02-475�ERtGINA�
Presented
�r-1Y'(�e� e c� - ���ne. S �
aoo�
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
�
Referred To Committee Date
BE TT RESOLVED, that the Councii of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the May 14, 2002,
decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Properiy Code Enforcement Appeals for the following
addresses:
4 Propertv A�pealed
5
Appellant
6 1519 Hazelwood Street Mazk A. Jerentosky & Stephanie A. Curtis
7 Decision: Appeal granted on the April 17, 2002, Correction Order with respect to Item 4, smoke detector; and
8 Item 5, provide kitchen with three remote duplex electric outlets.
9 665 Snelline Avenue North Kathryn Nelson
10 Decision: Lay over to the 7uly 2, 2002, Property Code Enforcement meeting.
11 201 Fourth Street East Alan Peterson for J& A Properties/PCF
12 Decision: Appeal denied on the Apri122, 2002, Deficiency List.
13 963 Seventh Street West Randall Tigue for Sevenview, Inc.
14 Decision Lay over to the June 4, 2002, Property Code Enforcement Meeting.
15 693 Arlin�ton Avenue East Edward S. Seropian
16 Decision: Extension granted to June 1, 2007, to disconnect the rainleader or until Ed and Betty Seropian no
17 longer occupy the house, whichever comes first. Even if the owners give up the occupancy to their daughter, the
18 variance will end.
19 287 Maria Avenue John Kuhn for St. Paul AERIE 33
20 Decision: Ea�tension granted to Ju1y 15, 2002, to replace the roof. If the deep fat fryer is removed immediately,
21 there will be no need for a hood and duct ventilation fire suppression system as listed on the Apri126, 2002,
22 Deficiency List.
23 2097 Mazshall Avenue ��'�� � s�R� Zachery Coelius
24 Decision: Extension granted�� , to bring the porch into compliance.
Council File # o a _y�5
Green Sheet # 113737
25 671 and 673 Sims Avenue Donald Farrell
26 Decision: Variance granted on the miuimum gross floor azeas in the bedrooms of the rivo lower units as listed
27 on the Aprii 4, 2002, Deficiency List.
Green Sheet 113737
� ORiGfNAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Yeas Na s Absent
Blakey �
Coleman �
Hazris �
Benanav „/
Reiter ,/
Bosh�om ✓
Lantry �
O O
s
9 Adopted by Council: Date ���_ „— 5�'� p p�
10
11 Adoption
12 By:
13 Approved
14 By:
6 F�� •I
Requested by Department o£
�
Form Approved by City Attomey
G'�
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
oa-��5
City Council Offices
Strathman, 266-8560
r� z�, Zoo2
TOTAL # OF SIGt�ATURE PAGES
GREEN SHEET
nEnR,.e�.a�sro.
No 113737
r-1,�--= �
roft ❑ anwTmrt�r ❑ arvumc _
❑ wturJn�amv�ao�t ❑ wur�utamKCrc
❑r�voielu�axsrurt� ❑
(CUP ALL LOCATiONS FOR SIGNATURE�
Approving the May 14, 20D2, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code
Enforcement Appeals fox the following addresses: 1519 Hazelwood Street, 665 Snelling Avenue
North, 201 Fourth Street East, 693 Arlington Avenue East; 287 Maria Avenue; 2097 Marshall
Avenue, and 671 and 673 Sims Avenue.
PIANNiNG COMMISSION
CIB CAMMIT'TEE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Has �his Pe�Mrtn everwaked undw a canhac[ torthis dePartnerit't
YES NO
Has Mis PeB��m NM been a city empbyee7
YES NO
Does this persoMrm posseas a sldll ,wt normallypossessed by any Curtmt dty empioyee?
YES NO
Is this peisorJfi�m a targMetl ven�
YES NO
, �?�
ny_�a�:z.i���.:
AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S
COST/REVENUE BUDGEfED (CIRCLE ONE)
YES NO
SOURCE ACTNITYNUMBER
03.-y'15
NOTES OF TI� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING
Tuesday, May 14, 2002
Room 330 Courthouse
Gerry Suathman, Legislative Hearing Officer
The meeting was called to order at 132 pm.
