTA �� Committee Date 1 SE TT RESOLVEA, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the May 15, 2001, 2 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 3 Propertv A� eo aled Ap elro lant 4 1705 Ha�ue Avenue Rebecca Wetterberg 5 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconfornvng doars on the following conditions: 1) when the 6 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 7 building must otherwise be in compliance. 8 1915 Marshall Avenue Brigid O'Malley 9 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconfornung doors on the following conditions: 1) when the 10 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they wiil be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 11 building must otherwise be in compliance. 12 2010 Marshall Avenue Dennis Eiynck 13 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconfornung doors on the following condifions: i) when the 14 nonconfonning doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 15 building must otherwise be in compliance. 16 575 Cleveland Avenue South Phyllis Smith 17 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the 18 nonconforming doars need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 19 building must otherwise be in compliance. 20 1522 Portland Avenue Wiliiams Stevenson 21 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconfonning doors on the following conditions: 1) when the 22 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with confornung fire rated doars, 2) the 23 building must otherwise be in compliance. 24 87 Prior Avenue North Michael J. Keller 25 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconformiug doors on the following conditions: 1) when the 26 nonconforming doars need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforxning fire rated doors, 2) the 27 building must otherwise be in compliance. This variance will not be effective until after the other issues are 28 resolved. Properry Code Enforcement, Resolution 106154 1 1838 Portland Avenue Lazry Laughlin O� —53¢ 2 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors on the foliowing condirions: 1) when the 3 nonconfonning doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforcuing fire rated doors, 2) the 4 building must otherwise be in compliance. 5 1846 Mazshall Avenue and 1810 Ashland Avenue Barry Star 6 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconformiug doors at both buildings on the following conditions: 1) 7 when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) 8 the building must otherwise be in compliance. 10 929 and 941 Lafond Avenue Sheryl Anderson for Amherst H. Wilder Foundation 11 Decision: Variance granted on the fire rated door closures on bedroom doors and the one inch throw single 12 cylinder deadboltlock. 13 2016 St. Clair Avenue Eric Petersen for Kleinman Kealty 14 Decision: Appeal denied, but the compliance date is extended for three months. 15 2650 Universitv Avenue Peter Lund for Transportation Components 16 Decision: Laid over to the June 19, 2001, Property Code Enforcement meeting. 17 444 Lynnhurst Avenue West Kristin McGregor and Susanne Lambert far 18 ReEnhy Metro 19 Decision: Variance granted with respect to the locks on the two bedroom doors that lead to the fire escape 20 because of the nature of the facility and staff is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 2 Properiy Code Enforcement, Resolution 106154 O1-53� 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey �/ Coleman �- Harris ,/ Benanav ,/ Reiter � Bostrom �/ Lantry � `1 D 'O 8 9 10 Adopted by Council: Date �_� 10 0� 11 12 Adoption Certified by Council Secretary 13 By: � � � 14 Approved by Mayor: Date �f��lQ �� �/ 15 By: - �u � Requested by Department o£ � Foxm Approved by City Attorney : Approved by Mayor for Submission to Councii � 3 O�-S3G ; •r_ City Council Offices 22, 20�1 GREEN SHEET N��osi5� Gerry Strathman, Z66-8560 TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES x.u�rewcerart arvcara arv�nemev ❑ anaruc wu�oLLaaUCFane ❑ wWCw.mN/�ccrn . Wlpl(ORYYfI1111) ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS POR SIGNATURE) Approving the May 15, 2001, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals on the following addresses: 1705 Hague Avenue, 1915 Marshall Avenue, 2010 Marshall Avenue, 575 Cleveland Avenue South, 1522 Portland Avenue, 87 Prior Avenue North, 1838 Portland Avenue, 1846 Marshall Avenue, 1810 Ashland Avenue, 929 and 941 Lafond Avenue, 2016 St. Clair Avenue, 2650 University Avenue, and 444 Lynnhurst Avenue West. PLANNING COMMISSION q6 COMMITTEE CNIL SERVICE COMMISSION IF Fiss thie persaNfitm euer� under e cantrxt for tlde tlepaAmeM7 VES NO Hes this P�� aver Daen a aty empbyee9 YES NO Dcec Uiis PersaMrm 7� a cldll not namal�YP�aesced bY anY artent citY emObyee4 YES NO M this persailfirtn a taryMetl ventloft YES NO �4r.�c� R�seFPc�t ��r���° 1( AMOUNT OF TRAMSACTION t COST/itEVDJUE BUOfiETED (GRGLE ON� YEE NO SOURCE ACTNRY NI�ER (FJfPWN) O 1- S'S �P NOTES OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, May 15, 2001 Room 330, City Ha11 Gerry Strathman, Legislative Heazing O�cer STAFF PRESENT: Pat Cahanes, Public Works; Michael Urmann, Fire Prevention; Thomas Zangs, Fire Prevention Gerry Sisathman called the meeting to order at 1:31 p.m. 1705 Hague Avenue Rebecca Wetterberg, owner, appeazed to request a variance on the fire rated doors. Mike Urmann reported he has no issues with this properry. Gerry Strathxnan granted a variance on the nonconforming doars on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1915 Marshall Avenue Brigid O'Malley, owner, appeazed to xequest a variance on the fire xated doors. Mike Urmann reported this is a standard appeal. