Loading...
06-1101Council File # � —/ � Green Sheet # 3035052 RESOLUTION C�T PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented �� BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the August 15, 2006, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters, Conection Notices, and Correction Orders for the following addresses: 4 5 Properiy Aupealed Aopellant 6 7 1930 Enerav Pazk Drive AMB Property Corporation 8 Decision: Regazding the Deficiency List dated July 17, 2006: Item 2-granting a variance with the 9 condition that there is no combustible storage under the conveyor system; Item 6-there is a July 12 1 � inspection date and August 11 compiiance date so that the fire inspectors couid conduct a reinspection. 11 12 824 White Bear Avenue North Ronald Christensen 13 Decision: Deny the appeal on the Deficiency List dated July 27, 2006. Requested by Department of: Adoption C�ert by Cou ci] Secretary gy; —.// / � Approved by r: Date ��l / �`r� ( By: �-'� � Form Approved by City Attomey By: Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: Adopted by Council: Date /a �/a��j� � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � � � //�1 Cp -cA„�a� Contad Person & Phone: Maicia Moe�mond 266-857 Must Be on Council A�en� Doc.Type: RESOLU770N os-o�c-0s N flssign Number For Routing Ordes EAocument Required: Y DocumentContact: RacquHNaylor Contact Phone: 266-8573 7ota1 # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signah�re) Green Sheet NO: 3035052 0 i 2 3 4 5 DeDar6nent SentToPerson InitiaVDate ooncl 09 8 Of T er Approving the decision of the Legislative Heazing Officer on Appeats of Letters, Coirection Notices, and Cottection Orders for 1930 Energy Pazk Drive and 824 White Beaz Avenue Nor[h. Recommendations: Appro�e (A) or R Planning Commission CIB Committee _ Cidl Service Commission �n a puestions: 1. Has this person/firtn e�er worked under a contract for this department? Yes No 2. Flas this persoNfirm e�er been a cRy employee? Yes No 3. Does this persoNfirtn possess a skill not nortnally possessed by any cufreM city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet InRiating Problem, lssues, Opportunity (Who, Whaq When, Where, Why): AdVantages If ApproVed: Disadvantages If Approved: DisadvanWges KNotApproved: � Transaction: Funding Source: ' Financiallnformation: (Explain) CosNRevenue Budgeted: Activ'dy Number: �cemder 5, 2006 12:11 pM Page 1 b1��lib` MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATNE HEARING LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES, AND CORRECTION ORDERS Tuesday, August 15, 2006 Room 330 City HalUCourthouse, 15 Keliogg Boulevazd West Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 130 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Phil Owens, Supervisor of Commercial Inspections at Saint Paul Fire Prevention Appeal of De�ciency List for 1930 Enerav Park Drive; appellant: AMB Institutional Alliance Fund III Tony Aspholm, Property Manager at AMB Property Corporation and employed by CB Richard Ellis, 7760 France Avenue South, Suite 770, Minneapolis, appeared. They are a real estate investment trust. They own one building in Saint Paul and have about 35 in the Twin Cities. Marcia Moermond explained that she will start with a staff report, and then she will hear from Mr. Aspholm about the appeal. Phillip Owens appeared and reported that the appellant is appealing Ttems 1, 2, and 6. There are actually seven items on the list, and Mr. Owens will speak to only the items that aze being appealed with the understanding that the owners intends to compiy with the remainder. Mr. Aspholm responded that is correct. (Item 1— Provide approved monitoring of the fire sprinkler system flow and tamper switches. This work will require a permit(s).-See SimplexGrinnell report dated 4-21-06. Flow switch needed on 10 inch feed line for East system. ) Mr. Owens stated that Item 1 is a ten-inch feed frame. They are going to withdraw the order pending a reinspection. That will require an inspection of the system by City personnel to ensure there is a flow valve previous to that intersect or that water connection. That is fine, responded Mr. Aspholm. There are four riders on the west end of the building and four on the east end. They ail have flow switches. The ten-inch line is fed from a fire pump that is also monitored. Anytime water runs through that pipe because of a fire, he would know because the flow switch would trip in one of the zones or because the fire pump would come on; therefore, Mr. Aspholm did not think it was critical that it would be monitored. The feliow who did the inspection said it would help them be alerted to a leak and not a fire. The fire system's purpose is to alert them to fire conditions and not to leaks. Mr. Owens concurred that it is not required. Plus, there is a ten inch main that runs across the ceiling, and they would be able to find out if it is leaking fairly quickly. (Item 2- Relocate or provide additional sprinklers to cover the obstructed area caused by the floor mounted or suspended obstruction.