STAFF PRESEN`I': Pat Cahanes, Public Works; Matt Dornfeld, Code Enforcement; Pat Fish, Fire
Prevention; Phil Owens, Fire Prevention; Jim Prill, Code Enforcement
1519 Hazelwood Street
Stephanie Jerentosky, owner, appeazed and stated this is about a Correction Notice concerning a
tenant she had upstairs. She has a list of things to be done. She just had the City electrical inspector
there. There was a storm in 2000 that caused her neighbor's tree to tear out the whole mast and
electrical panel at 1519 Hazelwood. Now, the City is telling her to add items that may cost $2,500.
The house was public housing before she purchased it in 1994. She wonders why this was not done
in 1994 when they purchased the house.
Jim Prill reported he went to the property. His office received a complaint regarding electrical
problems. The four items being appealed are required to be repaired under the housing code, which
is a minimum maintenance standard. The repairs are needed irrespective of when the house was
built or last repaired.
Gerry Strathman asked have the laws changed in recent years. Mr. Priii responded not recently.
Item 4- Smoke detector too close to wall. Provide a properly located detector. - Ms. Jerentosky
stated they are maybe an inch of£ They are hard wired. The properiy has been inspected previously
and this item was never cited. She has a hard time keeping them plugged in. Jim Prill stated it
should be six inches, but it is about four inches. She could be in compliance by installing a battery
operated smoke detector. It would involve moving the existing unit. Ms. Jerentosky responded she
was hoping she would not have to poke another hole in the wall.
Item 2- G.F.C.I.: The bathroom is lacking an electrical G.F.C.I. outtet. Also, disable egisting
electric outlet on light fixture. Mr. Prill stated there is an electrical outlet on the light fixture that
does not meet the code.
Item 5- Provide kitchen with three remote, duplex electric outlets. At least one must be a 20
amp capacity. Any new or replacement outlets within 6 feet of the kitchen sink must be of
GFCI type. - Ms. Jerentosky stated there is no place to put the remote duplex outlets. Mr. Prill
stated there are one or two outlets in there now. Ms. Jerentosky responded there is one for the
refrigerator, one for the stove, and there is another one two feet from the counter. It is within six feet
of the sink but it is not considered in the kitchen. It is not an eat in kitchen. She believes they are all
20 amp.
Item 6- Repair dead outlets. - Mr. Pritl stated there may only be one dead outlet. It probably needs
to be replaced. It is a single duplex outlet with two plugs. He thinks it is in the front bedroom. Ms.
Jerentosky responded they are all fixed.
0�.4'15
PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF MAY 14, 2002 Page 2
Mr. Strathman stated he can do something on the smoke detector. The dead outlet is not an issue
because it is taken caze o£ That leaves the GFCI outlet in the bathroom. Ms. Jerentosky responded
there is a counter top that takes up the whole kitchen where the refrigerator is located. There are no
closed doors. It is ail along one wali. There is an outlet there past six feet where the other one is
located along the same wall. The GFCI in the bathroom can be done. There is an outlet in there.
She would have to tallc to her husband about what is required.
Mr. Strathman stated he is prepared to let the smoke detector stay where it is. An inch or two cannot
be that critical in the effectiveness. Also, Item 6 does not seem to be relevant since the owner claims
there are no dead outlets. It is necessary to have a GFCI outlet in the bathroom because that is a high
electrical hazazd area. The outlets in the kitchen may not be up to code, but that does not seem to be
a major problem.
Item 8- Sanitation: Immediately remove improperly stored or accumulated refuse.... - Mr. Pril]
stated that Item 8 is not part of the appeal, but it is one of the items on the list. He checked the
properry last week and the backyard was not done. The stones are stiil there. Ms. Jerentosky
responded the stones are going back in. Her husband has not done it yet.
Mr. Strathman asked will she do it this summer. Ms. Jerentosky responded yes. Mr. Prili stated he
would like a deadline on the stones. Mr. Strathman stated August i, 2002.
Mr. Prill asked about the refuse under Item 8, which has to do with vehicle parts, refuse, a box spring
frame, lumber, and the entire rest of the garage. Ms. Jerentosky responded that can be done. Mr.
Strathman stated she needs to take care of that because if someone cotnplains, an inspector will go
out to summary abate it, and it is very expensive. Mr. Prill responded that woutd be his next step:
issue a summary abatement for noncompliance.
