90-1248 OR1GNA .. ... �/
� " _" '� Council File #` Q' � d'
Green Sheet #� OJ�
_ RESOLUTION �
� CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ��;7"
Presented By
Referred To Committee: Date
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Council of the City of Saint
Paul hereby certifies and approves the action of the Property
Code Enforcement Board (Saint Pau1 Board of Appeals & Review)
pertaining to the following listed property and as shown by
the Excerpted Minutes of said Property Code Enforcement Board,
and dated May 8 , 1990 and marked EXHIBIT A, and attached hereto
and made a part hereof by reference :
DATE OF BOARD
MINUTES CASE NO: PROPERTY APPEALED APPELLANT
5/8/90 30-90-F 1564 Selby Ave . Ben Wilson
BOARD ACTION: Granted an extension of time until May 8 , 1992 to
install mechanical ventilation in bathrooms .
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: BLOCKS E , & D
BOULEVARD ADDITION
TO ST. PAUL, MINN
SUBJ TO ST & ESMT: N 72. 10
FT OF LOTS 10 , 11 & 12 BLK D
--------------------------------------------
imon -'�- a s Absent Requested by De�partment of:
oswi z � 7^ l'
�lacca� ee � r�tvni� � J�f�✓1C„�
e man B e�.�� ��/�
�ne �
i son �- Y�
�� f�? IP,r� �r/-.'iR�ft`
Adopted by Council: Date .1U� 2 4 1990 Form oved by City Attorn
Ado tion rtified b Council Secretar -`
P Y Y By: ce� � - �� � � .
By' ��� Approved by Mayor for Submi sion to
Approved by Mayor: Date ���. � ��90 council _
. .
By: :r,,��-L By: �izs����/�
DUBLIS4tED AtJ G - 41990.
� � ��o-�a�s�
PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
(SAINT PAUL BOARD OF APPEALS 8 REVIEW)
555 CEDAR STREET
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
MINUTES, MEETING OF MAY 8, 1990
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Glassman, Chairman
Ron Ankeny
James Laughlin
Wiliiam Tilton
Donald Weida
OTHERS PRESENT: Hope Abrams, Department of Fire 8� Safety
Sue Toskey, Department of Fire 8 Safety
James Turpin Chris Park
Scott Boston Douglas King
Ben Wilson
1 . Approval of the minutes of the April 10, 1990 meeting as
submitted in writing.
Motion made by James Laughlin to approve the minutes of the
April 10, 1990 meeting as submitted in writing. Seconded by
by Don Weida. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
William Tilton requested that the minutes reflect he
was not in attendance at the April 10, 1990 meeting.
Chairman Giassman welcomed the appellants and explained the
procedures, stating that what the board does is recommends action
to the City Council . He asked that the statements be brief, and
that the board was there as fellow citizens to help them in a
fair manner.
2. CASE HEARINGS:
CASE NO: PROPERTY APPEALED APPELLANT
33-90-H 176 Prospect Blvd. James E. Turpin
( 1 unit)
APPEARANCE: James E. Turpin
SUBJECT: Appellant is requesting a variance to install a fence
around yard; Fence height 56" , set back from property line of
approx. 7ft, and setback from roadway of approx. 22ft.
PROCEEDINGS: Mr. Turpin presented picture of the area and the
proposed fence that he wishes to install .
1
, �,�'I° /�'�1�
Mr. Richard Amey from Building Inspection/Design (per phone call )
had no objection to the Board granting a variance on the instal
lation of the fence.
BOARD ACTION: Motion made by Don Weida to grant a variance on
the installation of a fence around the yard. Seconded by James
Laughlin. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
----------------------------------
32-90-H 172 Prospect Blvd. Gary/Chris Park
tl unit)
APPEARANCE: Chris/Gary Park
SUBJECT: Appellant is requesting a variance to install a fence
around yard, in same fashion as the neighbor at 176 Prospect
Blvd.
PROCEEDINGS: Chris and Gary Parks presented pictures of the area
and the proposed fence that they wish to install around the yard.
Mr. Richard Amey from Building Inspection/Design (per phone call )
had no objection to the board granting a variance on the
installation of the fence.
BOARD ACTION: Motion made by Don Weida to grant a variance on a
fence to be installed around the yard. Seconded by James
Laughlin.
Yeas 4 Nays 0 Abstention 1 (Ankeny)
----------------------------------
2-90-H 669 E. 3rd St. Kenneth J. Neison
(2 units)
APPEARANCE None
SUBJECT: Appellant is requesting the filing fee be refunded.
