The URL can be used to link to this page

97-728Q��:��_ Conncil Ffle # � � � a.g Green Sheet # � �J � � '�j RESOLUTION F SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented Referred To Committee Date 39 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the June 3, 1997 2 decision of the Legislarive Hearing Officer: 3 Pronerty A�pealed 4 2017Iglehart 5 Decision: Deny appeal. A��eilant Paul Bramsen 6 1137 South Winthrop Street 7 Decision: Laid over to December 2, 1997 8 1672 South Point Douglas Road 9 Decision: Laid over to Aecember 2, 1997 10 2196 & 2236 Lower Afton Road 11 Decision: Deny appeal. 12 2071 Skywap Drive 13 Decision: Laid over to December 2, 1997 I�� : �i f i i•_ 7 i�1 f-�' i 1 Thomas C. Schommer James Barton-Theis & Ta11e Management Mike & Mary Williams 1 1 Properry A�ealed �� f�`, F�1 r s; _ 2 3 4 5 6 7 400 Selby Avenue Decision: Grant variance with respect to deficiency #30 on the condi6on that cazbon mono�de detectors approved by the Fire Department be installed in a11 units; deny appeal but grant an eatension of 90 days to coaect deficiencies #7, #16, #19, #25 and #26. 8 1293,1299 & 1305 Grand Avenue 9 Decision: Grant appeal. A��ellant � � �� °�'$ Ted Glasrud & Associates Eugene V. Sitztnau Requested by Department of: By: V \� ``�.._ ApprovedbyMayor: Date �` �� By: � � Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � AdoptedbyCouncii: Date 0 �� \��`� —�-- T — Adoption�ertified by Council Secrvetary �4r1- r'" �' DECRITYCOF�CIOLUNGIL GD/3/91N7RUTED GREEN SHEE _N_ 35665 CONTACTPEflSON&PHONE �pEPAR'fMENTDiRE Ocmcouncx, INfTIAUDATE Gerty Strathman 26fi8575 nssicx � crtr arroaNer � Cl1Y GLERK NUMBER FOR MUSTBEdNCOUNC0.AGEN0A8Y(OATE) pp�� BU[7GET41PECTOR OFlN.BMGtSERVICESDIR. June 3, 1997 oxnex 0 nuvori roa nssisru�m Q TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACf�ON HEQUESTED: Approving the decision of the Legislarive Hearing Officer on F�operty:Code Enforcement Appeais for the June 3, 1997 meeting. pECOMMENDA7lONS: Approve (A) a Reiea (R) pERSONAL SERVICE CONTflACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING �UESTIONS: _ PUINNING COMMISSION _ pVIL SEflViCE COMMISSION 1. Has this persoNfirtn ever worked under a cormact for Nis tlepar6nenl? - _ CIB COMMIifEE _ YES NO —�� — 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? VES NO — �1STR��T cOURT — 3. Daes thi5 person/Firm possess a 5kili not normal ossessed ry P by aM �nent city empioyee? SUPPOR7SWXiCHCOUNGlO&tECnVE? YES NO �plafn all yes answers on saparate shest and attaeh to graen sheet INITWTING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPOHTUNITY (Who. Wl�at, When. Whara. Why): � +. g i' n C; 1+'?� � A�VANTAGES IF APPROVED: ' DISADVANTAGES IFAPPROVED' DISADVANTAGES IF NOTAPPRO�EO' TOTAI AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION $ COST/REVENUE BUDGETED �CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDIHG SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) �7-7a� Property Code Enforcement Meeting June3,1997 2017 Igehart Paul Bramsen, properiy owner, appeazed and stated that the property in question has been a 13- nni rooming house for 50 years. They bought the pmperty and aze converting the four sleeping rooms on the 3rd floor back to efficiency apartments with cooking facilities. They want to maintain a shared bathroom arrangement for the four efficiency units. The fire inspector reported that the remodeling will have to meet the 1994 building code standards. The Uniform Building Code requires a bathroom in each rooming unit and there are no exceptions to the code. Mr. Strathman stated that the Uniform Building Code is a requirement of the State of Minnesota and the city has no authority to waive state requirements. He recommended denying the appeal. 1137 South Winthro� Street Kurt Lein, properry owner, appeazed and stated that he is requesting a variance to allow his septic system to remain. Dave Dickhut, Public Works, reported that the new state law regarding drywells is in the process of being reviewed by the City Attorney's office. Mr. Suatlunan stated that given the ambiguity that has come to exist about what the city's policy is going to be with respect to drywells, he recommended laying this matter over to December 2, 1997. 1672 South Point Dou�las Road Tom Schommer, property owner, appeazed and stated that he is appealing the requirement to upgrade his septic system. He was informed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation of plans in the near future of constructing a new 494 bridge over the Mississippi River from Newport to South St. Paui. The plans include the acquisition of his property. Mr. Strathman stated that the City Attorney's Office is in the process of interpreting the state law zegarding dtywells and recommended laying the matter over to December 2,1997. 