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconfornung doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 2010 Marshall Avenue (No one appeared to represent the property.) Mike Urmann reported this is a standard appeal. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforniiug doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced wittt conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 575 Cleveland Avenue South Phyllis Smith, owner, appeared to request a variance on the fire rated doors. Mike Urmann stated there are no problems here. o�-53fP PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 5-15-01 Page 2 Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconformiug doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1522 Portland Avenue (No one appeared to represent the proper[y.) Mike Urmann reported there aze no issues with this property. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconfonning doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforxning fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 87 Prior Avenue North Michael J. Keller, catetaker, appeazed to request a variance on the fire rated doors. Mike Urmann reported there are some code issues that need to be taken care of, but he would not have a problem granting an appeal after the other compliance issues are completed. Mr. Keller responded that is not a problem. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. This variance will not be effective until after the other issues are resolved. 1838 Portland Avenue Lazry Laughlin, owner, appeazed to request a variance on the fire rated doors. Mike Urmann reported there aze no issues here. Gerry Strathxnan granted a variance on the nonconfornring doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1846 Marshall Avenue and 1810 Ashland Avenue Banry Staz, owner, 1784 Phalen Place, appeazed to request a variance on the fire rated doors. Mike Urmann reported this is a standazd appeal on both buildings. o�-s3� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 5-15-Oi Page 3 Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconfornuug doars at both buildings on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconfornung doors need to be replaced, they will be zeplaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must othercvise be in compliance. 929 and 941 Lafond Avenne Don Turvold, D'uector of the Anilierst H. Wilder Foundation, 180 Grotto Street South, appeared and stated he is requesting variances on two issues: 1) dooz closures on the bedroom, 2) dead bolt locks in the bedrooms. He is asking for the variances because of their clientele and they have 24 hour awake staff: This is a mental health residential program for children. They do serve potential predators. Closed doors represent things that aze not in the best interest of the clients. There are two people to a room. Gerry Strathman asked were there any appazent hazards or risks that would arise from granting these variance. Mike Urmann responded Fire Prevention does not oppose the appeal. Gerry Strathman granted variances on the fire rated door closures on the bedroom doors and the one inch throw single cylinder deadbolt lock. 2016 St. Clair Avenue Eric Petersen, Kleinman Realty, 1409 Willow Street, Minneapolis, appeared and stated he was given an order to replace the window in one building, and he does not feel it is a justifiable expense. The building has been there for 40 yeazs and the window has been overlooked ali that time. It is a$3,000 repair. It is a lower level window in an eleven unit apartment building bedroom. He would like to add an escape egress ladder under the window. He can build a box that would reduce the distance between the lower window sill and the top of the box or they can build a ladder and install it on the wa11. Mike Urmann reported the overall glazed area of the window is 2.5 square feet. The window is required for egress and ingress for firefighting and rescue. The window sill height is six feet from the ground. The only thing that would be required under the code is an approved stair well with an approved rise and run. A ladder cannot be used for an escape anymore under the building code because it would take up the whole room to get the correct rise and run to raise it to the level to get someone out of the room if it was big enough. Gerry Strathman stated the difference is minor in a lot of these issues, but the difference in this case is major between what is required and what e�sts. The requirement is 5.7 square feet. Mr. Strathman asked are there any ideas about how the window could be enlarged. Thomas Zangs responded the bedroom has two of these windows next to each other with building construction between them. bt-S3� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 5-15-01 Page 4 Mr. Strathman asked is there a reason why this is only now called to their attention. Mr. Urmann responded he cannot answer that specifically, but it could be a change in the room. If it was used for anything other than a bedroom, it would not require an escape