Loading...
97-56���- tv r� � d-� � a�. i��t Presented Refesed To MINNESOTA � Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the 7anuary 7, 2 1997 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer: 3 Property Apbealed el t 4 iQ99 and 1089 Burnqnist Street Capital Management Property 5 Decision: Grant variance for three step risers to escape windows in bedrooms on condition that one 10 inch 6 riser be installed to escape windows in each bedroom unit. Grant variance far escape windows in four units 7 and install one 10 inch riser to escape windows in remainder of bedroom units in the building. 8 1449 Wynne Avenue 9 Decision: Grant variance. 10 1b68 N. Aamline Avenue ll Deoision: Grant variance. Thomas Thul Thomas Thul 12 298 Banfil Street Kevin O'Neill 13 Decision: Deny appeal with respect to repair of storm window and installation of GFCI outlet in bathroom. 14 Crrant variance with respect to remainder of deficiencies on condition the unit be vacated by February 15, 1997. 15 � 0 .� d p�,: e r n� e ir� S��i q� Sherry Leck, Mary Edwazds, 16 719Wilson Avenue — ��-�-�, C�, u tv c�' � M e e�-� �°� Marion and Carolyn Brown 17 Decision: Grant extension to vacat� building to February 18, 194�T 18 345 Washington Street 19 Decision: Grant variance. 20 1084 Jackson Street 21 Decision: Deny appeal. 22 203 Forbes Avenue 23 Decision: Deny appeal. 24 457 Portland Avenue ?5 Decision: Grant variance on condition that unit is owner occupied. 6 35 W. Sth Street Mary McColUOrdway Music Theatre Gloria Strouth Patrick Carlone Neal Lagos Joyce Maddox lFirstar Bank 7 Decision: Grant variance on condition that no 3 s�eragee€ flammable materials iveu�..be c� '�n the basementV 2�d �� � � - �4 , S;� e s.T � 2�� mev.3- o4�.<r �-ha�s c� sy�Y:r.�.\er 's�+m� bc. � � W �pla� � v�a v.�e d . $ �° t — �r --- -- — � b47 N. Snelling Avenue "" "� �°�° ` �' ' ' Genevieve Hafner Decision: Graut five yeaz variance for upgrade of electricai service. Council File # �� �J � Green Sheet #����L �t�'S�o 130-140 E. George Street June Getsug Banet Decision: Grant variance based on current tenancy only and that all units for future rent adhere to Code occupancy space requirements. 0 281 E. Kellogg Blvd. Decisian: Appeal withdrawn by appellant. Brian Nelson/PMA L'united Partnership �/ 111 W. Lawson Avenue Decision: Grant e�ension to 3uly 1, 1997. 1688 LaCrosse Street David Schiff Jean DunbarlVonnie McLeod 9 Decision: Grant variance conditioned on sole occupancy by owner which variance shall ternunate upon owner's 10 sale of properry. Requested by Depatiment oE Adopted by Council: Date ° 9doprion Certified by Council Ses tary iy: � ---�. � . pproved by Mayor: Date 2 �� �: ° �'i�. (� ��i � Form Appraved by City Artorney � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � �1 `�s�a ��3�� CITY COUNCIL ����s� � GREEN SHEET �,� --"" ' uOEPRRTMEMOIREGTOF uGfiYCOUNCII Gerty Strathman 26b-8575 ass�cx � cm alsoaniEV Q crrv c��nc NUYBEPFOH NUST BE ON COUNCII AGENOA BY (DAT� pOUtING a BUOGET DIRECTO � fIN. & MGT. SE J���. � l� OflDEfl Q MpypR (OR ASSISTANn ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CUP ALl IOCAS10N3 FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the decision of the Legislative Heaiing Officer an Property Code Enforcemern Appeals for the January 7, 199'1 meeting. XE(:VMMENOATIONS: Approva (A) Of RBjef,1(R) _PLANNINGLOMMI5310N . _ CIe CAMMITTEE _ _ STAFF ^_ __ DISiflICT COURT _ SUPF'ORTS WHICH COUNCII Q&1�CTIVE? PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER TNE FOLIAWiNG QUESTIONS: 7. Has tqis persoMirm ever worked under a coMract Mr this depertment? YES NO 2. Has this person�ttn ever been a city amployee? YES NO 3. Does this person/fircn possess a skill not normalty possassed try any current ciry amployee? YES NO Explain all yes anawera on separate sheet an0 ariach to graen sheet When, Whara. Why7: ��** dGif9x'$ ' �'�r�` $�� L fsa :.� v ��.� a � ����� �OUNTOFTRANSACTION $ JFORFiATiON: (EXPLAIN) COS7lHEYENUE BUOGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO NUMBER �� -� Property Code Enforcement Meeting �2, Jannarq 7,1947 � • 1099 and 1089 Bnmquist Street Joan Scona, representing Capital Management Property, agpeazed and stated that she was requesting a variance for the escape windows in the bedroom for each unit. There were sis units in the 1099 building and each confained a front and reaz entrance. They were being required to install a three step rise to each window in the bedrooms as the windows were too high in height for escape according to the inspector. She did not believe they should be reqnired to install a rise to the windows since the units contained a front and rear entrance. There were 17 units in the 1089 building and escape windows in the bedrooms did not meet the height requirements. There were four units where the window height was within one inch of the code requirement and she believed these units should be exempt. She proposed that they install a 10 inch riser to the escape window in the remaitung units. Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that the windows in the bedrooms were appro�mately 56 inches from the flaor. The code required that the windows be no higher than 48 inches from the floor and that in ttus case, a three step riser was required to meet the escape requirement. The property manager had indicated that they would be willing to install a 10 inch riser in front of the windows for escape and a variance wouid sull be required to a11ow this. Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer, stated that for 1099, he would grant a variance for three step risers to escape windows in bedrooms on the condition that one 10 inch riser be installed to escape windows + in each bedroom unit. Concerning 1089, he granted a variance for escape windows in four of the units and to instali one 10 inch riser to the escape windows in the remainder of the bedroom units in the building. 1449 Wynne Avenue Thomas Thul, property owner, appeared and stated that he was requesting a variance for the escape windows in the apartment units. The units were all efficiencies designed in an L shape. The inspector indicaked that the windows closest to the bedroom area were not large enough for escape according to the code. Pat Fish, Fire Prevenfion, stated that she had discussed this issue with the inspector and he indicated that the windows were 20 inches in width and 20 inches in height, the height being four inches short $om the code requirement. They would support a variance for the windows. Mr. Strathman granted the variance. 1668 N. Hamline Avenue Thomas Thul, property owner, appeared and stated that he was requesting a variance for the installation of additional electrical outlets in the kitchen of each unit. The building contained 11 apartment units and there were two electrical outlets in each kitchen. In order to install the required additional outlet, he would have to upgrade the entire electricai system. He had obtained an estimate in the amount of $15,000 to upgrade the electrical system. He did not have the financing to afford this cost. Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that she had discussed this issue with the inspector and he indicated that the �� -5�, Properry Code Enforcement January 7, 1997 • Page - 2 - kitchens were efficiency kitchens. In order to add any additional outlets, the electrical service woutd need to be upgraded. The inspector did not believe there was an immediate hazard with the electrical system. Mr. Stratlunan granted the variance. 