2196 & 2236 Lower Afton Road James Barton, properry manager, appeared and stated that a wood fence was installed in 1971 when the aparhnent building was constructed. At that time, part of the agreement was that the original owner would install a fence and stain it every two years. Within the last 6 months, it came to his attention that there was a probiem with the fence. He sent a letter to the three home owners affected by the fence asking for their concerns. Tom Ether at 2217 Londin Ln. indicated they could tear tke fence down but apgazenfly his wife has a different opinion. The property owner at 2195 Londin Ln. stated he would ]ike to have the fence remain but doesn't want it stained, and the resident at 2207 Londin Ln. didn't respond to the letter. If the residents don't want the fence stained, they would hope that they wouidn't have to stain it every other year. It would cost appro�umately $6,500 to repair the e�risting fence and before they do that, they want to be sure of what the resident want. ff the pmblem is to resolve trespassing, it won't happen with maintaining tfie current wood fence because they will just go around the fence. They are instatling an 8-foot fence tower on the properry that shouid stop traffic and take care of the trespass issue. Don'Juenemann, inspector, reported that they were cailed out to the property last year on a complaint that the fence was falling down and kids were making shacks in the back causing problems. It is his understanding that originally the fence was installed to block the view of the apartments from the residents. They hadn't received any more complaints until recently and orders were issued to repair, maintain, or repIace. The biggest concern appears to be security and the present proposal would help that situation. Phyllis Ethier, 2217 Londin Lane, appeared and stated that last year the fence had fallen down onto her property, children were playing on it and could get hurt. At that time, she called the city and the inspector came out. In 1971 when the fence was instailed, she was residing there. The residents did ask for the fettce and it was ordered but never maintained. Now part of the fence is torn down, they have their house up for sale and they were cited for the condition of the fence by the truth in fiousing inspecfor. The fence was orderedy the city and they sfioutd abide by the law. The condition of the fence by her yazd shoutd be replaced because it is so badly deteriorating. Mr. Sh�athman stated that the City Council passed a resolution in 1981 requiring a fence and that the fence be maintained. Tlris is the city policy and until such time as the City Council passes a resolution to the contrary that is the city policy. He recommended denying the appeal and approving the order which says the fence will be repaired and maintained. 2071 Skyway Drive The properry owner was present and was appealing the order to comply with installation of a new septic system. Mr. Strathman stated that the City Attomey's Office in is the process of interpreting the state law regazding drywells and recommended laying the matter over to December 2, 1997. 400 Selb�Avenue Terry Mazkus, represenfing Ted Glasrud and Associates, stated that the properiy in question is residential aparlment homes with a combination of cammerciat space. They are appealing for an ea-tension of time to correct the deficiencies. Item #7 indicates exit signs to be of 21amp and 2 ballast design. Ttris is uncleaz because the code doesn't specificatly state that it requires a 21amp 2 ballast design. Deficiency #26 aiso pertains to this. 2 q � �a�Y Philip Owens, Fire Mazshall's Office, stated the building code clearly requires 2 lamps and 2 circuits at the time the building was constructed in 1982. This wasn't proper according to code at that time. Ms. Markus stated item #16 requiring them to remove all storage from the sprinkler room, they are reqesting an e�ension of time because they have to relocate everything to another storage azea. They have very limited storage in the building and will have to find additional space off the site or hy to build something that would accommodate the items that they currenfly have stored. Mr. Owens commented that they would not have an objection to an extension of time for compliance; however, they would want the term of compliance to be date certain and they would warn it to be in full compliance by the expiration of that time. In the meantime, if additional time is given, they would ask that the sprinkler controls be made fuliy accessible by clearing a path to them. Ms. Mazkus stated item #19 requiring them to provide 2A lOBC fire e�inguishers in all businesses in an accessible/visible locarion with a travel distance, no greater