window. Mr. Peterson stated the building is over 40 yeazs old and now he is azbiirarily being forced to tear out a wall which forms the uifiaslniciure of the building. It has been a bedroom for over 30 yeazs. There is no return on it. It will not make the aparlment more easily rentable nor make the tenant happy. It may make the apartment safer. In principle, he supports the code, but he has reservations aboutthe $3,000 expense. Mr. Strathman stated the two options Mr. Peterson proposed aze not acceptable under the code. Even if they were, there still is the problem of the window being too sma11. He cannot say why it was not cited before. Different inspectors see things that were not noted before. However, once the inspector notes it as a violation, the City cannot ignore it when there are life safety issues involved; if there was an accident, the City could be liable. Mr. Strathman could give additional time. Mr. Peterson responded he will need additional time. He understands the rafionale and has no hard feelings or ill will toward any of the parties here. Mr. Strathman asked what is a reasonable time to get this matter done. Mr. Peterson responded three months. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal, but extended the compliance date for three months. 2650 Universit�Avenue (Dauid Ciarck gave Mr. Strathman photographs. They were later returned.) David Clazck, Transportation Components, appeared and stated on the front of the properiy, that section of roof drains into an interior pipe into a sanitary sewage drain in front. They were here a few years ago to ask for a variance. Mr. Clazck hopes they will get another one. If they drain it to the front of the building, one concern is the amount of water across the sidewalk could post a hazard in the winter. There is not a good way to do this. In order to comply with getting it onto the grass, there is major renovation. Pat Cahanes reported this issue was visited a few times. Back in November 1995, the business was granted a 180 day 6me e�ension to complete the sepazation. They completed the sepazation on the south half of the building. What is left is the roof drain on the north side. In April 1996, they were given a five year time extension. The situation is still the same: they were stiil connected to the sanitary. There aze some options: i) connecting to the storm sewer, 2) connecting into the existing system that he has and discharging out the east side, 3) dischazging out the north side to the grass azea. Option 1: Mr. Cahanes stated there is a storm sewer stub installed in 1994 or 1995 for the new building on their properry. To get to the storm sewer from the center roof drain would be a matter of D t-S3 6 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 5-15-01 Page 5 trenching outside the building, bringing the pipe to the exterior wall, and then trenching to the storm sewer. Part of the building drain system is connected to the storm sewer. It is the newest addition. Mr. Strathman stated the building has no basement, so the business would pick up the roof drain from the ceiling azea or the first floor, bring it to an outside wall, bring it down from there into the ground, trench to wherever the storm sewer is located, and connect. Mr. Cahanes stated most of the building is warehouse. Mr. Clazck stated the majority of the brick area is two floors with offices on top. The remaining back area is wide open wazehouse. The business would have to go into the office area and then divert it into one direction or another. The division between the first and second floor is concrete. This is a major renovation. Option 2: Mr. Cahanes stated they could run it out of an exterior wall on the north side or into the existing system of the building just south of it. That runs out to the east side of the pazking lot. Both of them discharge to grade. Mr. Clarck responded that azea is all part of their wazehouse and it might be a little difficult to tie into. The north side would be coming out the front. Mr. Strathman asked is the north area large enough to absorb the dischazge. Mr. Clarck responded that in the fa11 and winter of the year, the drainage typically ends up in ice anyway. The concern is safety. Option 3: Mr. Cahanes stated this is to eliminate the roof drain and install three sided down spouts in more than one azea to disperse the water. Mr. Stratlunan responded this has been done elsewhere. Especially on dead flat roofs, added Mr. Cahanes, where there is not a large slope to the grade. There are areas of settlement which is not where the roof drain is located. There is ponding already, so ponding would not be an issue for adding down spouts on the side. Mr. Clarck stated he is not familiar with the top of that roof and would like the opporhxnity to explore it. The construction of that building, as it was explained to him, is not that way. He was under the impression there was more of a pitch. Mr. Strathman stated no one under the current ordinance has the authority to grant variances in that situation as a result of an agreement between Saint Paul and the Federal Government that did not provide for variances. The best he can do is grant time ea�tensions. The business needs to fmd a solufion that will not create an unnecessary expense or disruption to the business. The City is willing to a11ow some reasonable fvne. He will continue this for a month which will give Mr. Clarck tune to look at the roof, consult with City staff, and come up with an effective and inexpensive solution. Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the June 19, 2001, Property Code Enforcement meeting. at-53� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCENIENT NOTES OF 5-15-Oi 444 Lynnhurst Avenue West Page 6 The following appeared for ReEntry Metro: Kristin McGregor, Interim Program Director, Susanue Lambert, 357 Oneida Street. Ms. McGregor stated they aze requesting a variance from the requirement of locks on two of the doors within the facility. Both lead to a fire escape. Gerry Strathman asked why there is a requirement for locks on a fire escape. David Weisberg responded these aze rooming units. There aze two different ordinances which conflict with each other: 1) there is a requirement for access to a fire escape, 2) there is a requirement for rooming units to have locked doors for the security of the people that live there. One solution may be to discontinue the use of these two rooms as rooming units. Mr. Strathman stated these two rooms aze used for sleeping rooms. The xooms have locked on the enUy door. Mr. Weisberg responded no. Anyone can wallc into these rooms because there is a fire escape on the other side of the room. To utilize the fire escape, someone has to walk through the room. Mike Urmann stated there is a required second e�t off the second and third floor. This is an exterior fire escape from the building. The only access to that exterior fire escape comes out of two of the sleepSng rooms. The fire inspectors have not required those rooms to be locked because of the fire escape, but the housing code requires that they be locked. The fire escape is secured from the outside, but not secured from the interior hallway so the other rooms can have access to the fire escape. Ms. McGregor stated they aze a correctional halfway house and aze staffed 24 hours a day with random head counts and room checks. Within those two rooms, there are two closets that are locked for personal belongings. Also, each client has a foot locker. Mr. Strathman asked are they concerned about protecting the residents in these rooms from other residents. Ms. Lambert responded all the rooms aze shazed room. They opened the door of this facility in 1986, and they have never had any problems in terms of roommates, fights among the clientele. Gerry Strathman granted a variance with respect to the locks on the two bedroom doors thai lead to the fire escape because of the nature of the facility and staff is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The meeting was adjourned at 2:09 p.m. 0 Council File # OI�S_2� Referred To Green Sheet # 106154 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAlNT PAUL, MINNESOTA �� Committee Date 1 SE TT RESOLVEA, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the May 15, 2001, 2 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 3 Propertv A� eo aled Ap elro lant 4 1705 Ha�ue Avenue Rebecca Wetterberg 5 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconfornvng doars on the following conditions: 1) when the 6 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 7 building must otherwise be in compliance. 8 1915 Marshall Avenue Brigid O'Malley 9 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconfornung doors on the following conditions: 1) when the 10 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they wiil be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 11 building must otherwise be in compliance. 12 2010 Marshall Avenue Dennis Eiynck 13 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconfornung doors on the following condifions: i) when the 14 nonconfonning doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 15 building must otherwise be in compliance. 16 575 Cleveland Avenue South Phyllis Smith 17 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the 18 nonconforming doars need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 19 building must otherwise be in compliance. 20 1522 Portland Avenue Wiliiams Stevenson 21 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconfonning doors on the following conditions: 1) when the 22 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with confornung fire rated doars, 2) the 23 building must otherwise be in compliance. 24 87 Prior Avenue North Michael J. Keller 25 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconformiug doors on the following conditions: 1) when the 26 nonconforming doars need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforxning fire rated doors, 2) the 27 building must otherwise be in compliance. This variance will not be effective until after the other issues are 28 resolved. Properry Code Enforcement, Resolution 106154 1 1838 Portland Avenue Lazry Laughlin O� —53¢ 2 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors on the foliowing condirions: 1) when the 3 nonconfonning doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforcuing fire rated doors, 2) the 4 building must otherwise be in compliance. 5 1846 Mazshall Avenue and 1810 Ashland Avenue Barry Star 6 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconformiug doors at both buildings on the following conditions: 1) 7 when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) 8 the building must otherwise be in compliance. 