298 Banfil Streef Kevin O'Neill, properiy owner, appeared and stated that he was appealing the order to conect deficiencies to the building. He had purchased the property in June, 1996 with the intention of deconverting the duplex into a single family home. He explained that when he purchased the property, there was a tenant that was living in part of the house and he allowed the tenant to remain. The tenant gaue him notice that she intended to move out at the end of January and he had no intention of renting to anyone else. David Weisberg, Public Health, stated that there were two life safety issues which needed to be corrected; installation of a GFCI outlet in the bathroom and replacement of a broken storm window. Mr. Sirathman denied the appeal with respect to repair of the storm window and installation of GFCI outlet in the batlu�oom. He granted a variance with respect to the remainder of the deficiencies on the condifion that the unit be vacated by February 15, 1997. . 719Wilson Avenue Laura Jelinek, attorney representing Sherry Leck, a tenant in unit #3 in the building, appeared and stated that she filed an emergency petition with Housing Court after the building had baen condemned. The court ordered that the owner immediately begin repairs on the unit. There was a verification hearing on December 20 and on inspection of the unit, most of the repairs had been completed except for the heat. According to the owner, there was a part that needed to be ordered to repair the heat to the unit. Another verification hearing was scheduled in Housing Court for January 17 if the heat was not yet repaired. She presented orders issued by Housing Court. It was her client's desire to remain in the building. Mary Edwards, a tenant in unit #2 in the building, appeared and stated that she was appealing the condemnation order as there was nothing that needed repair in her unit. She did not want to have to find another place to live. Cazolyn Brown, a tenant in unit #1 in the building, appeazed and stated that she was appealing the condemnation order as there was nothing that needed repair in her unit. She did not want to have to find another place to live. Mazion Brown, a tenant in unit #5 in the building, appeared and stated that she was appealing the condemnation order as there was nothing that needed repair in her unit. She stated that she had the responsibility of keeping the yard and common hailways clean and believed she did a good job. She did not � want to have to find another place to live. Gregge Johnson, properry owner, appeared and stated that he was appealing the condemnation order. He had made e��tensive repairs to the building and he believed that he should have been given time to make the q�-�� Property Code Enforcement January 7, 1997 � Page - 3 - necessary repairs rather than the inspector just condemning the building. He stated that there was not a caretaker at the building to handie the problems and issues which azose. He explained that there was an ice dam on the roof and that it appeared that the entire roof needed to be replaced. The ice dam caused significant damage to the ceiling in unit #4 and he was making significant repairs to this unit. Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated tUat the building was inspected in the spring of 1996 and repairs were ordered to be made at that time. When the building was inspected on December 6, the same type of repaus needed to be made again. 5he found the canditions in tlie building to be deplorabie. She had suggested to the owner that he hire a caretaker to monitor the hallways and comtnon azeas which seemed to be the most problematic areas. The owner had agreed to hire a caretaker, however, to date, he had failed to do so. She had reinspected the building on December 20 and found t.hat most of the conditions had remained. Since tha building had been condemned, a complete inspection would need to be made of the building, including the basement, in order to issue a new certificate of occupancy. Mr. Stratt�mau reviewed the pictures of the property and stated that the conditions appaared to be rather grim. Based on the Housing Court proceeding, he granted an extension to February 18, 1997 to vacate the building if the repairs were not made. 345 Washington Street . Mary McColi, representing the Ordway Music Theatre, appeared and stated that they were requesting a variance to install handrails in the balcony seating azea. The azea was inspected after an accident in ttris area and the inspector indicated that the code required handrails. It was her contention that handrails wouid make the area less safe for flow of traffic and that since this was not a requirement when the theatre was built, they should not have to install them at this time. Joe McDonough, Fire Prevention, stated that there had been one accident which necessitated an inspection. The current code required handrails, however, they would not be opposed to graxiting a variance for this requirement. Mr. Strathman granted the variance. 1084 Jackson Street The property owner did not appear. Steve Manger, Public Health, stated that he had spoken with the properly owner that day and the owner intended to withdraw the appeal. Mr. Strathman stated that since the property owner had not contacted him, he would deny the appeal. 1 203 Forbes Avenue Patrick Carlone, property owner, appeared and stated that he had lived at this address for 17 years. He was contesting the necessity oP a certificate of occupancy to live in an apartment in the building. He contended ��-�b Property Code Enforcement January 7, 1997 � Page-4- that the building was not vacant and thzt he was living in an apaclment in the building. He presented pictures of the apartmem. He s�tatecl thax the rest of the building was in need of repair, however, he had tentatively sold the buiiding and believed it would be a waste to make any improvements at this time. He atso claimed that Fire Prevention coutinuously harassed him. He went on to eaplain that the property was tas forfeited to the State in 1995 and he was ordered by the County not to occupy the buiiding. He decided to go on vacarion prior to receiving the order to vacate the premises and had been on vacation ever since. He claimed that he repurchased the building in August, 1996 and he still considered this building to be his place of residence. Steve Magner, Publio Health, stated that he had inspected the building upon a referrai from Fire Prevention that the building was vacant and it did not have a current certificate of occupancy. He inspected the building and determined that it was indeed vacant so he issued a notice for payment of the $200 registered vacant building fee. The building was a mixed use commerciaUresidenfial which precipitated the need for a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal. 457 Portland Avenue Neal Lagos and Susan Boos, property owners, appeazed. Pvlr. Lagos stated that they were requesting a variance to provide a second exit on the third floor of the building. The building was a two unit condominium • which they had purchased in August, 1996. The building was located in the historic district and it would be necessary to obtain the approvai of the Historic Preservation Commission to be able to make this type of improvement. Ms. Boos stated that the third floor unit had been rented as an apaztment prior to their purchasing the property and when the tenant was asked to leaue, she believed he became resentful and contacted the city concerning what he believed were violations. In the event of a fire, she believed one aould exit through the window. Mark Kaisersatt, Public Health, stated that since the unit was on the third floor and was over 500 square feet in space, the code required a second e�t from the building. Ha did agree that one could exit through one of the windows in the event of a fire. Mr. Strathman granted a variance on the condition that the unit be owner occupied. 