than 75 feet, needs clarification. They would like them mazked off on a map to be specific so they know where they need to put the fire extinguishers. Mr. Owens commented that the ?5' of travel distance to the e�tinguisher is inclusive with them being accessible. It sha11 not be more than 75' of travel distance as you travel not linear line or by sight from any location to a fue extinguisher. There is probably going to haue to be one in each tenant space. There can't be more than 75' of travel distance as you actually travel not as you view to the extinguisher. The way the mall is laid out, if they aze put in the common space, the 75' is probably exceeded. Ms. Mazkus stated that item #25 pertaining to the vertical sky light shafts from the 2nd to 4th floors being code reseazched. The last conversation they had with the Fire Marshall indicated that they stiil haven't come to a conclusion on this issue. Mr. Owens stated that is clearly the situation. They would ask for a 30-day continuance on the part of the city to allow the building department and the fire department to come to some conclusion, and that they still be allowed to have an appellant process if they can't come to an agreement with them because it is a serious issue but it is also an expensive repair issue. Chris Bolen, Chief Maintenance Supervisor, stated item #30, the requirement to provide fuel burning safety test reports of the residential heating systems, becomes kind of cosfly with 91 units. Some of the bids aze up to $4,000 to have this done every 2 years. Mr. Strathman stated that he would recommend granting a variance with respect to deficiency #30 on the condition that carbon mono�de detectors approved by the Fire Deparnnent be instatled in all units; deny appeal but grant an ea-tensioa of 90 days to correct deficiencies #7, #26, #19, #25 and #26. 1293.1299 & 1305 Grand Avenue Mark Keller, represenring Eugene Sitzmann & Company, appeared and stated they are appealing the requirement to install additional intermediates on rear staircases. Currently the intermediates are 11 inches apart and the city is requiring them to be 9 inches. He contacted the Sterling Wetding Company and was told that OSHA requires them to be 4 inches apart, so the 9 inch job woutd be a waste of money. They recommended tearing out the o1d railings and putting in new 4 inch railings at an estimated cost of $4,500. The fire inspector reported that the Properry Maintenance Code requires intermediates 9" apart or maintained in accordance with the building code when the struct�ue was originally built. The buildings were built in early 1926 and aze very well maintained. If any work is going to be done on them, they would have to meet the current code requirement of 4" spacings. He commented that there aze a lot of buildings like this on Grand Avenue with the same kind of rails. Mx. Strathman stated that there is no reason to believe that these were not conforming to the code at that time. He asked if they had received any complaints; the inspector indicated there were no complaints. Mr. Strathman recommended granting the variance given the historical nature of the buiiding and the fact that the building is very well maintained. � Q��:��_ Conncil Ffle # � � � a.g Green Sheet # � �J � � '�j RESOLUTION F SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented Referred To Committee Date 39 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the June 3, 1997 2 decision of the Legislarive Hearing Officer: 3 Pronerty A�pealed 4 2017Iglehart 5 Decision: Deny appeal. A��eilant Paul Bramsen 6 1137 South Winthrop Street 7 Decision: Laid over to December 2, 1997 8 1672 South Point Douglas Road 9 Decision: Laid over to Aecember 2, 1997 10 2196 & 2236 Lower Afton Road 11 Decision: Deny appeal. 12 2071 Skywap Drive 13 Decision: Laid over to December 2, 1997 I�� : �i f i i•_ 7 i�1 f-�' i 1 Thomas C. Schommer James Barton-Theis & Ta11e Management Mike & Mary Williams 1 1 Properry A�ealed �� f�`, F�1 r s; _ 2 3 4 5 6 7 400 Selby Avenue Decision: Grant variance with respect to deficiency #30 on the condi6on that cazbon mono�de detectors approved by the Fire Department be installed in a11 units; deny appeal but grant an eatension of 90 days to coaect deficiencies #7, #16, #19, #25 and #26. 