10 929 and 941 Lafond Avenue Sheryl Anderson for Amherst H. Wilder Foundation 11 Decision: Variance granted on the fire rated door closures on bedroom doors and the one inch throw single 12 cylinder deadboltlock. 13 2016 St. Clair Avenue Eric Petersen for Kleinman Kealty 14 Decision: Appeal denied, but the compliance date is extended for three months. 15 2650 Universitv Avenue Peter Lund for Transportation Components 16 Decision: Laid over to the June 19, 2001, Property Code Enforcement meeting. 17 444 Lynnhurst Avenue West Kristin McGregor and Susanne Lambert far 18 ReEnhy Metro 19 Decision: Variance granted with respect to the locks on the two bedroom doors that lead to the fire escape 20 because of the nature of the facility and staff is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 2 Properiy Code Enforcement, Resolution 106154 O1-53� 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey �/ Coleman �- Harris ,/ Benanav ,/ Reiter � Bostrom �/ Lantry � `1 D 'O 8 9 10 Adopted by Council: Date �_� 10 0� 11 12 Adoption Certified by Council Secretary 13 By: � � � 14 Approved by Mayor: Date �f��lQ �� �/ 15 By: - �u � Requested by Department o£ � Foxm Approved by City Attorney : Approved by Mayor for Submission to Councii � 3 O�-S3G ; •r_ City Council Offices 22, 20�1 GREEN SHEET N��osi5� Gerry Strathman, Z66-8560 TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES x.u�rewcerart arvcara arv�nemev ❑ anaruc wu�oLLaaUCFane ❑ wWCw.mN/�ccrn . Wlpl(ORYYfI1111) ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS POR SIGNATURE) Approving the May 15, 2001, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals on the following addresses: 1705 Hague Avenue, 1915 Marshall Avenue, 2010 Marshall Avenue, 575 Cleveland Avenue South, 1522 Portland Avenue, 87 Prior Avenue North, 1838 Portland Avenue, 1846 Marshall Avenue, 1810 Ashland Avenue, 929 and 941 Lafond Avenue, 2016 St. Clair Avenue, 2650 University Avenue, and 444 Lynnhurst Avenue West. PLANNING COMMISSION q6 COMMITTEE CNIL SERVICE COMMISSION IF Fiss thie persaNfitm euer� under e cantrxt for tlde tlepaAmeM7 VES NO Hes this P�� aver Daen a aty empbyee9 YES NO Dcec Uiis PersaMrm 7� a cldll not namal�YP�aesced bY anY artent citY emObyee4 YES NO M this persailfirtn a taryMetl ventloft YES NO �4r.�c� R�seFPc�t ��r���° 1( AMOUNT OF TRAMSACTION t COST/itEVDJUE BUOfiETED (GRGLE ON� YEE NO SOURCE ACTNRY NI�ER (FJfPWN) O 1- S'S �P NOTES OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, May 15, 2001 Room 330, City Ha11 Gerry Strathman, Legislative Heazing O�cer STAFF PRESENT: Pat Cahanes, Public Works; Michael Urmann, Fire Prevention; Thomas Zangs, Fire Prevention Gerry Sisathman called the meeting to order at 1:31 p.m. 1705 Hague Avenue Rebecca Wetterberg, owner, appeazed to request a variance on the fire rated doors. Mike Urmann reported he has no issues with this properry. Gerry Strathxnan granted a variance on the nonconforming doars on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1915 Marshall Avenue Brigid O'Malley, owner, appeazed to xequest a variance on the fire xated doors. Mike Urmann reported this is a standard appeal. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconfornung doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 2010 Marshall Avenue (No one appeared to represent the property.) Mike Urmann reported this is a standard appeal. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforniiug doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced wittt conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 575 Cleveland Avenue South Phyllis Smith, owner, appeared to request a variance on the fire rated doors. Mike Urmann stated there are no problems here. o�-53fP PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 5-15-01 Page 2 Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconformiug doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1522 Portland Avenue (No one appeared to represent the proper[y.) Mike Urmann reported there aze no issues with this property. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconfonning doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforxning fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 87 Prior Avenue North Michael J. Keller, catetaker, appeazed to request a variance on the fire rated doors. Mike Urmann reported there are some code issues that need to be taken care of, but he would not have a problem granting an appeal after the other compliance issues are completed. Mr. Keller responded that is not a problem. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. This variance will not be effective until after the other issues are resolved. 1838 Portland Avenue Lazry Laughlin, owner, appeazed to request a variance on the fire rated doors. Mike Urmann reported there aze no issues here. Gerry Strathxnan granted a variance on the nonconfornring doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 1846 Marshall Avenue and 1810 Ashland Avenue Banry Staz, owner, 1784 Phalen Place, appeazed to request a variance on the fire rated doors. Mike Urmann reported this is a standazd appeal on both buildings. o�-s3� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 5-15-Oi Page 3 Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconfornuug doars at both buildings on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconfornung doors need to be replaced, they will be zeplaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must othercvise be in compliance. 