This case was scheduled to be heard at the February meeting.
Items on the deficiency list were resolved before scheduled
meeting, therefore the Appellant withdrew his appeal .
BOARD ACTION: Motion made by Bili Tilton to deny the request for
a refund of the filing fee. Seconded by Don Weida. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
----------------------------------
2
. , , �� v-i���
�
28-90-F 806 Earl St. Bart Montanari
( 1060 Ross Ave)
(4 units)
APPEARANCE: None
SUBJECT: Appellant is requesting a variance from the requirement
of having to: Provide one hour fire separation at ceilina in
furnace room. Letter dated January 26, 1990.
PROCEEDINGS: Sue Toskey, from the Department of Fire and Safety
stated that this may have been resolved.
BOARD ACTION: Motion made by Bill Tilton to deny the request for
a variance on having to "Provide one hour fire separation at
ceiling in furnace room. " Seconded by Ron Ankeny. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
----------------------------------
30-90-F 1564 Selby Ave. Ben Wilson
( 10 units)
APPEARANCE: Ben Wilson
SUBJECT: Appellant is requesting a variance from the requirement
of having to: Install mechanical ventilation in bathrooms of
buildinq. Letter dated February 9, 1990.
PROCEEDINGS: Appellant stated that to install mechanical
ventilation in ten bathrooms would be very costly. Each bath has
natural draw vents which he feels is sufficient. The units are
studio apartments and are occupied by only one person.
Bill Tilton suggested that because this building is weil built,
and well kept, that maybe this could be the time to update the
building.
BOARD ACTION: Motion made by Bill Tilton to deny the request for
a variance on the mechanical ventilation in the bathrooms.
instead grant an extension of time until May 8, 1992 to
instail mechanical ventilation in bathrooms. Seconded by James
l.aughlin. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
----------------------------------
3
. -�a��
��
31-90-F 487 Grand Ave. Scott Boston
( 18 units)
APPEARANCE : Scott Boston
5UBJECT: Appellant is requesting a variance from the requirement
of having to: Provide dead bolt locks for all apartments :
Letter dated March 29, 1990.
PROCEEDINGS: The Appetlant is requesting the variance on
deadbolts, because the home runs a program for persons with
serious 8 persistent mental illness. There is a need to access
the rooms at one time or other, so the deadbolts coutd hinder the
staff from quick access to the rooms. The building is a very
secure building, it is staffed 24 hours a day. New doors have
been installed to each room.
BOARD ACTION: Motion made by Ron Ankeny to grant a variance from
Legislative Code pertaining to: having to install deadbolt locks,
with the understanding that this variance is only valid for the
duration with its present usage. Seconded by Bili Tilton. MOTI�N
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
----------------------------------
9-90-F 750 Blair Ave. Douglas King
(3 units)
APPEARANCE: Douglas King
SUBJECT: Appellant is requesting a variance on item #10 from a
letter dated December 14, 1989, pertaining to: Provide approved
second exit from third floor unit remote from existing exit.
PROCEEDINGS:
Mr. King - showed a drawing of the house, along
with pictures showi�g the interior staircase. Mr. King
explained the photos to the board members. One photo shows
a front porch and above the porch is the ladder device
coming down from the third floor to the porch roof. Another
photo shows along the back of the house, this photo shows
the back door and inside this back door there is a
stairwell , the photo shows the original stariwell , this
stairweil continues to the third floor, there is no entry
thru another unit, (Common stairs) . Another photo shows the
deck that is being built. I am at this meeting based on the
last letter from Sue Toskey, from Fire dated 3/29/90.
wherein, she cites the Fire Code. In the Fire Code there is
no reference to the word "REMOTE" and thats why I 'm here.
Mr. Tilton - Mr. King what is in dispute? Is it the
adequacy of staircase you built; the adequacy of what you
propose to built or its location?
What is the dispute here?
4
, ('�90-/�y�
Sue Toskey, from Fire Prevention - The dispute here is the
"REMOTENE55" of this exit.
Bill Tilton - The location of it!
Ron Ankeny - You mean, the stairs are not opposite one
another.
Don Weida - They exit from the same room.
Sue Toskey - Right.
Mr. King - The first point here is, that in July 1989, I obtained
a variance from Zoning Department. Their issue was square
footage coverage of the lot percentage (covered versus
uncovered area of the lot itself. )
Mr. Ankeny - That has nothing to do with this issue.