8 1293,1299 & 1305 Grand Avenue 9 Decision: Grant appeal. A��ellant � � �� °�'$ Ted Glasrud & Associates Eugene V. Sitztnau Requested by Department of: By: V \� ``�.._ ApprovedbyMayor: Date �` �� By: � � Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � AdoptedbyCouncii: Date 0 �� \��`� —�-- T — Adoption�ertified by Council Secrvetary �4r1- r'" �' DECRITYCOF�CIOLUNGIL GD/3/91N7RUTED GREEN SHEE _N_ 35665 CONTACTPEflSON&PHONE �pEPAR'fMENTDiRE Ocmcouncx, INfTIAUDATE Gerty Strathman 26fi8575 nssicx � crtr arroaNer � Cl1Y GLERK NUMBER FOR MUSTBEdNCOUNC0.AGEN0A8Y(OATE) pp�� BU[7GET41PECTOR OFlN.BMGtSERVICESDIR. June 3, 1997 oxnex 0 nuvori roa nssisru�m Q TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACf�ON HEQUESTED: Approving the decision of the Legislarive Hearing Officer on F�operty:Code Enforcement Appeais for the June 3, 1997 meeting. pECOMMENDA7lONS: Approve (A) a Reiea (R) pERSONAL SERVICE CONTflACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING �UESTIONS: _ PUINNING COMMISSION _ pVIL SEflViCE COMMISSION 1. Has this persoNfirtn ever worked under a cormact for Nis tlepar6nenl? - _ CIB COMMIifEE _ YES NO —�� — 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? VES NO — �1STR��T cOURT — 3. Daes thi5 person/Firm possess a 5kili not normal ossessed ry P by aM �nent city empioyee? SUPPOR7SWXiCHCOUNGlO&tECnVE? YES NO �plafn all yes answers on saparate shest and attaeh to graen sheet INITWTING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPOHTUNITY (Who. Wl�at, When. Whara. Why): � +. g i' n C; 1+'?� � A�VANTAGES IF APPROVED: ' DISADVANTAGES IFAPPROVED' DISADVANTAGES IF NOTAPPRO�EO' TOTAI AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION $ COST/REVENUE BUDGETED �CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDIHG SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) �7-7a� Property Code Enforcement Meeting June3,1997 2017 Igehart Paul Bramsen, properiy owner, appeazed and stated that the property in question has been a 13- nni rooming house for 50 years. They bought the pmperty and aze converting the four sleeping rooms on the 3rd floor back to efficiency apartments with cooking facilities. They want to maintain a shared bathroom arrangement for the four efficiency units. The fire inspector reported that the remodeling will have to meet the 1994 building code standards. The Uniform Building Code requires a bathroom in each rooming unit and there are no exceptions to the code. Mr. Strathman stated that the Uniform Building Code is a requirement of the State of Minnesota and the city has no authority to waive state requirements. He recommended denying the appeal. 1137 South Winthro� Street Kurt Lein, properry owner, appeazed and stated that he is requesting a variance to allow his septic system to remain. Dave Dickhut, Public Works, reported that the new state law regarding drywells is in the process of being reviewed by the City Attorney's office. Mr. Suatlunan stated that given the ambiguity that has come to exist about what the city's policy is going to be with respect to drywells, he recommended laying this matter over to December 2, 1997. 1672 South Point Dou�las Road Tom Schommer, property owner, appeazed and stated that he is appealing the requirement to upgrade his septic system. He was informed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation of plans in the near future of constructing a new 494 bridge over the Mississippi River from Newport to South St. Paui. The plans include the acquisition of his property. Mr. Strathman stated that the City Attorney's Office is in the process of interpreting the state law zegarding dtywells and recommended laying the matter over to December 2,1997. 2196 & 2236 Lower Afton Road James Barton, properry manager, appeared and stated that a wood fence was installed in 1971 when the aparhnent building was constructed. At that time, part of the agreement was that the original owner would install a fence and stain it every two years. Within the last 6 months, it came to his attention that there was a probiem with the fence. He sent a letter to the three home owners affected by the fence asking for their concerns. Tom Ether at 2217 Londin Ln. indicated they could tear tke fence down but apgazenfly his wife has a different opinion. The property owner at 2195 Londin Ln. stated he would ]ike to have the fence remain but doesn't want it stained, and the resident at 2207 Londin Ln. didn't respond to the letter. If the residents don't want the fence stained, they would hope that they wouidn't have to stain it every other year. It would cost appro�umately $6,500 to repair the e�risting fence and before they do that, they want to be sure of what the resident want. ff the pmblem is to resolve trespassing, it won't happen with maintaining tfie current wood fence because they will just go around the fence. They are instatling an 8-foot fence tower on the properry that shouid stop traffic and take care of the trespass issue. Don'Juenemann, inspector, reported that they were cailed out to the property last year on a complaint that the fence was falling down and kids were making shacks in the back causing problems. It is his understanding that originally the fence was installed to block the view of the apartments from the