35 W. Sth Street Dan Reely, Towle Real Estate, representing Firstar Bank, appeared and stated that he was appealing the order to install a sprinklina system in the basement of the building. The basement was presently occupied with an employee lunchroom and safety deposit boxes. They planned to move the operations to the main level by March 1, 1997. Given the uncertain future use of the building, they did not believe it would be financially feasible to install a sprinkling system in the basement at this time. t Bob Seifert, Fire Prevention, stated that the basement area was over 15,000 square feet and the code required that this area contain a sprinkling system. When he inspected the property, he found that the public did have access to this azea because of the safery deposit boxes and the employee lunchroom. The basement was also ��1-56 Property Code Enforcement January 7,1997 � Page - 5 - being used for storage of different materials. He believed that since this azea was being used, there was a fire potential and it should contain a spriukliug system. Mr. Strathmau granted a variance on the condition that the basement be vacated by March i, 1997 and that storage of flammable materials was not allowed. 647 N. Snelling Avenue Mark Hafner, appeared and stated that his family had owned the property for appro�cimately 60 years. The building contained 14 efficiency apartment units and there were 12 tenants living in the building. He was appealing the order to upgrade the electrical service in the building as it would be very costly to undertake this project and there had been no complaints from any of the tenants. Tom Kibble, electrical contractor, appeazed and stated that he had inspected the electrical system and found it to be adequate for the needs of the building. Pat Fish, Fire Frevention, stated that she discussed this issue with the inspector and he indicated that he found extension cord use and was concerned about the number of outlets in each unit. He also found that the bathroom outlets needed to be grounded. � Mr. Strathxnan granted a five yeaz variance far upgrade of the elecirical service. 130-140 E. George Street Reed Banet, property owner, appeazed and stated that there was a complaint of overcrowding of the units in the building. According to the code, the sleeping rooms were not adequate to accommodate the number of tenants in certain units. He believed the code was ambiguous in that a one bedroom unit by sleeping room could only accommodate one person, however, the overall square footage could accommodate four people. Their policy was to only rent a one bedroom unit to two adults with rivo children or three adults. He acknowledged that there had been problems with overcrowding in the past, however, when they becaxne aware of the situation, they made the tenants leave the building. He did not want to displace any of the families which were currently living in the building. Pat Fish, Fire Frevention, stated that a number of units in the building did not meet the sleeping room space requirements for safety and health reasons. The code required 50 square feet per person for a bedroom. The gross square footage of the unit must be 150 square feet for the first person and 100 square feet for each additionai person. The square footage of these units was not adequate to house four or five peopie in some of the units. Mr. Strathman granted a variance based on the cunent tenancy only and that all units for future rent adhere to the occupancy space requirements in the code. ' 281 E. Kelloeg Blvd. Appeal withdrawn by appellant. a7-.�6 Properry Code Enforcement January 7, 1997 . Page-6- lll W. Lawson Avenue David Schiff, property owner, appeazed and stated that he was requesting additional time to complete the repairs. Since all of the repairs were for exterior work to the house, weather conditions did not permit him to complete these repairs. He was in the process of securing additional financing as the roof of the house required replacement. Paula Seeley, Public Health, stated that her only concern was a definite timeline an completion of the repairs. Mr. Strathman granted an ea�tension of time to compiete the repairs to July l, 1997. 1688 LaCrosse Street Lynn Peterson and DeAnn Zulmer appeared on behalf of their mother, Lavonia Peterson. Mr. Peterson stated that his mother lived on an uiiimproved street and there was no access to ttris property other than by a dirt alley. The house had a septic system wluch the city indicated was failing. He explained that he had helped to put in the current septic system including digging the drai�eld when they had moved into the house in 1965. There was a lot of debris which currently covered the drainfield and he believed that the inspector did not dig down deep enough to fmd it. His mother was 79 years old and did not have the financing to afford the cost to connect to the nearest sewer system as was being recommended by the city. � Tom LeClair, LIEP, stated that he received a copy of the individual sewage treatrnent report and the inspector indicated on the report that the system was failing because of a clrywell. He then contacted Public Works to find out where the nearest sewer system was to conneet to. Public Works indicated that there were plans to consiruct a system sometime this year. He would be willing to extend the compliance date to July, 1947. Mr. Strathman granted a variance conditioned on the sole occupancy by the owner which variance would terminate upon the owner's sale of the properiy. vxns . ���- tv r� � d-� � a�. i��t Presented Refesed To MINNESOTA � Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the 7anuary 7, 2 1997 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer: 3 Property Apbealed el t 4 iQ99 and 1089 Burnqnist Street Capital Management Property 5 Decision: Grant variance for three step risers to escape windows in bedrooms on condition that one 10 inch 6 riser be installed to escape windows in each bedroom unit. Grant variance far escape windows in four units 7 and install one 10 inch riser to escape windows in remainder of bedroom units in the building. 8 1449 Wynne Avenue 9 Decision: Grant variance. 10 1b68 N. Aamline Avenue ll Deoision: Grant variance. Thomas Thul Thomas Thul 12 298 Banfil Street Kevin O'Neill 13 Decision: Deny appeal with respect to repair of storm window and installation of GFCI outlet in bathroom. 14 Crrant variance with respect to remainder of deficiencies on condition the unit be vacated by February 15, 1997. 15 � 0 .� d p�,: e r n� e ir� S��i q� Sherry Leck, Mary Edwazds, 16 719Wilson Avenue — ��-�-�, C�, u tv c�' � M e e�-� �°� Marion and Carolyn Brown 17 Decision: Grant extension to vacat� building to February 18, 194�T 18 345 Washington Street 19 Decision: Grant variance. 20 1084 Jackson Street 21 Decision: Deny appeal. 22 203 Forbes Avenue 23 Decision: Deny appeal. 24 457 Portland Avenue ?5 Decision: Grant variance on condition that unit is owner occupied. 6 35 W. Sth Street Mary McColUOrdway Music Theatre Gloria Strouth Patrick Carlone Neal Lagos Joyce Maddox lFirstar Bank 7 Decision: Grant variance on condition that no 3 s�eragee€ flammable materials iveu�..be c� '�n the basementV 2�d �� � � - �4 , S;� e s.T � 2�� mev.3- o4�.<r �-ha�s c� sy�Y:r.�.\er 's�+m� bc. � � W �pla� � v�a v.�e d . $ �° t — �r --- -- — � b47 N. Snelling Avenue "" "� �°�° ` �' ' ' Genevieve Hafner Decision: Graut five yeaz variance for upgrade of electricai service. Council File # �� �J � Green Sheet #����L �t�'S�o 130-140 E. George Street June Getsug Banet Decision: Grant variance based on current tenancy only and that all units for future rent adhere to Code occupancy space requirements. 0 281 E. Kellogg Blvd. Decisian: Appeal withdrawn by appellant. Brian Nelson/PMA L'united Partnership �/ 111 W. Lawson Avenue Decision: Grant e�ension to 3uly 1, 1997. 