Mr. King - The point is , I went thru the process. which is
outlined in Zaccard's letter. So if you let me finish, we' l1
get to that. It is relevant. I refer to a letter from Steve
Zaccard dated February 1989, wherein he says, "No exit from
any buiiding can be altered, without prior approval of the
Building Inspection/Design Division" I went through that
process in July 1989. I got my permit. I got my re-zoning.
Chairman Glassman - We know you've done these things, the only
thing at issue here is, the "REMOTENESS" of the two
exits. Really the issue here is, Is it safe to have two
exits that close to each other, coming from the same
room?
Mr. King - I will show you that it is. Point #2 - The Building
Inspector has taken no action. I called him out again
within the last two weeks. I asked him if he wanted to take
a position on this? His statement was "Speaking of the
Fire Department, they took bits and pieces from several
different codes and get their interpretation" and it has
been an issue with the building department ever since they
came up with it. It is not an accurate interpretation of
the building code, and their come-back is "Well , this isn't
the building code, this is the fire code"
James Laughlin - What is his name, Did he sign that statement?
Mr. King - No, This is my written document, I will prove it, if I
need to go to, in court process. Then he went on to say,
this was good in 1983 or whenever, and it is still there and
it is still functional , and now, its two exits from the back
of the same apartment and basically you have three exits.
That's his statement, I have a recording of it, if you wish
to go thru that.
5
. .�
� � ��ga-�xy�
Mr. Tilton - Are You recording this?
Mr. King - I don't think that is relevant.
Mr. Tilton - It' s a question.
Mr. King - Let's go on. you're only being paid $25. 00, so lets
get you out of here in good time today.
Mr. King - Point #3 - Your exception, you granted a variance in
February of this year, address 415 Summit Ave. , Are you
familiar with that building? Under BOARD ACTION, I am
reading from the approved minutes "Ankeny made a motion to
grant a variance as he didn't see the difference between a
second floor and the third fioor" I have seen that building
and there is a big difference, that building was approved
with one central stairway down the middle of the building,
there is no other egress from that building.
Chairman Glassman - Let me say something, I believe that this
board meets and decides case without precedence, is that not
correct?
Mr. Tilton - The question is, even if we did, we try to be
consistent, the facts from your case to that case is, you
have not convinced me, that they are comparable.
Mr. King - That building is a wood frame building, and this one
is a brick building, is it not?
Mr. Weida - Are you renting that property?
Mr. King - Yes, The third fioor is rented.
Mr. Weida - From what I remember about that property on Sur�nit
it was owner occupied.
Mr. King - So you want owners to die and renters to not!
Mr. King - The point is that there is only one exit in that
buiiding, and my two exits are much safer.
Mr. Weida - You only have an exit in one room, that ladder is not
considered an exit by the fire code.
Mr. King - They changed their mind, by the fire code it is a exit
device. St. Paul ignores that, Zachary defines his own
code.
Mr. Weida - Little children, elderly or handicapped can not exit
down from the ladder and there is no ladder from the porch
roof down to ground level
6
_ �,�9'0- /�'y�
Chairman Glassman - This Board does not recognize a ladder of any
sort as a legitimate exit.
Mr. King - We are talking about that, in comparing the building,
we each have an internal stairway as an exit. That building
has no external stairway, if there is a fire at the doorway,
smoke at the door, those peopie have trouble. If I have
fire or smoke at this kitchen door, these people will walk
out of that door healthy and safe.
Chairman Glassman - I believe that the building on Summit had
alarm and sprinkiers. We are here to talk about your
building, not other buildings.
Mr. King - Legislative Code permits the Board of Appeals may
revoke the orders by performance of any act provided that
the board finds that there is partical difficulty or undue
hardship connected. I present that this is undue hardship.
I went thru the process outlined in Zachary's letter,
building this deck and stairs. I estimate that the cost is
about $5,000. 00. I don't believe that I should be required,
after going thru the formal process to build another one.
Mr. King - Point #5 - Sue comments in her letter to me that the
State Fire Marshall has given a reinterpretation. She
refers to a letter of March 12, 1988, by the State Fire
Marshali , That letter specifically deals with third floor
bedrooms, adjoining a second floor apartment. It concludes
that a second exit is needed from the third floor, only when
the square footage is 500 feet or more. It does not change
the requirements for third floor units, if anything this
letter weakens the requirements for a second exit from the
third floor in generat . It is a distortion to pretent
that it strenghtens the case, insisting on a second exit or
its remoteness, thus, when Zachary uses this as a basis to
toughen the requirement for third floor exits, its totally
illogical . and Zachary's letter refers to that.
