Loading...
03-717Council Fiie # � "1�� RESOLUTIOW C1TY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented by_ Referred To Committee Date BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the July 22, 2003, decisions of the Legislative Hearing O�cer on Appeals for Letters of Deficiency, Conections Norices, and Correction Orders for the foilowing addresses: Propertv A�pealed Ap elp lant 276 Exchanee Street South fForepaugh's Restaurant� Edward Christie Aecision: Extension granted to August 1, 2004, to bring the property into compliance as stipulated on the Aeficiency list dated June 24, 2003. 889 Marearet Street Edward LeMay, owner Decislon: Appeal denied on the Correction Order dated June 18, 2003. Yeas Na s Absent Benanav ,l Blakey � � Bostrom , Coleman �/ Harris ,i Lanhy �/ Reiter `' Adopted by Council: Date � f�, 07003 Adoption Certified by Council Secretary By: /,���/lGb /J.' �rel� Green Sheet # 30�3540 21 Requested by Department of: C� Form Approved by City Attorney !e�'� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Cowicil � :�. . :: �j'/�'_.y__ �� ' ■r . 1�J'J _ b3��ti� � Green Sheet Creen Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � Departme�/officelcouncil: Date 4nitiated: co -���� 30JUL-03 Green Sheet NO: 3003540 Contact Person & Phone• DeoarFment Sent To Person InitialIDate Maroia Moermond � 0 o nc7 266-8560 Assign 1 Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Humber 2 For Routing 3 Order 4 5 ToYal # of Sig�ature Pages _(Clip All Lowtions for Signature) Action Requested: Approving the July 22, 2003, decisions of the Legislafive Heazing Officer on Appeals of I.etters of Deficiency, Correction Norices, and Correction Orders on 276 Exchange Street South and 889 Mazgazet Street. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this person�rm ever worked ander a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever 6een a city employee? , Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not nortnafly possessed by any . wrrent city employee? � Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Oppartunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advantages If Approved: , Disadvanta,yes If Apprrned: �`i0UP1Cl� ����r'38'��1 � Disadvantages If NotApproved: _ �� `� o q o� 9 � i � S � ' � , � Total Amount of Cost/Revenue Budgeted: ��� Transaction: Fundinp Source: Activiry Number: . , Financial Information: (Explain) b3-?I� NOTES OF THE LEGISLAT'IVE HEARING LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES, CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Boulevard West Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer STAFF PRESENT: David Bergman, Fire Prevention; Racquel Naylor and Jean Birkholz, City Council Offices OTHERS PRESENT: Edward Clutistie, Forepaugh's Restaurant. The hearing was called to order at 1:09 pm. 276 Exchange Street South (Forepau�h's Restauranfl; appellant: Edward Christie (Division of Fire Preventionl Ms. Moermond noted that this appeal is based on the range hood suppression system and asked for a report from the Fire Department. Inspeetor Bergman reported that about 8 years ago (1994-95), the fire code stopped ailowing dry chemical systems because they were no longer passing the UL test adequately. Many restaurants began using different oils requiring higher temperatures, and so the demands on the dry chemical were greater than they had been. (UL and Factory Mutual ue the two companies that test a vast array of different products, including suppression systems.) A wet chemical that cools the temperature of the super-heated oil rapidly was developed so that a fire does not flare up over and over again. The wet chemical (UL3000 system has been the standard since 1994 - 1995, for not only the hood suppression systems, but also for the portable extinguishers in the kitchen. Ms. Moermond said that Olson Fire and Inspection faxed over an annual inspection record of the sprinkler system at Forepaugh's. She asked Mr. Christie the extent of the hardship in terms of replacing the present system. Mr. Christie responded that it is huge, and he can't afford it. The up-scale restaurant indusriy has been hammered left and right. He has been at Forepaugh's for 20 years and the restaurant has been open for 27 years. The same system has been there; it has been safe and has always been in compliance. Forepaugh's has a very small deep fiyer set at 400 degrees; there is one item on the menu that requires cooking in the deep fiyer. Mr. Bergman stated that the deep fryer is the greatest hazard in a commercial kitchen. Mr. Christie interjected that for the added safety, this is a huge investment for one little piece of equipment. Forepaugh's has changed the system along the way to meet new code changes. Everything has been working well until this other inspectar came in and said that they are no longer in compliance. For 27 years things have been fine. He doesn't really know what it would cost, but whatever it is, he can't handle it at this time. He thinks this is dealing in minutia as far as how much more safety is involved versus the cost to impl�ment a water system instead of the �3�?i7 LEGISLATIVE HEARING NLY 22, 2003 Page 2 foam system they've had all these years. Ms. Moermond asked how frequently ttus building was inspected. Mr. Bergmau responded that restaurants aze now inspected every two (2) years. Mr. Christie stated that the whole house is sprinkled except for the kitchen where dry chemicals are used. Mr. Bergman added that there is one other option that could also be less expensive. A sprinkler contractor could take out the dry chemical and replace is with a water sprinkler system over the grilUfryer azea. The advantage of that over the wet chemical and also the now obsolete dry chemical is that thexe is an inexhausfible supply. It will keep on spraying until someone cioses the valve. There are a lot of restaurant and business owners that swear by hauing it over their grill because it will keep spraying and keep fighting the fire indefinitely. The wet chemical and the dry chemical have a finite arnount of chemical. He doesn't know the exact cost of the UL3000 systems but they are in the range of between $2,000 and $2,500. It's a chunk of money but not an insurmountable amount. He believes that his office is more than willing to give mare time on