1688 LaCrosse Street David Schiff Jean DunbarlVonnie McLeod 9 Decision: Grant variance conditioned on sole occupancy by owner which variance shall ternunate upon owner's 10 sale of properry. Requested by Depatiment oE Adopted by Council: Date ° 9doprion Certified by Council Ses tary iy: � ---�. � . pproved by Mayor: Date 2 �� �: ° �'i�. (� ��i � Form Appraved by City Artorney � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � �1 `�s�a ��3�� CITY COUNCIL ����s� � GREEN SHEET �,� --"" ' uOEPRRTMEMOIREGTOF uGfiYCOUNCII Gerty Strathman 26b-8575 ass�cx � cm alsoaniEV Q crrv c��nc NUYBEPFOH NUST BE ON COUNCII AGENOA BY (DAT� pOUtING a BUOGET DIRECTO � fIN. & MGT. SE J���. � l� OflDEfl Q MpypR (OR ASSISTANn ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CUP ALl IOCAS10N3 FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the decision of the Legislative Heaiing Officer an Property Code Enforcemern Appeals for the January 7, 199'1 meeting. XE(:VMMENOATIONS: Approva (A) Of RBjef,1(R) _PLANNINGLOMMI5310N . _ CIe CAMMITTEE _ _ STAFF ^_ __ DISiflICT COURT _ SUPF'ORTS WHICH COUNCII Q&1�CTIVE? PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER TNE FOLIAWiNG QUESTIONS: 7. Has tqis persoMirm ever worked under a coMract Mr this depertment? YES NO 2. Has this person�ttn ever been a city amployee? YES NO 3. Does this person/fircn possess a skill not normalty possassed try any current ciry amployee? YES NO Explain all yes anawera on separate sheet an0 ariach to graen sheet When, Whara. Why7: ��** dGif9x'$ ' �'�r�` $�� L fsa :.� v ��.� a � ����� �OUNTOFTRANSACTION $ JFORFiATiON: (EXPLAIN) COS7lHEYENUE BUOGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO NUMBER �� -� Property Code Enforcement Meeting �2, Jannarq 7,1947 � • 1099 and 1089 Bnmquist Street Joan Scona, representing Capital Management Property, agpeazed and stated that she was requesting a variance for the escape windows in the bedroom for each unit. There were sis units in the 1099 building and each confained a front and reaz entrance. They were being required to install a three step rise to each window in the bedrooms as the windows were too high in height for escape according to the inspector. She did not believe they should be reqnired to install a rise to the windows since the units contained a front and rear entrance. There were 17 units in the 1089 building and escape windows in the bedrooms did not meet the height requirements. There were four units where the window height was within one inch of the code requirement and she believed these units should be exempt. She proposed that they install a 10 inch riser to the escape window in the remaitung units. Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that the windows in the bedrooms were appro�mately 56 inches from the flaor. The code required that the windows be no higher than 48 inches from the floor and that in ttus case, a three step riser was required to meet the escape requirement. The property manager had indicated that they would be willing to install a 10 inch riser in front of the windows for escape and a variance wouid sull be required to a11ow this. Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer, stated that for 1099, he would grant a variance for three step risers to escape windows in bedrooms on the condition that one 10 inch riser be installed to escape windows + in each bedroom unit. Concerning 1089, he granted a variance for escape windows in four of the units and to instali one 10 inch riser to the escape windows in the remainder of the bedroom units in the building. 1449 Wynne Avenue Thomas Thul, property owner, appeared and stated that he was requesting a variance for the escape windows in the apartment units. The units were all efficiencies designed in an L shape. The inspector indicaked that the windows closest to the bedroom area were not large enough for escape according to the code. Pat Fish, Fire Prevenfion, stated that she had discussed this issue with the inspector and he indicated that the windows were 20 inches in width and 20 inches in height, the height being four inches short $om the code requirement. They would support a variance for the windows. Mr. Strathman granted the variance. 1668 N. Hamline Avenue Thomas Thul, property owner, appeared and stated that he was requesting a variance for the installation of additional electrical outlets in the kitchen of each unit. The building contained 11 apartment units and there were two electrical outlets in each kitchen. In order to install the required additional outlet, he would have to upgrade the entire electricai system. He had obtained an estimate in the amount of $15,000 to upgrade the electrical system. He did not have the financing to afford this cost. Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that she had discussed this issue with the inspector and he indicated that the �� -5�, Properry Code Enforcement January 7, 1997 • Page - 2 - kitchens were efficiency kitchens. In order to add any additional outlets, the electrical service woutd need to be upgraded. The inspector did not believe there was an immediate hazard with the electrical system. Mr. Stratlunan granted the variance. 298 Banfil Streef Kevin O'Neill, properiy owner, appeared and stated that he was appealing the order to conect deficiencies to the building. He had purchased the property in June, 1996 with the intention of deconverting the duplex into a single family home. He explained that when he purchased the property, there was a tenant that was living in part of the house and he allowed the tenant to remain. The tenant gaue him notice that she intended to move out at the end of January and he had no intention of renting to anyone else. David Weisberg, Public Health, stated that there were two life safety issues which needed to be corrected; installation of a GFCI outlet in the bathroom and replacement of a broken storm window. Mr. Sirathman denied the appeal with respect to repair of the storm window and installation of GFCI outlet in the batlu�oom. He granted a variance with respect to the remainder of the deficiencies on the condifion that the unit be vacated by February 15, 1997. . 719Wilson Avenue Laura Jelinek, attorney representing Sherry Leck, a tenant in unit #3 in the building, appeared and stated that she filed an emergency petition with Housing Court after the building had baen condemned. The court ordered that the owner immediately begin repairs on the unit. There was a verification hearing on December 20 and on inspection of the unit, most of the repairs had been completed except for the heat. According to the owner, there was a part that needed to be ordered to repair the heat to the unit. Another verification hearing was scheduled in Housing Court for January 17 if the heat was not yet repaired. She presented orders issued by Housing Court. It was her client's desire to remain in the building. Mary Edwards, a tenant in unit #2 in the building, appeared and stated that she was appealing the condemnation order as there was nothing that needed repair in her unit. She did not want to have to find another place to live. Cazolyn Brown, a tenant in unit #1 in the building, appeazed and stated that she was appealing the condemnation order as there was nothing that needed repair in her unit. She did not want to have to find another place to live. Mazion Brown, a tenant in unit #5 in the building, appeared and stated that she was appealing the condemnation order as there was nothing that needed repair in her unit. She stated that she had the responsibility of keeping the yard and common hailways clean and believed she did a good job. She did not � want to have to find another place to live. Gregge Johnson, properry owner, appeared and stated that he was appealing the condemnation order. He had made e��tensive repairs to the building and he believed that he should have been given time to make the q�-�� Property Code Enforcement January 7, 1997 � Page - 3 - necessary repairs rather than the inspector just condemning the building. He stated that there was not a caretaker at the building to handie the problems and issues which azose. He explained that there was an ice dam on the roof and that it appeared that the entire roof needed to be replaced. The ice dam caused significant damage to the ceiling in unit #4 and he was making significant repairs to this unit. Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated tUat the building was inspected in the spring of 1996 and repairs were ordered to be made at that time. When the building was inspected on December 6, the same type of repaus needed to be made again. 5he found the canditions in tlie building to be deplorabie. She had suggested to the owner that he hire a caretaker to monitor the hallways and comtnon azeas which seemed to be the most problematic areas. The owner had agreed to hire a caretaker, however, to date, he had failed to do so. She had reinspected the building on December 20 and found t.hat most of the conditions had remained. Since tha building had been condemned, a complete inspection would need to be made of the building, including the basement, in order to issue a new certificate of occupancy. Mr. Stratt�mau reviewed the pictures of the property and stated that the conditions appaared to be rather grim. Based on the Housing Court proceeding, he granted an extension to February 18, 1997 to vacate the building if the repairs were not made. 345 Washington Street . Mary McColi, representing the Ordway Music Theatre, appeared and stated that they were requesting a variance to install handrails in the balcony seating azea. The azea was inspected after an accident in ttris area and the inspector indicated that the code required handrails. It was her contention that handrails wouid make the area less safe for flow of traffic and that since this was not a requirement when the theatre was built, they should not have to install them at this time. Joe McDonough, Fire Prevention, stated that there had been one accident which necessitated an inspection. The current code required handrails, however, they would not be opposed to graxiting a variance for this requirement. Mr. Strathman granted the variance. 1084 Jackson Street The property owner did not appear. Steve Manger, Public Health, stated that he had spoken with the properly owner that day and the owner intended to withdraw the appeal. Mr. Strathman stated that since the property owner had not contacted him, he would deny the appeal. 1 203 Forbes Avenue Patrick Carlone, property owner, appeared and stated that he had lived at this address for 17 years. He was contesting the necessity oP a certificate of occupancy to live in an apartment in the building. He contended ��-�b Property Code Enforcement January 7, 1997 � Page-4- that the building was not vacant and thzt he was living in an apaclment in the building. He presented pictures of the apartmem. He s�tatecl thax the rest of the building was in need of repair, however, he had tentatively sold the buiiding and believed it would be a waste to make any improvements at this time. He atso claimed that Fire Prevention coutinuously harassed him. He went on to eaplain that the property was tas forfeited to the State in 1995 and he was ordered by the County not to occupy the buiiding. He decided to go on vacarion prior to receiving the order to vacate the premises and had been on vacation ever since. He claimed that he repurchased the building in August, 1996 and he still considered this building to be his place of residence. Steve Magner, Publio Health, stated that he had inspected the building upon a referrai from Fire Prevention that the building was vacant and it did not have a current certificate of occupancy. He inspected the building and determined that it was indeed vacant so he issued a notice for payment of the $200 registered vacant building fee. The building was a mixed use commerciaUresidenfial which precipitated the need for a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal. 457 Portland Avenue Neal Lagos and Susan Boos, property owners, appeazed. Pvlr. Lagos stated that they were requesting a variance to provide a second exit on the third floor of the building. The building was a two unit condominium • which they had purchased in August, 1996. The building was located in the historic district and it would be necessary to obtain the approvai of the Historic Preservation Commission to be able to make this type of improvement. Ms. Boos stated that the third floor unit had been rented as an apaztment prior to their purchasing the property and when the tenant was asked to leaue, she believed he became resentful and contacted the city concerning what he believed were violations. In the event of a fire, she believed one aould exit through the window. Mark Kaisersatt, Public Health, stated that since the unit was on the third floor and was over 500 square feet in space, the code required a second e�t from the building. Ha did agree that one could exit through one of the windows in the event of a fire. Mr. Strathman granted a variance on the condition that the unit be owner occupied. 35 W. Sth Street Dan Reely, Towle Real Estate, representing Firstar Bank, appeared and stated that he was appealing the order to install a sprinklina system in the basement of the building. The basement was presently occupied with an employee lunchroom and safety deposit boxes. They planned to move the operations to the main level by March 1, 1997. Given the uncertain future use of the building, they did not believe it would be financially feasible to install a sprinkling system in the basement at this time. t Bob Seifert, Fire Prevention, stated that the basement area was over 15,000 square feet and the code required that this area contain a sprinkling system. When he inspected the property, he found that the public did have access to this azea because of the safery deposit boxes and the employee lunchroom. The basement was also ��1-56 Property Code Enforcement January 7,1997 � Page - 5 - being used for storage of different materials. He believed that since this azea was being used, there was a fire potential and it should contain a spriukliug system. Mr. Strathmau granted a variance on the condition that the basement be vacated by March i, 1997 and that storage of flammable materials was not allowed. 647 N. Snelling Avenue Mark Hafner, appeared and stated that his family had owned the property for appro�cimately 60 years. The building contained 14 efficiency apartment units and there were 12 tenants living in the building. He was appealing the order to upgrade the electrical service in the building as it would be very costly to undertake this project and there had been no complaints from any of the tenants. Tom Kibble, electrical contractor, appeazed and stated that he had inspected the electrical system and found it to be adequate for the needs of the building. Pat Fish, Fire Frevention, stated that she discussed this issue with the inspector and he indicated that he found extension cord use and was concerned about the number of outlets in each unit. He also found that the bathroom outlets needed to be grounded. � Mr. Strathxnan granted a five yeaz variance far upgrade of the elecirical service. 130-140 E. George Street Reed Banet, property owner, appeazed and stated that there was a complaint of overcrowding of the units in the building. According to the code, the sleeping rooms were not adequate to accommodate the number of tenants in certain units. He believed the code was ambiguous in that a one bedroom unit by sleeping room could only accommodate one person, however, the overall square footage could accommodate four people. Their policy was to only rent a one bedroom unit to two adults with rivo children or three adults. He acknowledged that there had been problems with overcrowding in the past, however, when they becaxne aware of the situation, they made the tenants leave the building. He did not want to displace any of the families which were currently living in the building. Pat Fish, Fire Frevention, stated that a number of units in the building did not meet the sleeping room space requirements for safety and health reasons. The code required 50 square feet per person for a bedroom. The gross square footage of the unit must be 150 square feet for the first person and 100 square feet for each additionai person. The square footage of these units was not adequate to house four or five peopie in some of the units. Mr. Strathman granted a variance based on the cunent tenancy only and that all units for future rent adhere to the occupancy space requirements in the code. ' 281 E. Kelloeg Blvd. Appeal withdrawn by appellant. a7-.