96-842�
PAUL, MiNNESOTA
Presented
Referred To
Council File # g � r �y .1
Green Sheet # 3 SG g�
Date
�
1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Councii of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the July 16,1996
2 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer:
3 Property Appealed Aoroellant
4 1928 University Avenue Lucile Helbig
5 Decision: Laid over to September 17, 1996 Legislative He•uing.
� I
� 5
10
11
937 Otto Avenue
Decision: Deny appeal.
1565-1575 St. Paul Avenue
Decision: Grant five yeaz variance.
345 St. Peter Street
Decision: Grant one yeaz variance.
Anthony Kolas
Viking St. Paul Partnership
Rice Park Properties
12 226-234 Egchange and 279 Chestnut Street Scott Brown
13 Decision: Grant seven year variance with respect to tuckpoint of brick; grant variance for testing of alarm
14 system; grant variance far testing of fire extinguishers; grant 90 day extension for cleaning of chimneys.
15 2281-2285 Hampden Avenue Minnesota Chemical Company
16 Decision: Fire Prevention withdrew orders on condition that building remain under present ownership, continue
17 under present opera6on of the business with the present fuel load.
18 690 S. Cleveland Avenue Todd Kelm
19 Decision: Fire Prevention withdrew orders with respect to dumpster as there was no another feasible location.
20
21
22
23
24
25
348 Maria Avenue
Decision: Grrant five yeaz variance.
805 Brookline
Decision: Grant one year variance.
714 k'uller Avenue
Decision: Deny appeal.
Thomas Rider
Albert Glisky
Thomas Stellwag
26 701 E. Lawson Avenue Charles Laurents
27 Decision: Appeal withdrawn by property owner.
p. ZQ� 2 qb_ �ya
1 1132 Centrai Avenue W.
2 Decision: Deny appeal.
Mohauunand Shahidullah
FURTHER RESOLVED, that this action shall become effective immediately upon approval of the Mayor.
ORl����L
Adopted by Council: Date �
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
By: � 5�—�
Approved by Mayor: Date � �j � �J _ {o _
By: / vt, ��- �
Requested by Depar[ment of:
�
Form Approved by City Attomey
�
Approved by Mayor far Submission to Council
�
q�-r��
DEPAPTMEN7/OFFICElCOUNCIL DATE INITIATEU 0
crrY courrcn. 7/16/96 GREEN SHEE _- 3 S 6 8 6
INITIAL/DATE INRIAIJOATE
CONTACT PEfl50N 8 PHONE O DEPARTMENi OIREGTOR � CITY COVNQI
Gerty Strathman 266-8575 nssi�x � cmarroRNEr � cirrc�nK
MUST 8E ON CqUHp� qGEN�R BY (DASE) qp�� GfOR O��� DIRECTOR � FIN. & M6T. SEpY10ES DSA.
July 24, 1996 opoE" Q MAYOfl (OR ASSISTANn ❑
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SICaNATURE)
ACT70N qEQUESTED:
Approving the decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enfoxcament Appeals for the July 16, 1996 meeting.
kECOeM7ENOAt10NS: ppqova (A) or ae�ect (R) pER50NAL SERVICE CONTpACTS MUST ANSWER TF1E FOLLOWING DUESTIONS:
_ PLANNING COMMISSION _ qVIL SEAVICE COMMISSION �� H25 this pElson/firm 9V2f WOfkBd undef e COni2Ct fOf this tle�left1118M? -
_CIBCOMMIT7EE YES "NO
_ S7AFF ^ Z. Ha5 ihis person/firm ever been a city employee?
— YES NO
_ DlsiFilCT COURT _ 3. Does this person/firm possess a sk�ll not normally possessed by any curten[ city employee?
SUPPOpTSWHIGHCOUNCILOBJECTIVE7 YES NO
Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attaeh to green shest
M7RIATING PROBLEM, iSSUE, OPPOATUN7T( (Who, Whet, When, WhBte, Why):
ADVANTAGESIFAPPRO�ED:
DISADVANTAGES IFAPPROVED:
4iWM��1E � 6dslt6�{
,�!11 1'. �.,,�
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPflOVEO:
TOTAL AMOIlNS OF TRANSACTION $ COSTfREVE4IUE BUDGETEU (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO
FUNDIfdG SOURCE ACTIVI7Y NUMBER
FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN)
Property Code Enforcement Meeting
July 16,1996
�
1928 University Avenue
qG_
� �
Lucile Helbig, properry owner, appeazed and stated that she was requesting a variance for eb ess windows
in one of the units in the building. Ttie properiy which was located directiy adj acent to her building was so
close, that there was no feasible way to provide for an egress window as an exit.
Phil Owens, Fire Prevention, stated that he had not received a copy of the appeal and was unprepared to make
a recommendation without knowledge of the facts. He requested the opportunity to be able to inspect the
property.
Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officez, recommended laying the matter over to the September 17,1996
Legislative Hearing to allow Fire Prevention the opportunity to inspect the property.
937 Otto Avenue
Anthony Kolas, property owner, appeared and stated that he was appealing the order to seal the rainleader
located on this property. He purchased the property in October, 1995 and FHA instructed hun that the
rainleader needed to be separated from the sanitary sewer. The previous owner used foam spray to seal off
the rainleader and upon reinspecrion by FHA, they informed him that the repair met approval according to
the code. Several months later, he received a fine on his water bill for the rainleader which he paid. He was
� then contacted by Public Works informing him that he needed to properly disconnect the rainleader.
Steve Herbert, Public Works, stated that using spray foam to seal the rainleader is not effecfive as it does not
prevent rodents from entering the sewer.
Mr. Kolas stated that he had removed the foam and capped the drain as recommended by Public Works,
however, this had not been reinspected by Public Works. Mr. Herbert stated that he would reinspect the
property prior to the Council meeting on July 24, 1996.
Mr. Strathman denied the appeal.
1565-1575 St. Paul Avenue
Larry Bucklin, representing Viking St. Paul Partnership, properiy owner, appeared and stated that he was
\ requesting an appeal to disconnect the rainieaders on both roofs of each building until the roofs needed
replacement. The zoof had a center drain and he had obtained bids for various options to disconnect the drain.
One was to cap the center drain and use scuppers for drainage which would cost approximately $7,200,
however, he was advised that there would still be standing water left on the roof utilizing this method. The
other option would be to cut the center drain and install plumbing through units which would then dtain to
the outside of the building at an approximate cost of $19,000. The third option would be to replace the roofs
at an appro�mate cost of $45,000. They could not afFord to make this eaipenditure at this time and it was his
� belief that the roof may last an additional 10 years befare needing to be replaced. He offered to continue
paying the storm water treatment chazge if he were allowed the variance.
�y�-
Notes of Properry Code Enforcement Meeting
July 16, 1996
Page - 2 - �
Steve Herbert, PubIic Works, stated that there were two buildings with four interior drains. He beIieved that
the estimates received were too high and that using the scupper option, there would not be a significant
amount of standing water as proclaimed. It was also his opinion that the roofs would last longer than the
estimated 10 years as stated by the owner.
Mr. Strathman granted a five yeaz variance.
345 St. Peter Street
Donna Moburg, representing Rice Park Properties, property owner, appeared. Wayne Yust, cluef er�Qineer
for the properiy appeared and stated that they were appealing the order conceming various requirements on
upgrading the sprinkler system for two floors of the building wluch were under renovation. He believed that
the system which was in place was adequate and they did have a method in place £or testing the system.
Robert Seifert, Fire Prevention, presented copies of the Fire Code concerning sprinkler systems installed in
high rise buildings. There was no adequate drainage for system testing and he was concemed that the result
could be water damage due to overflow. He also stated that the system did not have main drain valves as
required by the Code, test valves were not properly piped, test gauges were not installed and there was no
protection in electrical closets.
Mr. Strathman questioned how the system could have been initially installed in non-compliance with the Fire �
Code. Mr. Owens responded that Fire Prevention did not previously employ a fire sprinkier expert, which
Mr. Seifert was, and systems were inspected by plutnbing inspectors with no espertise in this azea.
Ms. Moburg stated that making the required upgrades to the system would cause a financial hazdship to the
owner at this time. She requested additional time to make the required changes.
Mr. Strathman granted a one year variance.
226-234 Exchange and 279 Chestnut Street
Bob Mairs and Scott Brown, representing Panama Flats Rowhouse Association, properry owners appeared.
Mr. Mairs stated that they were appealing the orders to tuck point the brick on the building, testing of alann
systems, yeazly testing on operation of fire eatinguishers, and cleaning of chimneys. Conceming the tuck
pointing on the buiIding, two sides of the building had been done last yeaz at a cost of $75,000. They did not
have the necessary resources to be able to afford the cost of tuck pointing the remainder of the building. They
were a small condominium associafion and were not able to secure a loan from any financial insfitution and
the individual owners could not afford another expense such as this. Concerning the testing of smoke alanns,
all of the systems were hazdwired and were self-testing. He believed it would be an unnecessary expense to
have a qualified contractor to come in and simply push the button on each system. He pointed out that the
building contained no common hallways or stairways. Concerning the testing of fire extinguishers, the fire
extinguishers in each unit were disposable and self-testing and he believed it would be another unnecessary �
expense to pay to have them tested. Concerning the cleaning of the chimneys, most of the units never use
their fireplaces and those that did had been very responsible about having them cleaned. He was requesting
a variance for these items.