Gerry Strathman granted the appeal on the April 17, 2002, Correction Order with respect to Item 4,
smoke detector; Item 5, provide kitchen with three remote duplex electric outlets, and Item 6, repair
dead outlets. As for Item 2, he wants to see a G.F.C.I. outiet in the bathroom. Jim Prill will handle
Item 8 through an abatement order if necessary.
665 Snelling Avenue North
Steve Nelson, 3475 Siems Court, Arden Hills, appeared and stated he is representing his wife and
properry owner, Kathryn Nelson. In 1980 and 1981, the properiy was completely rehabilitated.
There is an intemal drain. There is a flat portion of the roof and a pitched portion. The City
approved it because it was a City rehab loan. No one ever said anything about disconnecting the
internal drain. There were some issues that came up and it was appealed at that time. At that
hearing, his wife thought they got an ea�tension of 10 years. Mr. Nelson remembers the decision as
for the life of the roo£ At that time, short of replacing the roof, the only way they could do it is 8
inches of expanded Polystyrene underneath the roof and it would involve jam hammering the floor.
At that time, they also were told they could not drain the water to the east which would be onto
Snelling Avenue nor south to Blair Avenue. Since that time, they bought a house to the west so that
when the roof is redone, they can drain the water all the way to the west end of the building, and then
grade it over to a storm sewer pickup. An engineer has been talking to the City about hooking up to
the storm sewer. They had a roofer out this morning and two roofers in the last two weeks and they
�
a �-y�s
PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF MAY 14, 2002 Page 3
think the roof is good for another five years. It seems to be a waste of money to redo the roof before
it has to be done. They have been paymg for the processing of the storm sewer water. To
accomplish what the City wants them to do, they will have to remove about 30 feet of sidewalk along
the west side, two sets of steps, and some boulevard. It will cost over $30,000. They have already
paid for the engineering and they purchased the house next door so they have the land to do it. He
would like an ea�tension of five years or whenever they need a new roof, whichever comes first.
(Mr. Nelson showed Mr. Strathman a diagram of the house.)
Pat Cahanes reported he has not been at the properry recently. The property was given a ten year
tune extension based on the 25 year roof life. Mr. Nelson responded the roof is 21 years ago.
Mr. Cahanes stated there was a storm stub installed on this properry which was installed per Mr.
Nelson's direction; however, it should not be that close to the building. It should be five feet back
from the curb. Mr. Nelson responded he was never contacted. They put it right underneath the
window, and he would not have asked them to install it there.
(Mr. Nelson showed Mr. Strathman a drawing and a photo.)
NIr. Strathman asked was his long range plan to connect to this. Mr. Nelson responded whatever is
lessexpensive.
Mr. Cahanes stated he cannot connect to a catch basin. He can move the pipe. At that time, the
plumbing code required separate lines to outside the building. He asked was the plumbing also
redone. Mr. Nelson responded this was a Laundromat. There was a central drain where all the water
dumped. During the rehabilitation, the entire floor was taken out and exposed. The walls were
stripped down to the plank. The City came out and inspected it. That was the time to do it because
it couid have been done so easily; however, no one said anything to him. Mr. Cahanes responded the
ordinance was not passed until 1987. State plumbing codes would require him to have separate lines
to outside of the foundation.
Mr. Strathman asked his proposal. Mr. Nelson responded to separate the property. He hasn't looked
for other options from inside the building.
Mr. Strathman wouid like him to look at the situation now, and see if there are any viable
alternatives that will lead to sepazation now rather than later. Mr. Cahanes responded when he
looked at the situation last time, there was roof concrete planking and concrete block walls that
separate the structure. It went down the center of the building right next to the house, down to the
basement, and cuts across. There is no room to run through that area because of heat ducts. The
only viable solution is to jack hammer outside, take the concrete out, pull back all the carpeting
inside, jackhainmer for 14 feet, 5 feet across a hall, 5 feet across another kitchen area, into the
bathroom, and tie in there.
Gerry Strathman recommends laying over to the July 2, 2002, Properry Code Enforcement meeting.
He stated he does not doubt what Mr. Cahanes is telling him. Nonetheless, the inspector should look
at the situation with the owner. He needs a current assessment from Sewer Utiliry as to the
feasibility of connection.
�
o�-y�s
PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF MAY 14, 2002 Page 4
201 Fourth Street East
Alan Peterson for J& A Properties/PCF Group LLP, 1951 University Avenue West #206, appeared.