929 and 941 Lafond Avenne Don Turvold, D'uector of the Anilierst H. Wilder Foundation, 180 Grotto Street South, appeared and stated he is requesting variances on two issues: 1) dooz closures on the bedroom, 2) dead bolt locks in the bedrooms. He is asking for the variances because of their clientele and they have 24 hour awake staff: This is a mental health residential program for children. They do serve potential predators. Closed doors represent things that aze not in the best interest of the clients. There are two people to a room. Gerry Strathman asked were there any appazent hazards or risks that would arise from granting these variance. Mike Urmann responded Fire Prevention does not oppose the appeal. Gerry Strathman granted variances on the fire rated door closures on the bedroom doors and the one inch throw single cylinder deadbolt lock. 2016 St. Clair Avenue Eric Petersen, Kleinman Realty, 1409 Willow Street, Minneapolis, appeared and stated he was given an order to replace the window in one building, and he does not feel it is a justifiable expense. The building has been there for 40 yeazs and the window has been overlooked ali that time. It is a$3,000 repair. It is a lower level window in an eleven unit apartment building bedroom. He would like to add an escape egress ladder under the window. He can build a box that would reduce the distance between the lower window sill and the top of the box or they can build a ladder and install it on the wa11. Mike Urmann reported the overall glazed area of the window is 2.5 square feet. The window is required for egress and ingress for firefighting and rescue. The window sill height is six feet from the ground. The only thing that would be required under the code is an approved stair well with an approved rise and run. A ladder cannot be used for an escape anymore under the building code because it would take up the whole room to get the correct rise and run to raise it to the level to get someone out of the room if it was big enough. Gerry Strathman stated the difference is minor in a lot of these issues, but the difference in this case is major between what is required and what e�sts. The requirement is 5.7 square feet. Mr. Strathman asked are there any ideas about how the window could be enlarged. Thomas Zangs responded the bedroom has two of these windows next to each other with building construction between them. bt-S3� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 5-15-01 Page 4 Mr. Strathman asked is there a reason why this is only now called to their attention. Mr. Urmann responded he cannot answer that specifically, but it could be a change in the room. If it was used for anything other than a bedroom, it would not require an escape window. Mr. Peterson stated the building is over 40 yeazs old and now he is azbiirarily being forced to tear out a wall which forms the uifiaslniciure of the building. It has been a bedroom for over 30 yeazs. There is no return on it. It will not make the aparlment more easily rentable nor make the tenant happy. It may make the apartment safer. In principle, he supports the code, but he has reservations aboutthe $3,000 expense. Mr. Strathman stated the two options Mr. Peterson proposed aze not acceptable under the code. Even if they were, there still is the problem of the window being too sma11. He cannot say why it was not cited before. Different inspectors see things that were not noted before. However, once the inspector notes it as a violation, the City cannot ignore it when there are life safety issues involved; if there was an accident, the City could be liable. Mr. Strathman could give additional time. Mr. Peterson responded he will need additional time. He understands the rafionale and has no hard feelings or ill will toward any of the parties here. Mr. Strathman asked what is a reasonable time to get this matter done. Mr. Peterson responded three months. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal, but extended the compliance date for three months. 2650 Universit�Avenue (Dauid Ciarck gave Mr. Strathman photographs. They were later returned.) David Clazck, Transportation Components, appeared and stated on the front of the properiy, that section of roof drains into an interior pipe into a sanitary sewage drain in front. They were here a few years ago to ask for a variance. Mr. Clazck hopes they will get another one. If they drain it to the front of the building, one concern is the amount of water across the sidewalk could post a hazard in the winter. There is not a good way to do this. In order to comply with getting it onto the grass, there is major renovation. Pat Cahanes reported this issue was visited a few times. Back in November 1995, the business was granted a 180 day 6me e�ension to complete the sepazation. They completed the sepazation on the south half of the building. What is left is the roof drain on the north side. In April 1996, they were given a five year time extension. The situation is still the same: they were stiil connected to the sanitary. There aze some options: i) connecting to the storm sewer, 2) connecting into the existing system that he has and discharging out the east side, 3) dischazging out the north side to the grass azea. Option 1: Mr. Cahanes stated there is a storm sewer stub installed in 1994 or 1995 for the new building on their properry. To get to the storm