residents. They hadn't received any more complaints until recently and orders were issued to repair, maintain, or repIace. The biggest concern appears to be security and the present proposal would help that situation. Phyllis Ethier, 2217 Londin Lane, appeared and stated that last year the fence had fallen down onto her property, children were playing on it and could get hurt. At that time, she called the city and the inspector came out. In 1971 when the fence was instailed, she was residing there. The residents did ask for the fettce and it was ordered but never maintained. Now part of the fence is torn down, they have their house up for sale and they were cited for the condition of the fence by the truth in fiousing inspecfor. The fence was orderedy the city and they sfioutd abide by the law. The condition of the fence by her yazd shoutd be replaced because it is so badly deteriorating. Mr. Sh�athman stated that the City Council passed a resolution in 1981 requiring a fence and that the fence be maintained. Tlris is the city policy and until such time as the City Council passes a resolution to the contrary that is the city policy. He recommended denying the appeal and approving the order which says the fence will be repaired and maintained. 2071 Skyway Drive The properry owner was present and was appealing the order to comply with installation of a new septic system. Mr. Strathman stated that the City Attomey's Office in is the process of interpreting the state law regazding drywells and recommended laying the matter over to December 2, 1997. 400 Selb�Avenue Terry Mazkus, represenfing Ted Glasrud and Associates, stated that the properiy in question is residential aparlment homes with a combination of cammerciat space. They are appealing for an ea-tension of time to correct the deficiencies. Item #7 indicates exit signs to be of 21amp and 2 ballast design. Ttris is uncleaz because the code doesn't specificatly state that it requires a 21amp 2 ballast design. Deficiency #26 aiso pertains to this. 2 q � �a�Y Philip Owens, Fire Mazshall's Office, stated the building code clearly requires 2 lamps and 2 circuits at the time the building was constructed in 1982. This wasn't proper according to code at that time. Ms. Markus stated item #16 requiring them to remove all storage from the sprinkler room, they are reqesting an e�ension of time because they have to relocate everything to another storage azea. They have very limited storage in the building and will have to find additional space off the site or hy to build something that would accommodate the items that they currenfly have stored. Mr. Owens commented that they would not have an objection to an extension of time for compliance; however, they would want the term of compliance to be date certain and they would warn it to be in full compliance by the expiration of that time. In the meantime, if additional time is given, they would ask that the sprinkler controls be made fuliy accessible by clearing a path to them. Ms. Mazkus stated item #19 requiring them to provide 2A lOBC fire e�inguishers in all businesses in an accessible/visible locarion with a travel distance, no greater than 75 feet, needs clarification. They would like them mazked off on a map to be specific so they know where they need to put the fire extinguishers. Mr. Owens commented that the ?5' of travel distance to the e�tinguisher is inclusive with them being accessible. It sha11 not be more than 75' of travel distance as you travel not linear line or by sight from any location to a fue extinguisher. There is probably going to haue to be one in each tenant space. There can't be more than 75' of travel distance as you actually travel not as you view to the extinguisher. The way the mall is laid out, if they aze put in the common space, the 75' is probably exceeded. Ms. Mazkus stated that item #25 pertaining to the vertical sky light shafts from the 2nd to 4th floors being code reseazched. The last conversation they had with the Fire Marshall indicated that they stiil haven't come to a conclusion on this issue. Mr. Owens stated that is clearly the situation. They would ask for a 30-day continuance on the part of the city to allow the building department and the fire department to come to some conclusion, and that they still be allowed to have an appellant process if they can't come to an agreement with them because it is a serious issue but it is also an expensive repair issue. Chris Bolen, Chief Maintenance Supervisor, stated item #30, the requirement to provide fuel burning safety test reports of the residential heating systems, becomes kind of cosfly with 91 units. Some of the bids aze up to $4,000 to have this done every 2 years. Mr. Strathman stated that he would recommend granting a variance with respect to deficiency #30 on the condition that carbon mono�de detectors approved by the Fire Deparnnent be instatled in all units; deny appeal but grant an ea-tensioa of 90 days to correct deficiencies #7, #26, #19, #25 and #26. 