�
Notes of Property Code Enforcement Meeting
July 16, 1996
Page - 3 -
q �• ��t �-
Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that she did not believe the tuck pointing on the building posed a danger to
any of the residents in the building and she would agree to allow an extension of time to complete this item.
Smoke alazms needed to be tested in the central system in common hallways and corridors. Fire ea�tinguishers
required a tag stated that they were inspected by a qualified company on a yearly basis. Concerning cleaning
of the chimneys, it appeazed on inspection that the fu were used on a frequent basis which would
require they be cleaned. Mr. Mairs again pointed out that there were no corridors nor central hallways in the
building wluch would require individual inspection of smoke alazms or fire extinguishers.
Mr. Strathman granted a seven yeaz variance £or tuck pointing the brick on the building. He granted a
variance far testing the alarm system as well as testing of fire extinguishers. He granted a 90 day extension
for cleaning of the chixnneys in the units.
2281-2285 Hampden Avenue
Don Cones, representing Minnesota Chemical Company, property owner, appeared and stated that he was
appealing the order to provide second eacits on the second and third floors and basements of both buildings.
The building was 100 yeazs o1d. The basement in one of the buildings was not being used and the second
basement contairAed only non-essenfial storage. He was requesting a variance as the cost to construct exits
in the buildings would be exorbitant.
i Ptul Owens, Fire Prevention, stated that they would withdraw the orders on the condifion that the building
remain under present ownership, continue under present operation of the business with the present fuel load.
Mr. Strathman granted the withdrawal.
690 S. Cleveland Avenue
The property owner did not appear.
Phil Owens, Fire Prevention, stated that they were withdrawing the orders with respect to the dumpster as
there was no another feasible location. _
Mr. Strattunan granted the withdrawal.
348 Maria Avenue
Thomas Rider, property owner, appeazed and stated that he was appealing the order to vent the pluxnbing in
the building. The building was approximately 110 years old and to undertake this type of project would be
cost prohibitive. There had been no problems with a sewer smell in any of the units and he requested he be
granted a variance.
� Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that unvented plumbing was illegal and could potentially cause health
problems.
Mr. Strathman granted a five year variance.
Notes of Property Code Enforcement Meeting
July 16, 1996
Page-4-
805 Brookline
Albert Glisky, property owner, appeared and stated that he was appealing the order to connect to the city
sewer system. The neazest system to connect to would be approximately 100 feet in depth, sloping at a 75-
80% angle which wotild cause erosion and destroy many trees. He currently had a septic system which had
passed inspection. He would prefer to wait for the future development of property surrounding his lot which
would create the opportunity to hook into the sewer system for this new development.
Tom LeClair, LIEP, presented a copy of a revised report on the septic system. The system failed inspection
as it had a dry well which created leaching into the ground drain.
Dave Dickhut, Public Works, stated that a design technician inspected the pmperty and concurred that the area
was a heavily wooded hillside with at least a 37% slope which was steeper than normal. They did, however,
believe that the hook up to the neazest existing system could be done, however, it would be expensive and
there would be a lot of tree loss.
Mr. Strathman granted a one yeaz variance to replace the septic system.
714 Fuller Avenue
.
Thomas Stellwag, property owner, appeazed and stated that he was appealing the order to register the building �
as vacant and pay the vacant building fee. He regained tfie property after an unIawful detaiuer action in May,
1996. He was in the process of making repairs to the building and planned to re-occupy the building by
September, 1996.
Carolyn Shepard, Public Health, stated that the building was unoccupied and was declazed vacant after the
city had to secure the building.
Mr. Strathman denied the appeal.
701 E. Lawson Avenue
Property owner withdrew the appeal.
1132 Central Avei►ue W.
Mohamuiand Shahidullah, property owner, appeared and stated that he was appealing the order to make
repairs on the properiy as he needed additional time to complete the work. He had a friend clean the interior
of the house and he had completed most of the exterior work to the properiy. He needed additional time to
repair the electrical system in addition to repairiug the ceiling in the kitchen. He also needed additional time
to replace one of the windows. He stated that every time he had attempted to enter his property, the police
arrived and prevented him from doing any work on the property. •
Deanna Trailor, friend of property owner, appeazed and stated that she had cleaned most of the interior of the
house and she had not found any insects. She needed additional time to clean the remainder of the house.
�
�
Notes of Propertg Co.� Enforcement Meeting
July 16, 1996
Page - 5 -
q �- �H�--
Dick Lippert Public ?ealth, stated that he had inspected the property that moming. He stated that the taY
records indicated tbat �e properry owner was another individual. Mr. Shahidullah responded that the actual
owner was out ofthe �tmtry at the present time and that he had an ownership interest in the property. Mr.
Lippert stated t}�at tt� properry was condemned and the owner was not allowed to live at the property,
however, he did �aave �e right to make corrections on the property.
Mr. Strathman de�ied �e appeal.
vms