sewer from the center roof drain would be a matter of D t-S3 6 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 5-15-01 Page 5 trenching outside the building, bringing the pipe to the exterior wall, and then trenching to the storm sewer. Part of the building drain system is connected to the storm sewer. It is the newest addition. Mr. Strathman stated the building has no basement, so the business would pick up the roof drain from the ceiling azea or the first floor, bring it to an outside wall, bring it down from there into the ground, trench to wherever the storm sewer is located, and connect. Mr. Cahanes stated most of the building is warehouse. Mr. Clazck stated the majority of the brick area is two floors with offices on top. The remaining back area is wide open wazehouse. The business would have to go into the office area and then divert it into one direction or another. The division between the first and second floor is concrete. This is a major renovation. Option 2: Mr. Cahanes stated they could run it out of an exterior wall on the north side or into the existing system of the building just south of it. That runs out to the east side of the pazking lot. Both of them discharge to grade. Mr. Clarck responded that azea is all part of their wazehouse and it might be a little difficult to tie into. The north side would be coming out the front. Mr. Strathman asked is the north area large enough to absorb the dischazge. Mr. Clarck responded that in the fa11 and winter of the year, the drainage typically ends up in ice anyway. The concern is safety. Option 3: Mr. Cahanes stated this is to eliminate the roof drain and install three sided down spouts in more than one azea to disperse the water. Mr. Stratlunan responded this has been done elsewhere. Especially on dead flat roofs, added Mr. Cahanes, where there is not a large slope to the grade. There are areas of settlement which is not where the roof drain is located. There is ponding already, so ponding would not be an issue for adding down spouts on the side. Mr. Clarck stated he is not familiar with the top of that roof and would like the opporhxnity to explore it. The construction of that building, as it was explained to him, is not that way. He was under the impression there was more of a pitch. Mr. Strathman stated no one under the current ordinance has the authority to grant variances in that situation as a result of an agreement between Saint Paul and the Federal Government that did not provide for variances. The best he can do is grant time ea�tensions. The business needs to fmd a solufion that will not create an unnecessary expense or disruption to the business. The City is willing to a11ow some reasonable fvne. He will continue this for a month which will give Mr. Clarck tune to look at the roof, consult with City staff, and come up with an effective and inexpensive solution. Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the June 19, 2001, Property Code Enforcement meeting. at-53� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCENIENT NOTES OF 5-15-Oi 444 Lynnhurst Avenue West Page 6 The following appeared for ReEntry Metro: Kristin McGregor, Interim Program Director, Susanue Lambert, 357 Oneida Street. Ms. McGregor stated they aze requesting a variance from the requirement of locks on two of the doors within the facility. Both lead to a fire escape. Gerry Strathman asked why there is a requirement for locks on a fire escape. David Weisberg responded these aze rooming units. There aze two different ordinances which conflict with each other: 1) there is a requirement for access to a fire escape, 2) there is a requirement for rooming units to have locked doors for the security of the people that live there. One solution may be to discontinue the use of these two rooms as rooming units. Mr. Strathman stated these two rooms aze used for sleeping rooms. The xooms have locked on the enUy door. Mr. Weisberg responded no. Anyone can wallc into these rooms because there is a fire escape on the other side of the room. To utilize the fire escape, someone has to walk through the room. Mike Urmann stated there is a required second e�t off the second and third floor. This is an exterior fire escape from the building. The only access to that exterior fire escape comes out of two of the sleepSng rooms. The fire inspectors have not required those rooms to be locked because of the fire escape, but the housing code requires that they be locked. The fire escape is secured from the outside, but not secured from the interior hallway so the other rooms can have access to the fire escape. Ms. McGregor stated they aze a correctional halfway house and aze staffed 24 hours a day with random head counts and room checks. Within those two rooms, there are two closets that are locked for personal belongings. Also, each client has a foot locker. Mr. Strathman asked are they concerned about protecting the residents in these rooms from other residents. Ms. Lambert responded all the rooms aze shazed room. They opened the door of this facility in 1986, and they have never had any problems in terms of roommates, fights among the clientele. Gerry Strathman granted a variance with respect to the locks on the two bedroom doors thai lead to the fire escape because of the nature of the facility and staff is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The meeting was adjourned at 2:09 p.m. 0