-See SimplexGrinneld inspection reported dated 4-21-06. Add Zine piping and heads under conveyer system. ) f� //o/ LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2006 Page 2 Mr. Aspholm stated he is not contesting the drip pans. They are in the ceiling and under a smoke evacuation fan. They interrupted the pattem of the sprinkler heads when they dropped that pan down and didn't put anything underneath it. He will put those there. Mr. Owens responded that Item 2 is withdrawn. Although it is technically a sprinkler obstruction, it is not an inherent danger if they are not storing material under the conveyor system. Mr. Aspholm said that he bought pictures. The rule is that any conveyor belt that is more than 48 inches has to have a sprinkler under it. Some of them aze three feet off the ground. He called someone in the City, that person had not been to the site, and did not know. Mr. Aspholm wondered how this could be clarified, so he filed an appeal. He contacted another sprinkler fitter, and that person was also unsure. Mr. Owens responded that he is sure: anything four feet or wider is considered an obstruction to the sprinkler pattem. The way this conveyor system is installed, some areas aze no more than two feet off the ground and some areas aze no more than six feet off the ground. Although it is technically a violation, it is not an inherent hazard. With the understanding that there is no combustible storage under the conveyor, they will withdraw that requirement. Ms. Moermond asked is it worth putting a vaziance into place conditioned on the lack of storage underneath the conveyor. Mr. Owens responded if they find them storing combustible items under the conveyor, they would be right back to where they are now. Ms. Moermond stated that she will recommend that the Council grant a variance of the provision of the code and that variance is granted contingent on not using the space underneath the conveyor. Mr. Aspholm stated nothing is held in the space. What comes in the door at night, goes out in the morning. Mr. Owens responded that the only way things would be there is if they aze waste. That is the problem: if it is waste, it will go unnoticed, and be there for a while. It is important that they do not do that. Ms. Moermond would like to set up the appellant with a variance so that future inspections can see it, and also to put on the record the condition about storage. (Item 6— Provide approved monitoring of the fire sprinkler system flow and tamper switches. This work will require a permit(s). See SimplexGrinnell inspection report date 4/21/06. East side systems #4-#5-#6 are not monitored.) Mr. Owens stated Item 6 is in regazds to monitoring for water flow and for valve tamper on three of the valves on the east end of the building. Although the appellanYs application indicates those systems are monitored, it was the indication of the sprinkler inspector that they do not appear to be monitored at this time. Mr. Owens has requested documentation from the property managers that it is monitored. They do not think it is. When you look at the valves and the way they aze monitored, it looks like they aze not connected. The sprinkler system has been there for a while, and it was at one time fed water from two directions. They terminated one of the directions, and made it all come from the same direction for reasons uuknown to Mr. Owens. They do not a6-l/o i LEGISLATIVE HEAIZING MINIJTES OF AUGUST 15, 2006 Page 3 believe that Zones 4, 5, and 6 receive signals at the monitor, although the device appeazs to be there. They do not think it is monitored. Mr. Aspholm responded it was not during the inspection. Honeyweil had been paid to do it, and they informed him that it was cancelled. Mr. Aspholm met with them. They said they would reinstall it on a Friday. They had technical problems on a Monday and Tuesday, but they said it was working. Recognizing that this was not a long-term arrangement, he obtained a price to include those three risers on the east side. A pernut was issued last week, and they will install it next week. Mr. Aspholm added that they got this buiiding last 3uly. He was not awaze of everything he needed to be awaze of. Mr. Owens said that Mr. Aspholm should contact him when that work is completed. It will be re-inspected. Mr. Aspholm said again that they want to comply. It is not there position that these rules are unfair. Mr. Owens summazized: Item 1 appeal to monitar the 10 inch main will be withdrawn; Item 2 is being granted with the caveat that there is no combustible storage under the conveyor system, and the appellant is working on compliance with Item #6. Ms. Moermond's decision on the Deficiency List dated July 17, 2006, is as follows: Item 2-granting a variance with conditions; Item 6-there is a July 12 inspection date and August I 1 compliance date so that the fire inspectors could conduct a re-inspection. If that is not enough time, the fire inspectors could accommodate another extension. Mr. Aspholm indicated that he agreed with the decision. Appeal of Deficiency List at 824 White Bear Avenue North; appellant: Eduardo Urbina Eduardo Urbina, appellant, appeared. Mr. Owens stated he visited with the complainant on the premises regarding a violation on zoning; however, it was not actually a zoning violation as the lower level could be occupied as a mercantile. When the previous Certificate of Occupancy inspection was done, that space was occupied for storage by the business on the first level. Ms. Moermond asked was this building ever numbered 828. Mr. Owens responded he does not have that information with him. Mr. Owens stated a mercantile establishment was above, and they used the lower level as their storage. Somewhere in the interim, they changed the upper level to a barber shop, which still complied with the mercantile requirements. It is a small squaze footage. The basement was then sublet as a shoe store, and there were issues with walls being installed and electrical work that was done without a permit. Mr. Owens explained that he needs to do an inspection of the lower level if the owner intends to sublet it as another mercantile occupancy. Ms. Moermond asked is that cleaz and is he ready to do that. Mr. Urbina answered yes to both questions O��fibl LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2006 Page 4 Mr. Owens stated he will contact the appellant and schedule an inspection. Ms. Moermond denied the appeal on the Deficiency List dated July 27, 2006. The hearing was adjourned at 1:50 p.m. rtn