this. If this situation is allowed to continue, we are violating state law. By state law, after twelve (12) years, a hydrostatic test needs to be performed on those pressure sonazs that hold the chemical. The hydrostatic test was due in 1998, so we are already violating state law. The company thaYs been servicing the dry chemical system at Forepaugh's continued to put a compliant tag on a system that had'nt had the hydrostatic test done on it as required by state law. And there is no company that can put the dry chemical back into the system, so the system cannot be maintained. If the chemical is emptied to do that test, the only alternative is to change the components over to a wet chemical or have a sprinkler contractor change it over to a water sprinkler. Mr. Christie stated that no one has ever told hun about a hydrostatic test. Mr. Bergman responded that it is the job of the hood suppression contractor to look at the date stamped on the cylinder that holds the chemical which indicates that last time a hydrostatic test was done. The fact that the test was due 1998 tells him that back in 1986, this system received its last hydrostatic test. IYs the contractor's job to determine if the hydrostatic test is due. If it is due, he must perform that test before he puts a compliant tag on it. Otherwise, he is in violation of law and not doing his job properly. Ms. Moermond asked if there is a past inspection history. Mr. Bergman repiied that there is but he does not have it with him. Ms. Moermond asked whether this property has been called on 904.2.1 before (the provision about the approved hood and duct ventilation). Mr. Bergman responded that it's been inspected every 2'/2 years. He explained that a new fire code was adopted in March 2003, and they are now warking out of the 2Q00 edition which is an international fire code (previously it was a uniform fire code). The internationai code is a stricter code. For instance, a commercial restaurant must now have a portable extinguisher which also uses a wet chemical (K Class). Previously, the dry chemical was standard for both the U3' `��� LEGISLATIVE HEARING JiJLY 22, 2003 Page 3 suppression and for the portable. Now, the wet chemical is standazd for both. That chauge has happened as a result of adopting a new code. Mr. Chrisrie interjected that Forepaugh's has those extinguishers in their kitchen in addition to the suppression system. They aze stored just three (3) feet from the deep fryer. The dry system is located directly above the dry suppression system. Mr Bergman responded that the Sunray Bridgeman's fire seven yeazs ago, which took out about half the restaurant, was started by just one small deep fryer. Mr. Bergman cited another issue. There needs to be compatibility between the chemicals in the portable and the chemicals in the hood suppression system. If Farepaugh's has the K exfinguisher and is also using the dry suppression system, it is using incompatible chemicals, and the code doesn't allow that either. Mr. Christie asked what difference it made since they both can put out the fire. Mr. Bergman replied that when a wet chemical is sprayed and a dry chemical is coming down from the suppression system, the chemicals are being mixed, and mixing chemicals can cause some reacrive problems. Mr. Chrisfie stated there has to be something that he can do to be in compliance without changing the whole system because of some minor thing. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Bergman if he had said that the IFC took effect in March 2003. Mr. Bergman responded he had. Ms. Moermond continued to say that her inclination is to give Mr. Christie plenty of time to complete the replacement, at which time, the issue will be revisited. She reiterated that the kitchen is sprinkled and there are wet chemical fire extinguishers next to the deep fryer. Mr. Christae responded that the chances are one (1) in a zillion that something would happen that couldn't be taken care of with that equipment. Mr. Bergman responded that the hydrostatic test for Forepaugh's is five (5) yeazs behind. It was due in 1998, was done twelve (12) years previous, so, now it's up to seventeen (17) years slnce the last hydrostatac test has been done. Mr. Christie restated that this is the first time that he's ever heard of a hydrostatic test. Also, he didn't think Mr. Bergman mentioned it either when he had been there. Mr. Berguian responded that he didn't because the contractor hangs the compliance tag. The contractor is licensed, their people are trained, and thaYs their speciality. They know to check for the hydrostatic test and if it's due, they go ahead and do it. Mr. Christie asked, "You're saying Dalmation is incompetent?" Mr. Bergman responded that he didn't say that. If they are not doing the hydrostatic test and put a compliant tag on there when they know full well that they're supposed to do the test, then he would say that is incompetence. There could be some underlying reason. "If a contractor is knowingly putting up a compliant tag without doing the hydrostatic test, ifwould be fraud and a rather shady business pracrice. ff that's what Dalmation tlid, then the Fire Prevention Division needs to talk with Dalmation Fire. Ms. Moermond stated that she will recommend to the City Cowicii that Farepaugh's has one (1) i�3���� LEGISLATIVE HEARING JULY 22, 2003 Page 4 yeaz to come into compliance with the code. If there's any kind of a fire in the meantime, Porepaugh's will need to immediately come into compliance with the code. Ms. Moermond thinks it's quite reasonable that Mr. Christie is fiustrated with this situation, and she is sympathetic to his position. The upper scale restaurant industry is in trouble narionwide. If the Fire Department issues another letter of deficiency, Mr. Chrisfie can file another appeal. This recommendation will go on the City CounciPs Consent Agenda. $84 Margaret Street: owner: Edward LeMaylDivision of Properlv Code Enforcement� (No one appeared.) Ms. Moermond recommends denying the appeal of the June 18, 2003, Deficiency list. She received an e-mail regarding Inspector Teng Vang. Mr. Vang indicated that he was not going to further dispute the conection order to repair the roof because Gerald I,eMay (owner) is planning to se11 the building. The hearing was adjourned at 2:05 p.m. jjb