Chairman Glassman - How many Square feet on the third floor?
Mr. King - Probably, just under 600.
Mr. King - Zachary comes up with a new intrepretation, its not
the Fire Code, it's the Zachary Code. I present, that I meet
the Fire Code, I have, in fact, three exits as the Fire Code
specifices, (not Sue Toskey or Mr. Zachary's) but as the Fire
Code Specifices. I meet the Fire Code requirements. I meet
Zachary's requirements, except for the issue of
"REMOTENE55" , however, I believe that an external exit from
the third floor or higher unit it's safer than two internal
ones.
7
s�f .�
. . �90-/���
Sue Toskey, from St. Paul Fire Prevention - Mr. King's last visit
to the Fire Department, we discussed that he was building the
deck outside of his third floor unit and it was going to the
ground. I told him that if the Building Inspector would
sign-off on the permit for that work, as an approved second
exit, the Fire Department woutd accept that. I am still
waiting for a reply.
Mr. Ankeny - The exits are to be as far away from each as
possible, and that is the intend here. In some cases this
is hard to do. I believe that this is only one stair
because they both exit from the same room.
Sue Toskey - Checked with Building this morning to see if there
was a permit taken for the deck. There is no record of one.
There was a permit for moving a wall and one for insulation.
Mr. King - Presently, I have three permits for this property.
Mr. Ankeny - Sue, how bad, from the standpoint of the Fire
Department, is this absolutely a NO! NO!
Sue Toskey - Fire Code aiways refers to, as per the building code.
It is the building code that calls for two exits. If the
Building Inspector who issues the permit to built this deck,
were to sign-off, then it is ok with the Fire Department.
Mr. King - I feel I have provided a reasonable degree of safety,
in an existing building.
Mr. Tilton - Mr. King, if you can prove to Sue Toskey that you
have the proper kind of building permit, then you don't have
a fight.
Mr. Ankeny - requested that if Mr. King should have to return in
June, that Jan Gasterland, Building Code Officer attend the
Board Meeting for clarification on this issue. _
After much discussion Bill Tilton moved to delay this case for 30
days, until Sue Toskey contacts John Conway from Buiiding
Inspection/Design about the permit that allows the installation
of the deck and stairway to ground level . If the Building
Department signs off with the understanding that the deck and
stairs meet code for the second exit, then Mr. King need not
return to the Board. If it is not, then Mr. King be allowed to
return to the June Meeting.
There being no further business, meeting ad,journed at 2:40 p.m
8
�o��.�arcv r(CV�IYCN KtVtiYtU
� � � U�- 3 � JUN 2 6 19�0 g, ��1��
°ECo�minunit��Services °ATE'"'T'^r�o 0 990 JUN �,
y GREEN SHE T No. au
2 9 2-7 7 7 - - � Adl(O R'����'�
' � CtTY ATTORNEV CLERK
NUM�R FOR �
MUST BE OOUNpI AGENDA BY(DA ROUTINO BUDOET DIRECTOR FIN.8 MGT.BERVICES DIR.
Q MAYOR(OR/18818TAPIT)
TOTAL M OF 81GNATURE PAtiEB 1 (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIONATUR�
ACTION RECUESTED:
Resolution approving the actions of the Property Code Enforcement Board
(St. Paul Board of Appeals & Review)
RECOMMENDA :MP��+(N a►�1�l� COUNCIL COMMITTEEIRESEARCFI REPORT OPTIONAL
_PLANNINO OOAiMAISSION _qVIL BERVI�OOMMISSION �ALYBT PFIONE N0.
_pB OOMMITTEE _
_STAFF _ COMMENTB: �
_DISTRICT OOURT _
3UPPORTS WFH(�1 COUNpL�JECTIVE9
INYTIATIN(i PFqBLEM.ISSUE�OPPORNNRY(Wla.Whtl.Wf»n�Whsre�WhY).
Approving the action of the Property Code Enforcement Boarc� for the
meeting of May $, 1990.