He presented a photograph to Gerry Strathman. Mr. Peterson stated there aze double keyed locks on
the entry doors in the corridor. They are there for security. There aze not many windows on the
building. They put windows on the doors for light.
Pat Fish reported that the fire code prohibits double key deadbolt locks on assembly occupancies.
They have to have panic hardware on the door. There is assembly areas all over town with the same
situation. The code requires them to have panic hazdware and proper exiting.
Mr. Peterson stated there are other facilities that have the doors left unlocked during business hours.
Ms. Fish responded that is allowed in business occupancies, but not in assembly occupancies.
Mr. Strathman asked what constitutes assembly operations. Ms. Fish responded where people
congregate, eating and drinking establishments. Xcel Energy Center is one place.
Mr. Strathman asked is his concern that given he has a glass door and panic ]ocks on the inside,
someone could simply break the glass and open the door. Mr. Peterson responded that is correct.
Mr. Strathman asked about security glass in the door. Mr. Peterson responded it is security glass, but
it has been broken three times.
Mr. Strathman stated it is difficult for him to see how he could grant the request. He is being told
that this is a life safety issue. If there are a large number of people locked inside, that is a recipe for
disaster. He asked is there another solution in mind. Mr. Peterson responded he could install a solid
core door with no windows and make it less inviting. There are weddings, bars and restaurant in the
Depot and their doors aze unlocked during business hours. It is the same situation that he has. Ms.
Fish responded she is not familiar with that building, but maybe their occupant load is less than 50.
Mr. Peterson stated he has seen several hundred people in there.
Mr. Suathman asked about bars or something on the window. Mr. Peterson responded he was
hoping to not make it look like a military zone.
Gerry Strathman denied the appeai on the Apri122, 2002, Deficiency List. The hazard is too great to
allow double key doors in this kind of a setting. Everyone has heard the honor stories about people
who cannot get out of a building. He is sure Ms. Fish will work with him to find a satisfactory
solution that will not endanger people there.
963 Seventh Street West
The following appeared: Randall Tigue, 3960 Minnehaha Avenue Suite #100, Minneapolis,
representing Sevenview, and Jessica Martin, owner. Mr. Tigue stated this is an appeai of an order
condemning the properiy as unfit for human habitation based on noncompliance with the work
orders. All the work orders have been complied with except for the wall and the related issues. The
public sidewalk adjacent to the wall is in bad repair and is collapsing. The contractor said it is
o�-y�
PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF MAY 14, 2002 Page 5
useless to repair the wall with the sidewalk in that condition. The other complaint is water leaking in
the basement. The huge cracks in the sidewalk aze a natural gully for the water to flow. Replacing
the wali and piugging the leak is useless until the sidewalk is repaired by the City.
Gerry Strathman asked was there conversation with the City about repairing the sidewallc. Ms.
Martin responded Parks and Recreation referred her to Public Works. They filled in one small hole
in the front of the property. They said they would send someone out to do the sidewalk behind the
properry. That was never done. She also complained again in November because it was di�cult to
shovel due to the two inch rise in the sidewalk. A few months ]ater, she made her third complaint.
Neart thing she knew, her properry was being reevaluated for a Certificate of Occupancy.
Mr. Strathman asked did the City say they had plans to repair it. Ms. Martin responded the City is
waiting to repair the sidewalks until the MTC widening of West Seventh Street goes through in the
fail or the summer of 2002.
Mr. Strathman summarized: the broken sidewalk is allowing water into her basement. Mr. Tigue
responded it is also causing the wall to collapse.
Pat Fish reported she contacted the owner and sent numerous letters which resulted in revoking the
Certificate of Occupancy and doing a new Certificate of Occupancy inspection because the owner
did not show up for previous inspections with the exception of one. Ms. Fish cited two severe
exiting problems: one exit was locked and the other one was blocked. The water in the basement
was something everyone was enduring that time of the year. It was not major but it needed to be
corrected. The brick is actually a false brick face on top of the originai brick. She had several
conversations with the owner. Ms. Fish needed documentation from a contractor that Ms. Martin
had a deadline to get the false brick off because it was in danger of falling on the sidewalk. Ms. Fish
had a building inspector ]ook at it and the inspector concurred that the brick could get way from the
building. Ms. Fish had a concern for the safety of people walking by. Whether or not the owner
does major repair is secondary. That can wait. The brick falling off the building is Ms. Fish's
concem. There has been a lack of communication, a lack of showing up for appointments, and not
getting at least some kind of statement from a contractor. Ms. Fish did the original inspection in
December 2001, in January, again in February, and she finally revoked the certificate. She went
through the entire building once out of all these trips. She went back to the reinspection after she
had written up the brick and the exiting problems, and Ms. Martin did not show up for the
reinspection.