�6 Properry Code Enforcement January 7, 1997 . Page-6- lll W. Lawson Avenue David Schiff, property owner, appeazed and stated that he was requesting additional time to complete the repairs. Since all of the repairs were for exterior work to the house, weather conditions did not permit him to complete these repairs. He was in the process of securing additional financing as the roof of the house required replacement. Paula Seeley, Public Health, stated that her only concern was a definite timeline an completion of the repairs. Mr. Strathman granted an ea�tension of time to compiete the repairs to July l, 1997. 1688 LaCrosse Street Lynn Peterson and DeAnn Zulmer appeared on behalf of their mother, Lavonia Peterson. Mr. Peterson stated that his mother lived on an uiiimproved street and there was no access to ttris property other than by a dirt alley. The house had a septic system wluch the city indicated was failing. He explained that he had helped to put in the current septic system including digging the drai�eld when they had moved into the house in 1965. There was a lot of debris which currently covered the drainfield and he believed that the inspector did not dig down deep enough to fmd it. His mother was 79 years old and did not have the financing to afford the cost to connect to the nearest sewer system as was being recommended by the city. � Tom LeClair, LIEP, stated that he received a copy of the individual sewage treatrnent report and the inspector indicated on the report that the system was failing because of a clrywell. He then contacted Public Works to find out where the nearest sewer system was to conneet to. Public Works indicated that there were plans to consiruct a system sometime this year. He would be willing to extend the compliance date to July, 1947. Mr. Strathman granted a variance conditioned on the sole occupancy by the owner which variance would terminate upon the owner's sale of the properiy. vxns . ���- tv r� � d-� � a�. i��t Presented Refesed To MINNESOTA � Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the 7anuary 7, 2 1997 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer: 3 Property Apbealed el t 4 iQ99 and 1089 Burnqnist Street Capital Management Property 5 Decision: Grant variance for three step risers to escape windows in bedrooms on condition that one 10 inch 6 riser be installed to escape windows in each bedroom unit. Grant variance far escape windows in four units 7 and install one 10 inch riser to escape windows in remainder of bedroom units in the building. 8 1449 Wynne Avenue 9 Decision: Grant variance. 10 1b68 N. Aamline Avenue ll Deoision: Grant variance. Thomas Thul Thomas Thul 12 298 Banfil Street Kevin O'Neill 13 Decision: Deny appeal with respect to repair of storm window and installation of GFCI outlet in bathroom. 14 Crrant variance with respect to remainder of deficiencies on condition the unit be vacated by February 15, 1997. 15 � 0 .� d p�,: e r n� e ir� S��i q� Sherry Leck, Mary Edwazds, 16 719Wilson Avenue — ��-�-�, C�, u tv c�' � M e e�-� �°� Marion and Carolyn Brown 17 Decision: Grant extension to vacat� building to February 18, 194�T 18 345 Washington Street 19 Decision: Grant variance. 20 1084 Jackson Street 21 Decision: Deny appeal. 22 203 Forbes Avenue 23 Decision: Deny appeal. 24 457 Portland Avenue ?5 Decision: Grant variance on condition that unit is owner occupied. 6 35 W. Sth Street Mary McColUOrdway Music Theatre Gloria Strouth Patrick Carlone Neal Lagos Joyce Maddox lFirstar Bank 7 Decision: Grant variance on condition that no 3 s�eragee€ flammable materials iveu�..be c� '�n the basementV 2�d �� � � - �4 , S;� e s.T � 2�� mev.3- o4�.<r �-ha�s c� sy�Y:r.�.\er 's�+m� bc. � � W �pla� � v�a v.�e d . $ �° t — �r --- -- — � b47 N. Snelling Avenue "" "� �°�° ` �' ' ' Genevieve Hafner Decision: Graut five yeaz variance for upgrade of electricai service. Council File # �� �J � Green Sheet #����L �t�'S�o 130-140 E. George Street June Getsug Banet Decision: Grant variance based on current tenancy only and that all units for future rent adhere to Code occupancy space requirements. 0 281 E. Kellogg Blvd. Decisian: Appeal withdrawn by appellant. Brian Nelson/PMA L'united Partnership �/ 111 W. Lawson Avenue Decision: Grant e�ension to 3uly 1, 1997. 1688 LaCrosse Street David Schiff Jean DunbarlVonnie McLeod 9 Decision: Grant variance conditioned on sole occupancy by owner which variance shall ternunate upon owner's 10 sale of properry. Requested by Depatiment oE Adopted by Council: Date ° 9doprion Certified by Council Ses tary iy: � ---�. � . pproved by Mayor: Date 2 �� �: ° �'i�. (� ��i � Form Appraved by City Artorney � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � �1 `�s�a ��3�� CITY COUNCIL ����s� � GREEN SHEET �,� --"" ' uOEPRRTMEMOIREGTOF uGfiYCOUNCII Gerty Strathman 26b-8575 ass�cx � cm alsoaniEV Q crrv c��nc NUYBEPFOH NUST BE ON COUNCII AGENOA BY (DAT� pOUtING a BUOGET DIRECTO � fIN. & MGT. SE J���. � l� OflDEfl Q MpypR (OR ASSISTANn ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CUP ALl IOCAS10N3 FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the decision of the Legislative Heaiing Officer an Property Code Enforcemern Appeals for the January 7, 199'1 meeting. XE(:VMMENOATIONS: Approva (A) Of RBjef,1(R) _PLANNINGLOMMI5310N . _ CIe CAMMITTEE _ _ STAFF ^_ __ DISiflICT COURT _ SUPF'ORTS WHICH COUNCII Q&1�CTIVE? PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER TNE FOLIAWiNG QUESTIONS: 7. Has tqis persoMirm ever worked under a coMract Mr this depertment? YES NO 2. Has this person�ttn ever been a city amployee? YES NO 3. Does this person/fircn possess a skill not normalty possassed try any current ciry amployee? YES NO Explain all yes anawera on separate sheet an0 ariach to graen sheet When, Whara. Why7: ��** dGif9x'$ ' �'�r�` $�� L fsa :.� v ��.� a � ����� �OUNTOFTRANSACTION $ JFORFiATiON: (EXPLAIN) COS7lHEYENUE BUOGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO NUMBER �� -� Property Code Enforcement Meeting �2, Jannarq 7,1947 � • 1099 and 1089 Bnmquist Street Joan Scona, representing Capital Management Property, agpeazed and stated that she was requesting a variance for the escape windows in the bedroom for each unit. There were sis units in the 1099 building and each confained a front and reaz entrance. They were being required to install a three step rise to each window in the bedrooms as the windows were too high in height for escape according to the inspector. She did not believe they should be reqnired to install a rise to the windows since the units contained a front and rear entrance. There were 17 units in the 1089 building and escape windows in the bedrooms did not meet the height requirements. There were four units where the window height was within one inch of the code requirement and she believed these units should be exempt. She proposed that they install a 10 inch riser to the escape window in the remaitung units. Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that the windows in the bedrooms were appro�mately 56 inches from the flaor. The code required that the windows be no higher than 48 inches from the floor and that in ttus case, a three step riser was required to meet the escape requirement. The property manager had indicated that they would be willing to install a 10 inch riser in front of the windows for escape and a variance wouid sull be required to a11ow this. Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer, stated that for 1099, he would grant a variance for three step risers to escape windows in bedrooms on the condition that one 10 inch riser be installed to escape windows + in each bedroom unit. Concerning 1089, he granted a variance for escape windows in four of the units and to instali one 10 inch riser to the escape windows in the remainder of the bedroom units in the building. 1449 Wynne Avenue Thomas Thul, property owner, appeared and stated that he was requesting a variance for the escape windows in the apartment units. The units were all efficiencies designed in an L shape. The inspector indicaked that the windows closest to the bedroom area were not large enough for escape according to the code. Pat Fish, Fire Prevenfion, stated that she had discussed this issue with the inspector and he indicated that the windows were 20 inches in width and 20 inches in height, the height being four inches short $om the code requirement. They would support a variance for the windows. Mr. Strathman granted the variance. 1668 N. Hamline Avenue Thomas Thul, property owner, appeared and stated that he was requesting a variance for the installation of additional electrical outlets in the kitchen of each unit. The building contained 11 apartment units and there were two electrical outlets in each kitchen. In order to install the required additional outlet, he would have to upgrade the entire electricai system. He had obtained an estimate in the amount of $15,000 to upgrade the electrical system. He did not have the financing to afford this cost. Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated that she had discussed this issue with the inspector and he indicated that the �� -5�, Properry Code Enforcement January 7, 1997 • Page - 2 - kitchens were efficiency kitchens. In order to add any additional outlets, the electrical service woutd need to be upgraded. The inspector did not believe there was an immediate hazard with the electrical system. Mr. Stratlunan granted the variance. 298 Banfil Streef Kevin O'Neill, properiy owner, appeared and stated that he was appealing the order to conect deficiencies to the building. He had purchased the property in June, 1996 with the intention of deconverting the duplex into a single family home. He explained that when he purchased the property, there was a tenant that was living in part of the house and he allowed the tenant to remain. The tenant gaue him notice that she intended to move out at the end of January and he had no intention of renting to anyone else. David Weisberg, Public Health, stated that there were two life safety issues which needed to be corrected; installation of a GFCI outlet in the bathroom and replacement of a broken storm window. Mr. Sirathman denied the appeal with respect to repair of the storm window and installation of GFCI outlet in the batlu�oom. He granted a variance with respect to the remainder of the deficiencies on the condifion that the unit be vacated by February 15, 1997. . 719Wilson Avenue Laura Jelinek, attorney representing Sherry Leck, a tenant in unit #3 in the building, appeared and stated that she filed an emergency petition with Housing Court after the building had baen condemned. The court ordered that the owner immediately begin repairs on the unit. There was a verification hearing on December 20 and on inspection of the unit, most of the repairs had been completed except for the heat. According to the owner, there was a part that needed to be ordered to repair the heat to the unit. Another verification hearing was scheduled in Housing Court for January 17 if the heat was not yet repaired. She presented orders issued by Housing Court. It was her client's desire to remain in the building. Mary Edwards, a tenant in unit #2 in the building, appeared and stated that she was appealing the condemnation order as there was nothing that needed repair in her unit. She did not want to have to find another place to live. Cazolyn Brown, a tenant in unit #1 in the building, appeazed and stated that she was appealing the condemnation order as there was nothing that needed repair in her unit. She did not want to have to find another place to live. Mazion Brown, a tenant in unit #5 in the building, appeared and stated that she was appealing the condemnation order as there was nothing that needed repair in her unit. She stated that she had the responsibility of keeping the yard and common hailways clean and believed she did a good job. She did not � want to have to find another place to live. Gregge Johnson, properry owner, appeared and stated that he was appealing the condemnation order. He had made e��tensive repairs to the building and he believed that he should have been given time to make the q�-�� Property Code Enforcement January 7, 1997 � Page - 3 - necessary repairs rather than the inspector just condemning the building. He stated that there was not a caretaker at the building to handie the problems and issues which azose. He explained that there was an ice dam on the roof and that it appeared that the entire roof needed to be replaced. The ice dam caused significant damage to the ceiling in unit #4 and he was making significant repairs to this unit. Pat Fish, Fire Prevention, stated tUat the building was inspected in the spring of 1996 and repairs were ordered to be made at that time. When the building was inspected on December 6, the same type of repaus needed to be made again. 5he found the canditions in tlie building to be deplorabie. She had suggested to the owner that he hire a caretaker to monitor the hallways and comtnon azeas which seemed to be the most problematic areas. The owner had agreed to hire a caretaker, however, to date, he had failed to do so. She had reinspected the building on December 20 and found t.hat most of the conditions had remained. Since tha building had been condemned, a complete inspection would need to be made of the building, including the basement, in order to issue a new certificate of occupancy. Mr. Stratt�mau reviewed the pictures of the property and stated that the conditions appaared to be rather grim. Based on the Housing Court proceeding, he granted an extension to February 18, 1997 to vacate the building if the repairs were not made. 345 Washington Street . Mary McColi, representing the Ordway Music Theatre, appeared and stated that they were requesting a variance to install handrails in the balcony seating azea. The azea was inspected after an accident in ttris area and the inspector indicated that the code required handrails. It was her contention that handrails wouid make the area less safe for flow of traffic and that since this was not a requirement when the theatre was built, they should not have to install them at this time. Joe McDonough, Fire Prevention, stated that there had been one accident which necessitated an inspection. The current code required handrails, however, they would not be opposed to graxiting a variance for this requirement. Mr. Strathman granted the variance. 1084 Jackson Street The property owner did not appear. Steve Manger, Public Health, stated that he had spoken with the properly owner that day and the owner intended to withdraw the appeal. Mr. Strathman stated that since the property owner had not contacted him, he would deny the appeal. 