1293.1299 & 1305 Grand Avenue Mark Keller, represenring Eugene Sitzmann & Company, appeared and stated they are appealing the requirement to install additional intermediates on rear staircases. Currently the intermediates are 11 inches apart and the city is requiring them to be 9 inches. He contacted the Sterling Wetding Company and was told that OSHA requires them to be 4 inches apart, so the 9 inch job woutd be a waste of money. They recommended tearing out the o1d railings and putting in new 4 inch railings at an estimated cost of $4,500. The fire inspector reported that the Properry Maintenance Code requires intermediates 9" apart or maintained in accordance with the building code when the struct�ue was originally built. The buildings were built in early 1926 and aze very well maintained. If any work is going to be done on them, they would have to meet the current code requirement of 4" spacings. He commented that there aze a lot of buildings like this on Grand Avenue with the same kind of rails. Mx. Strathman stated that there is no reason to believe that these were not conforming to the code at that time. He asked if they had received any complaints; the inspector indicated there were no complaints. Mr. Strathman recommended granting the variance given the historical nature of the buiiding and the fact that the building is very well maintained. � Q��:��_ Conncil Ffle # � � � a.g Green Sheet # � �J � � '�j RESOLUTION F SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented Referred To Committee Date 39 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the June 3, 1997 2 decision of the Legislarive Hearing Officer: 3 Pronerty A�pealed 4 2017Iglehart 5 Decision: Deny appeal. A��eilant Paul Bramsen 6 1137 South Winthrop Street 7 Decision: Laid over to December 2, 1997 8 1672 South Point Douglas Road 9 Decision: Laid over to Aecember 2, 1997 10 2196 & 2236 Lower Afton Road 11 Decision: Deny appeal. 12 2071 Skywap Drive 13 Decision: Laid over to December 2, 1997 I�� : �i f i i•_ 7 i�1 f-�' i 1 Thomas C. Schommer James Barton-Theis & Ta11e Management Mike & Mary Williams 1 1 Properry A�ealed �� f�`, F�1 r s; _ 2 3 4 5 6 7 400 Selby Avenue Decision: Grant variance with respect to deficiency #30 on the condi6on that cazbon mono�de detectors approved by the Fire Department be installed in a11 units; deny appeal but grant an eatension of 90 days to coaect deficiencies #7, #16, #19, #25 and #26. 8 1293,1299 & 1305 Grand Avenue 9 Decision: Grant appeal. A��ellant � � �� °�'$ Ted Glasrud & Associates Eugene V. Sitztnau Requested by Department of: By: V \� ``�.._ ApprovedbyMayor: Date �` �� By: � � Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � AdoptedbyCouncii: Date 0 �� \��`� —�-- T — Adoption�ertified by Council Secrvetary �4r1- r'" �' DECRITYCOF�CIOLUNGIL GD/3/91N7RUTED GREEN SHEE _N_ 35665 CONTACTPEflSON&PHONE �pEPAR'fMENTDiRE Ocmcouncx, INfTIAUDATE Gerty Strathman 26fi8575 nssicx � crtr arroaNer � Cl1Y GLERK NUMBER FOR MUSTBEdNCOUNC0.AGEN0A8Y(OATE) pp�� BU[7GET41PECTOR OFlN.BMGtSERVICESDIR. June 3, 1997 oxnex 0 nuvori roa nssisru�m Q TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACf�ON HEQUESTED: Approving the decision of the Legislarive Hearing Officer on F�operty:Code Enforcement Appeais for the June 3, 1997 meeting. pECOMMENDA7lONS: Approve (A) a Reiea (R) pERSONAL SERVICE CONTflACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING �UESTIONS: _ PUINNING COMMISSION _ pVIL SEflViCE COMMISSION 1. Has this persoNfirtn ever worked under a cormact for Nis tlepar6nenl? - _ CIB COMMIifEE _ YES NO —�� — 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? VES NO — �1STR��T cOURT — 3. Daes thi5 person/Firm possess a 5kili not normal ossessed ry P by aM �nent city empioyee? SUPPOR7SWXiCHCOUNGlO&tECnVE? YES NO �plafn all yes answers on saparate shest and attaeh to graen sheet INITWTING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPOHTUNITY (Who. Wl�at, When. Whara. Why): � +. g i' n C; 1+'?� � A�VANTAGES IF APPROVED: ' DISADVANTAGES IFAPPROVED' DISADVANTAGES IF NOTAPPRO�EO' TOTAI AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION $ COST/REVENUE BUDGETED �CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDIHG SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) �7-7a� Property Code Enforcement Meeting June3,1997 2017 Igehart Paul Bramsen, properiy owner, appeazed and stated that the property in question has been a 13- nni rooming house for 50 years. They bought the pmperty and aze converting the four sleeping rooms on the 3rd floor back to efficiency apartments with cooking facilities. They want to maintain a shared bathroom arrangement for the four efficiency units. The fire inspector reported that the remodeling will have to meet the 1994 building code standards. The Uniform Building Code requires a bathroom in each rooming unit and there are no exceptions to the code. Mr. Strathman stated that the Uniform Building Code is a requirement of the State of Minnesota and the city has no authority to waive state requirements. He recommended denying the appeal. 