1 - extension of time
ADVANTAOEB IF APPROVED:
Extensions to the property will be ratified.
as�ovarr�s�na�+oveo:
None
RECEIVED �
� Jt!l.131�0
CITY CLERK
DISADVANTAGE8 IF NOT APPROVED:
The action taken by the Property Code Enforcement Board will be returned
to the Board by the City Council for further review '
Gouncil Research� �e.��
JUL p 61990
,�,.,
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION = n/a c�/REVENUE BUDOETED(qRCLE OI�) YES NO X
FUNDIN�i SOURCE n/a ����� 3 3 2 6 3
FINANCIAL INFORAAATION:(EXPWN)
dw
�
�
�t.:� ':
NOTfi OOMPI.ETE Dt1�CT10N3 AE1E INClUC1�D IN THE OREEN SHEET IN3TRUCTIONAL
NAArIUAI AVAIIABIE IN THE PURCHASINO OFFICE(PHONE NO.-298-�225).
ROUTIN�3 ORE)ER:
8�low w p►Nsned routM�s for ths flrs mo�t t►equint types of docunlsnts:
OOAITRACT8 (aaurna wtlw�fzad COUNCIL RESOWTION (Amend, Bdpts./
budp�t�cists) Ac�pt. Oranta)
1. Oubids AQsr�cy �. Depsrtmem Dtnc�
2. Inidatinp D�pertm�M 2. Budpet Dinctor
3. dty Attorn�y 3. Gty Attomey
4. Maycu 4. MayoNAse�aM
5. Flnarx:s 8 Mgmt Svcs. Direato�' b. Gty Coundl
8. FMarx:s AacouMirp B. Chief llocournant.Fin d�Mgmt Svcs.
ADMINISTRATIVE Of�DER (E�' COUNqL RESOLUTION �and ORDINANCE
�i
1. ACtivity Maneiper 1. Initiadnp DepertmeAt Direetor
2. peWrtlnent Att�ounW�t 2. dty AtDomsy
4. Bt�Direc� 4• �Y�u��
5. Gty derk
6. Chief AccouMant�FNt d�Mgmt Svcs.
ADMINISTRKTIVE ORDER3 (all other�)
1. IniNating Dsp�rtmsnt
2. Gty/lttornsy
3. MayoNAsd�aM
4. Gty Clsrk
TOTAL NUMBER OF 31QNATURE PADES
' I�us ths N of p�p�s on which iignatu�are required and peps�lip
esch of thess�
ACTION AEOUES'TE�
Dsscribe what ths proj�t/requ�t ssskt to eccompHsh in efthsr chrorwlopi-
cal ordsr o►ordsr of importeuioe�whichsvsr is rnost appropriate for ths
issus. Do not write oomplste ssntencss. Begin each item in your Iist with
a verb.
REOOMMENDATIONS
Complste N ths isws in queWon has bssn pros�Med before anY bodY.Pub�ic
a private.
SUPPORTS WHICH OOUNqL OBJECTIVE?
Indicate which Council objacdvr(s)Y��P►��'d4�$�PP�bY���9
ths key wob(s)(HOUSINO,RECREATION, NEKiHBORHOODS,ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
BUD(3ET, $E1�VER SEPARA710N).(SEE CONIPLETE LIST IN INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL.)
OOUNqL CH REPORT-OPTIONAL AS REGIUESTED BY COUNqL
, F'
iN�u►�Na�oe�M; �ssue.OPPORTUNII'Y
Explain�.;afty�tfon w condldor�that croated a need for your project
or roqusst.
ADVANTA(3ES IF APPROVED
Indfc�e whsther this ia simply an�nnwl budpst procedure required by law/
d�erter or whethar thsrs ue�ciNc in which the City of SaiM Paui
and its citizens will ben�tit from thli pro�tlaction.
DISADVANTAOE8IF APPROVED
Whst nepative sffects or major changss to exiatin�or past proceseea might
this pro)ectlroqusu produce M ft is ps��sd(e.g.,trafflc delays, noise,.
tax increasss or asasamsnts)?To Whom?Whsn7 For how bng?
DISADVANTAOES IF NOT APPROVED
What will bs the nepativs comsqusrx�s if the pranised ection fa not
epproved?Inabflity to dsli�ssrvice?Continued high treffic, nolae,
�cident rateT Loss M�us?
FlNANCIAL IMPACT ,
Akhouph you must tailor the information you provide here to the issue you
aro addreesiny.fn�sneral you m�t anawer two queations: How m�h is it
goirp to coet?Who is�oirp to pay?