Mr. Strathman summarized: Ms. Fish's primary concern is not the water in the basement but the
brick falling off the building. Ms. Fish responded yes and the exiting problem from the commercial
space. When she went back to the reinspection, the door was locked, the sign read open, and no one
would come to the door, no one showed up, and no one called. That was the day she condemned it:
Apzil 19.
Ms. Martin stated on April 17 she faxed Fire Prevention a letter a reschedule. She is a single mom of
three, she has a grandmother living with her that has lung cancer, who had to be taken to the hospital,
and Ms. Martin was with her at that time. Her co-owner Jennifer Warner (phonetic) was in southern
California for a family emergency. That is why no one was at the properiy. The outside items could
o�-��s
PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOT"ES OF MAY 14, 2002 Page 6
have been inspected at that time. There are still items on the list: the garbage under the stairs were
never taken off the list, the repaired gutters have never been taken off.
Mr. Strathman asked about the bricks. Ms. Martin responded the water leads right into there. The
more water that comes into the wall, the further the wall is going to come apart. The statement from
their insurance company said the City needs to repair the sidewalk first. If they tore the wall down,
the City sidewalk will collapse, and she would be responsible for fixing the City sidewallc. The City
should fix the sidewalk first because that is what is causing the problem. She does not want
contractors out there who will be put in jeopardy and who will sue her insurance company if the
sidewalk collapses.
Ms. Fish stated she would like to see the written statement from the contractor.
(Ms. Martin showed photographs to Gerry Strathman. A letter from AA1 Building Services was
shown.)
Mr. Strathman stated AA1 Building Services believes the sidewalk needs to be repaired first. Ms.
Fish responded what they are saying is they cannot repair the brick until the sidewalk is repaired.
Whether they can take the loose brick off and remove the face brick is Ms. Fish's concern. There
was brick without mortar when she was there.
(Ms. Martin showed more photographs and more paperwork.)
Ms. Fish stated she is referring to the bricks at the roof line.
Mr. Strathman asked did she have photographs of the bricks at the roof line. Ms. Martin responded
the only place the bricks are separating are at the bottom.
Mr. Strathman stated this paperwork does not speak to the question of loose bricks. He is primarily
concerned with the life safety issues about the bricks. One of the core problems is a legitimate
concern: the inability of Ms. Fish to get the owner to be present when she does the inspection.
Before there is a final ruling on this, it would be useful for both parties to actually meet at the
property and walk through it. He asked would she be there. Ms. Martin responded each time they
have come out --January, February, March--all those issues were on the outside, they were all
repaired, and they are not removed on the list. Every time they come out, more pages are added and
Ms. Martin incurs charges. She will be taking photographs because this has become an ongoing
issue.
Gerry Strathman laid over this matter to the June 4, 2002, Properry Code Enforcement Meeting. In
the interim, Ms. Fish and Ms. Martin should have a walk through of the building. Mr. Strathman
encouraged both of them to make an appointment before they leave today. Also, Mr. Strathman
stated he expects Ms. Martin to be there. He will make a decision on June 4 if the condemnation
order is still in place. Obviously if Ms. Fish lifts the condemnation before June 4, then it will not be
necessary to come back.
o�-y�s
PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOT'ES OF MAY 14, 2002 Page 7
693 Arlington Avenue East
The following appearing: Betty Seropian, Ed Seropian, and daughter Juliet. Juliet stated her pazents
have owned the properry for 35 yeazs. Her mother is 78 and her father is 82. They are asking for an
extension to disconnect from the rainleader. Her mother has a difficult time walking. She had two
hip replacements and back surgery. The whole need for that surgery came from a fali in the
backyard. Their primary concern is if they disconnect the system, there will be ice built up. Both of
her pazents aze infirm enough that walking will be a problem. The yard is already down slope. They
pick up a lot of runoff water. They do not have a collapsing basement, but an old foundation that lets
in water. They aze concerned about any back flow. The home was built about 70 to 80 years ago. It
was moved from a ground foundation.