1 203 Forbes Avenue Patrick Carlone, property owner, appeared and stated that he had lived at this address for 17 years. He was contesting the necessity oP a certificate of occupancy to live in an apartment in the building. He contended ��-�b Property Code Enforcement January 7, 1997 � Page-4- that the building was not vacant and thzt he was living in an apaclment in the building. He presented pictures of the apartmem. He s�tatecl thax the rest of the building was in need of repair, however, he had tentatively sold the buiiding and believed it would be a waste to make any improvements at this time. He atso claimed that Fire Prevention coutinuously harassed him. He went on to eaplain that the property was tas forfeited to the State in 1995 and he was ordered by the County not to occupy the buiiding. He decided to go on vacarion prior to receiving the order to vacate the premises and had been on vacation ever since. He claimed that he repurchased the building in August, 1996 and he still considered this building to be his place of residence. Steve Magner, Publio Health, stated that he had inspected the building upon a referrai from Fire Prevention that the building was vacant and it did not have a current certificate of occupancy. He inspected the building and determined that it was indeed vacant so he issued a notice for payment of the $200 registered vacant building fee. The building was a mixed use commerciaUresidenfial which precipitated the need for a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Strathman denied the appeal. 457 Portland Avenue Neal Lagos and Susan Boos, property owners, appeazed. Pvlr. Lagos stated that they were requesting a variance to provide a second exit on the third floor of the building. The building was a two unit condominium • which they had purchased in August, 1996. The building was located in the historic district and it would be necessary to obtain the approvai of the Historic Preservation Commission to be able to make this type of improvement. Ms. Boos stated that the third floor unit had been rented as an apaztment prior to their purchasing the property and when the tenant was asked to leaue, she believed he became resentful and contacted the city concerning what he believed were violations. In the event of a fire, she believed one aould exit through the window. Mark Kaisersatt, Public Health, stated that since the unit was on the third floor and was over 500 square feet in space, the code required a second e�t from the building. Ha did agree that one could exit through one of the windows in the event of a fire. Mr. Strathman granted a variance on the condition that the unit be owner occupied. 35 W. Sth Street Dan Reely, Towle Real Estate, representing Firstar Bank, appeared and stated that he was appealing the order to install a sprinklina system in the basement of the building. The basement was presently occupied with an employee lunchroom and safety deposit boxes. They planned to move the operations to the main level by March 1, 1997. Given the uncertain future use of the building, they did not believe it would be financially feasible to install a sprinkling system in the basement at this time. t Bob Seifert, Fire Prevention, stated that the basement area was over 15,000 square feet and the code required that this area contain a sprinkling system. When he inspected the property, he found that the public did have access to this azea because of the safery deposit boxes and the employee lunchroom. The basement was also ��1-56 Property Code Enforcement January 7,1997 � Page - 5 - being used for storage of different materials. He believed that since this azea was being used, there was a fire potential and it should contain a spriukliug system. Mr. Strathmau granted a variance on the condition that the basement be vacated by March i, 1997 and that storage of flammable materials was not allowed. 647 N. Snelling Avenue Mark Hafner, appeared and stated that his family had owned the property for appro�cimately 60 years. The building contained 14 efficiency apartment units and there were 12 tenants living in the building. He was appealing the order to upgrade the electrical service in the building as it would be very costly to undertake this project and there had been no complaints from any of the tenants. Tom Kibble, electrical contractor, appeazed and stated that he had inspected the electrical system and found it to be adequate for the needs of the building. Pat Fish, Fire Frevention, stated that she discussed this issue with the inspector and he indicated that he found extension cord use and was concerned about the number of outlets in each unit. He also found that the bathroom outlets needed to be grounded. � Mr. Strathxnan granted a five yeaz variance far upgrade of the elecirical service. 130-140 E. George Street Reed Banet, property owner, appeazed and stated that there was a complaint of overcrowding of the units in the building. According to the code, the sleeping rooms were not adequate to accommodate the number of tenants in certain units. He believed the code was ambiguous in that a one bedroom unit by sleeping room could only accommodate one person, however, the overall square footage could accommodate four people. Their policy was to only rent a one bedroom unit to two adults with rivo children or three adults. He acknowledged that there had been problems with overcrowding in the past, however, when they becaxne aware of the situation, they made the tenants leave the building. He did not want to displace any of the families which were currently living in the building. Pat Fish, Fire Frevention, stated that a number of units in the building did not meet the sleeping room space requirements for safety and health reasons. The code required 50 square feet per person for a bedroom. The gross square footage of the unit must be 150 square feet for the first person and 100 square feet for each additionai person. The square footage of these units was not adequate to house four or five peopie in some of the units. Mr. Strathman granted a variance based on the cunent tenancy only and that all units for future rent adhere to the occupancy space requirements in the code. ' 281 E. Kelloeg Blvd. Appeal withdrawn by appellant. a7-.�6 Properry Code Enforcement January 7, 1997 . Page-6- lll W. Lawson Avenue David Schiff, property owner, appeazed and stated that he was requesting additional time to complete the repairs. Since all of the repairs were for exterior work to the house, weather conditions did not permit him to complete these repairs. He was in the process of securing additional financing as the roof of the house required replacement. Paula Seeley, Public Health, stated that her only concern was a definite timeline an completion of the repairs. Mr. Strathman granted an ea�tension of time to compiete the repairs to July l, 1997. 1688 LaCrosse Street Lynn Peterson and DeAnn Zulmer appeared on behalf of their mother, Lavonia Peterson. Mr. Peterson stated that his mother lived on an uiiimproved street and there was no access to ttris property other than by a dirt alley. The house had a septic system wluch the city indicated was failing. He explained that he had helped to put in the current septic system including digging the drai�eld when they had moved into the house in 1965. There was a lot of debris which currently covered the drainfield and he believed that the inspector did not dig down deep enough to fmd it. His mother was 79 years old and did not have the financing to afford the cost to connect to the nearest sewer system as was being recommended by the city. � Tom LeClair, LIEP, stated that he received a copy of the individual sewage treatrnent report and the inspector indicated on the report that the system was failing because of a clrywell. He then contacted Public Works to find out where the nearest sewer system was to conneet to. Public Works indicated that there were plans to consiruct a system sometime this year. He would be willing to extend the compliance date to July, 1947. Mr. Strathman granted a variance conditioned on the sole occupancy by the owner which variance would terminate upon the owner's sale of the properiy. vxns .