1137 South Winthro� Street Kurt Lein, properry owner, appeazed and stated that he is requesting a variance to allow his septic system to remain. Dave Dickhut, Public Works, reported that the new state law regarding drywells is in the process of being reviewed by the City Attorney's office. Mr. Suatlunan stated that given the ambiguity that has come to exist about what the city's policy is going to be with respect to drywells, he recommended laying this matter over to December 2, 1997. 1672 South Point Dou�las Road Tom Schommer, property owner, appeazed and stated that he is appealing the requirement to upgrade his septic system. He was informed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation of plans in the near future of constructing a new 494 bridge over the Mississippi River from Newport to South St. Paui. The plans include the acquisition of his property. Mr. Strathman stated that the City Attorney's Office is in the process of interpreting the state law zegarding dtywells and recommended laying the matter over to December 2,1997. 2196 & 2236 Lower Afton Road James Barton, properry manager, appeared and stated that a wood fence was installed in 1971 when the aparhnent building was constructed. At that time, part of the agreement was that the original owner would install a fence and stain it every two years. Within the last 6 months, it came to his attention that there was a probiem with the fence. He sent a letter to the three home owners affected by the fence asking for their concerns. Tom Ether at 2217 Londin Ln. indicated they could tear tke fence down but apgazenfly his wife has a different opinion. The property owner at 2195 Londin Ln. stated he would ]ike to have the fence remain but doesn't want it stained, and the resident at 2207 Londin Ln. didn't respond to the letter. If the residents don't want the fence stained, they would hope that they wouidn't have to stain it every other year. It would cost appro�umately $6,500 to repair the e�risting fence and before they do that, they want to be sure of what the resident want. ff the pmblem is to resolve trespassing, it won't happen with maintaining tfie current wood fence because they will just go around the fence. They are instatling an 8-foot fence tower on the properry that shouid stop traffic and take care of the trespass issue. Don'Juenemann, inspector, reported that they were cailed out to the property last year on a complaint that the fence was falling down and kids were making shacks in the back causing problems. It is his understanding that originally the fence was installed to block the view of the apartments from the residents. They hadn't received any more complaints until recently and orders were issued to repair, maintain, or repIace. The biggest concern appears to be security and the present proposal would help that situation. Phyllis Ethier, 2217 Londin Lane, appeared and stated that last year the fence had fallen down onto her property, children were playing on it and could get hurt. At that time, she called the city and the inspector came out. In 1971 when the fence was instailed, she was residing there. The residents did ask for the fettce and it was ordered but never maintained. Now part of the fence is torn down, they have their house up for sale and they were cited for the condition of the fence by the truth in fiousing inspecfor. The fence was orderedy the city and they sfioutd abide by the law. The condition of the fence by her yazd shoutd be replaced because it is so badly deteriorating. Mr. Sh�athman stated that the City Council passed a resolution in 1981 requiring a fence and that the fence be maintained. Tlris is the city policy and until such time as the City Council passes a resolution to the contrary that is the city policy. He recommended denying the appeal and approving the order which says the fence will be repaired and maintained. 2071 Skyway Drive The properry owner was present and was appealing the order to comply with installation of a new septic system. Mr. Strathman stated that the City Attomey's Office in is the process of interpreting the state law regazding drywells and recommended laying the matter over to December 2, 1997. 