Pat Cahanes reported 693 Arlington is lower than the property to the west of it. There is one
rainleader on the northeast side, which was granted a time extension based on mobility issues
because it is nea�t to a sidewalk. That is separate from this issue. As long as they live there, they
have a time extension on that. The northwest corner is the rainleader they are talking about today. It
takes all the water from the front gutter, wraps it around the house, and brings it to the back along
with the rear gutter, and puts it all in one down spout.
Mr. Strathman asked are all three going into the sanitary sewer. Mr. Cahanes responded yes, if it is
]ooked at as three different gutters.
Mr. Strathman asked how much yard area will absorb roof rain water. Mr. Cahanes responded his
suggestion would be to take the front of the house and discharge that to the front on the southwest
side where there is a large tree and grass area, and discharge the rear to the northwest corner which is
grass area and no sidewalk. Juliet stated there is a nanow strip of grass area. That is where snow
has built up. That is where they have rapidly forming ice.
Mr. Strathman stated that according to the drawing attached to the appeal, there is sidewalk that runs
around the garage.
(Juliet explained the drawing and where the sidewalk is located on the drawing.)
(Mr, Cahanes showed Mr. Strathman photographs and explained them.)
Mr. Strathman asked is it his judgement that these two areas are sufficient to absorb the rainwater.
Mr. Cahanes responded he believes so unless there is a large rain. Juliet responded there have been
large rain storms on East Arlington. The azea has had major water issues. She would like an expert
to explain to herthe odds.
Gerry Strathman granted an extension to June 1, 2007, to disconnect the rainleader or until Ed and
Betty Seropian no longer occupy the house, whichever comes first. Even if the owners give up the
occupancy to their daughter, the variance will end. Mr. Strathman stated he is convinced that Mr.
Cahanes' plan is reasonable and undex most circumstances he would insist on it being followed;
however, he is reticent giving the age of the occupants to take the slightest risk in this kind of matter.
O�.-�1�15
PROPERT'I' CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF MAY 14, 2002 Page 8
287 Maria Avenue
John Kuhn, trustee for St. Paui AERIE 33, appeazed and stated he is appealing the kitchen area. He
thought they were o andfathered in. If they are not grandfathered, he is asking for a variance. They
are an Eagle's Fratemity and a closed club. They have an e�aust system in the kitchen. It is
outdated; it is just a fan and an e�aust. They hazdly use it. They may use it 10 times a month.
They do fundraisers for about 10 charities a year. They raised over $20,000 last year. They try to
target Saint Paul facilities.
Mr. Strathman asked is the food served to members. Mr. Kuhn responded yes. It is seldom served to
the public. Other Eagles clubs come to visit. There are some pubiic times. There is a time they do a
morning bntnch. The most they do is four times a month, on Sundays. They occasionally do
burgers and fries on Saturday night. They do clean the e�aust system once a year, and it costs over
$100.
Phil Owens reported the primary issue is that they are deep fat frying and surface grilling, and do not
have a fire suppression system. The presumption that they do not use it much is not an issue.
Serving it to the public four times a month is once a week. Ten times a month is about three times a
week.
(Mr. Owens showed Mr. Strathman photographs of a fire last night from a kitchen half the size of
287 Maria.)
Mr. Strathman asked what would be required as a minimum. Mr. Owens responded the easy way out
is to quit deep fat frying and remove the equipment from the building. If they want to continue to
have french fries, then they will have to get a hood protection system to go into the duct work. IYs
quite possibie that the system cannot be installed because of the age of the duct work. Then, they
would end up with a new commercial cooking hood system.
Mr. Strathman asked for an estimate of the costs. Mr. Owens responded he would be hesitant to say,
but it could be $3,000 to $7,�00.
Mr. Kuhn stated this is a portable, very small, fryer. They can remove it and not use it again. Mr.
Owens responded if they have a regular range type cooking surface, they can bake and broil on it, but
they cannot deep fat fry without the hood system.
Mr. Kuhn stated he also wanted to address the roof. They have accepted a bid from Sela to replace
the entire roof.
Mr. Strathman asked did he have a time frame. Mr. Kuhn responded in 45 days. They just okayed it
in a meeting, but they only have $1,000 raised toward a$2,700 cost. Then they have to have a
meeting five days after they mail a letter to every member. Then, it has to go to the national
organization. They will be replacing the ceiling tiles and repainting as needed. Right now, it is
senseless to put in new ceiling tiles when there is water dripping down. Mr. Owens responded the
ceiling needs to be repaired. If they aze moving toward that, he has no objections. He would go for a
60 day extension.
oa-y�s
PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOT'ES OF MAY 14, 2002 Page 9
Mr. Strathman asked does a 60 day extension work for him. Mr. Kuhn responded yes.
Mr. Owens stated they will expect the deep fat fryer to be removed from the premises soon. Mr.
Kuhn responded it will be removed today.
Gerry Strathman granted an extension to 7uly I5, 2002, to replace the roo£ If the deep fat fryer is
removed immediately, there will be no need for a hood and duct ventilafion fire suppression system
as listed on the April 26, 2002, Deficiency List.
2097 Marshall Avenue
Zachery Coelius, responsible par[y, appeared and stated his parents own the property. He is
appealing a correction order for missing porch windows. He is not sure how the order is justified
because they aze not portals. He does not have a front door. It is just a porch. He is in the process of
converting it into an open air porch. It was a three season porch. He is not planning on replacing the
windows because he is not going to keep the windows in. Also, his recourse to replacing the
windows is to take out the window frames. If he does that, it will look worse then it does now. It
will look like a three season porch with no wlndow frames. It will meet code, but not solve any
problems.
Gerry Strathman asked about the sanitation issue on the Corection Order. Mr. Coelius responded
that has been cleaned up.
Matt Dornfeld reported he talked to his supervisor John Betz about it. It is intended to be an
enclosed porch. The windows need to be replaced for it to be an enclosed porch. That is what it was
built to be. There are about six windows missing. For it to be an open porch, he needs to get a
building permit, remove all the windows and frames, and change the pitch of the porch or there will
be drainage problems because this porch was not built to be an open porch. Open air porches are
built to a slight slant for the water to drain. Enclosed porches are built at grade. It would be up to
the building deparirnent whether he would need to fix the pitch, but a building permit would need to
be pulled to make these corrections. There have been several neighborhood complaints about this
property. This situation has been ongoing for several years.
Gerry Strathman stated he is unclear about the plans.
(Mr. Coelius showed Mr. Strathman a photograph of the porch.)
Mr. Strathman asked his long terms plans. Mr. Coelius stated because of the capital gains issue, he
has to sell the house next summer. The front porch is not in a seilabie condition. They will be
tearing down all the windows, taking out the enclosure, and turning it back into its original state.
This will happen before the end of next summer.
Mr. Strathman asked the practical effect of leaving the house as is. Also, what is nature of the
problem from the neighbor's perspective. Mr. Dornfeld responded he thinks it is picky as a
neighbor. It is not something that he would drive by and nofice. The backyard was mare of an issue
than the porch. It is something that needs to be done. It sounds like he has a plan.
O� -�1'1 S
PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOT'ES OF MAY 14, 2002 Page 10
Mr. Strathman asked does he consider it blight. Mr. Dornfeld responded personally, no.
Mr. Strathman stated he is uncomfortable with how long he is proposing to take. Mr. Coelius
responded he can put the screens up in the interim. It just seems irrational to put up screens when
there is no front door and he is trying to make it into an open air porch again. He has a lot going on
this summer. He runs a nonprofit organization. He wili be hazd pressed to get this done over the
summer.
Gerry Strathman extended the time to comply to June 1, 2003. It at least gives the City a check in
point. If the porch windows are still gone at that time, this issue wiil probably be back before him to
see what is going on. At that time, he will be looking at a much shorter time frame to complete the
work. Also, he is not going to order this, but if Mr. Coelius can do something to make the sight less
initating to the neighbors, it may be worth the effort. Mr. Coelius responded they want to buy his
house and are trying to harass him out of it.
671 and 673 Sims Avenue
Gerry Strathman stated he sent a letter to Donald Farreli with the following decision: Vaziance
granted on the minimum gross floor areas in the bedrooms of the two lower units.
768 Hamline Avenue SouCh
(The appeal was withdrawn.)
The meeting was adjoumed at 3:02 p.m.
rrn