400 Selb�Avenue Terry Mazkus, represenfing Ted Glasrud and Associates, stated that the properiy in question is residential aparlment homes with a combination of cammerciat space. They are appealing for an ea-tension of time to correct the deficiencies. Item #7 indicates exit signs to be of 21amp and 2 ballast design. Ttris is uncleaz because the code doesn't specificatly state that it requires a 21amp 2 ballast design. Deficiency #26 aiso pertains to this. 2 q � �a�Y Philip Owens, Fire Mazshall's Office, stated the building code clearly requires 2 lamps and 2 circuits at the time the building was constructed in 1982. This wasn't proper according to code at that time. Ms. Markus stated item #16 requiring them to remove all storage from the sprinkler room, they are reqesting an e�ension of time because they have to relocate everything to another storage azea. They have very limited storage in the building and will have to find additional space off the site or hy to build something that would accommodate the items that they currenfly have stored. Mr. Owens commented that they would not have an objection to an extension of time for compliance; however, they would want the term of compliance to be date certain and they would warn it to be in full compliance by the expiration of that time. In the meantime, if additional time is given, they would ask that the sprinkler controls be made fuliy accessible by clearing a path to them. Ms. Mazkus stated item #19 requiring them to provide 2A lOBC fire e�inguishers in all businesses in an accessible/visible locarion with a travel distance, no greater than 75 feet, needs clarification. They would like them mazked off on a map to be specific so they know where they need to put the fire extinguishers. Mr. Owens commented that the ?5' of travel distance to the e�tinguisher is inclusive with them being accessible. It sha11 not be more than 75' of travel distance as you travel not linear line or by sight from any location to a fue extinguisher. There is probably going to haue to be one in each tenant space. There can't be more than 75' of travel distance as you actually travel not as you view to the extinguisher. The way the mall is laid out, if they aze put in the common space, the 75' is probably exceeded. Ms. Mazkus stated that item #25 pertaining to the vertical sky light shafts from the 2nd to 4th floors being code reseazched. The last conversation they had with the Fire Marshall indicated that they stiil haven't come to a conclusion on this issue. Mr. Owens stated that is clearly the situation. They would ask for a 30-day continuance on the part of the city to allow the building department and the fire department to come to some conclusion, and that they still be allowed to have an appellant process if they can't come to an agreement with them because it is a serious issue but it is also an expensive repair issue. Chris Bolen, Chief Maintenance Supervisor, stated item #30, the requirement to provide fuel burning safety test reports of the residential heating systems, becomes kind of cosfly with 91 units. Some of the bids aze up to $4,000 to have this done every 2 years. Mr. Strathman stated that he would recommend granting a variance with respect to deficiency #30 on the condition that carbon mono�de detectors approved by the Fire Deparnnent be instatled in all units; deny appeal but grant an ea-tensioa of 90 days to correct deficiencies #7, #26, #19, #25 and #26. 1293.1299 & 1305 Grand Avenue Mark Keller, represenring Eugene Sitzmann & Company, appeared and stated they are appealing the requirement to install additional intermediates on rear staircases. Currently the intermediates are 11 inches apart and the city is requiring them to be 9 inches. He contacted the Sterling Wetding Company and was told that OSHA requires them to be 4 inches apart, so the 9 inch job woutd be a waste of money. They recommended tearing out the o1d railings and putting in new 4 inch railings at an estimated cost of $4,500. The fire inspector reported that the Properry Maintenance Code requires intermediates 9" apart or maintained in accordance with the building code when the struct�ue was originally built. The buildings were built in early 1926 and aze very well maintained. If any work is going to be done on them, they would have to meet the current code requirement of 4" spacings. He commented that there aze a lot of buildings like this on Grand Avenue with the same kind of rails. Mx. Strathman stated that there is no reason to believe that these were not conforming to the code at that time. He asked if they had received any complaints; the inspector indicated there were no complaints. Mr. Strathman recommended granting the variance given the historical nature of the buiiding and the fact that the building is very well maintained. �