The URL can be used to link to this page

89-1133 �IN A C E�K COURCll ��'J�� ,� -��MAYORTMENT � CITY OF S I T PAUL File . NO• ? � Council solution �� Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date DATE OF BOARD � MINUTES CASE N0: R PERTY APPEALED APPELLANT � �` �02 � 14� 89 07-89-H 2 4 Aurora St. Guang-Jong Jason Wei BOARD ACTION: Refund the f' ing fee of $10.Q0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: lorence Addition to St. Paul Lot 7 Blk 3 02 4 � 89 14-8 436 She rd Rd;. J n J . Kerwin Nic let Restoration BOARD ACT N: Grant d n xtension of t' e until March , 1989 to vacat e b ' lding. PROPERTY DESCRI ION Regi ration land rvey 441 Tract COUNCIL MEMBERS Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays Dimond �ng [n Favor Goswitz Rettman d B Scheibet A gai n s t Y Sonnen Wilson MAY - 91989 Form r ed b c� Atr Y Adopted by Council: te �� B � � �� Certified Pass b uncil S t , B}� ��Approv y Mavor: Dat � � � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council B BY PUSIIS� ��1' 2 01989 r , � . � ��3 , ��A i iVl� ?A�� U .R� (:iF ArPFALS d 't?�V i EW �5� C: �.�AR �TREE � `��. F!�uL . I!�iNE�uTA 55 t U i 1 �1 G L`�G- .J 17=� . {'�1 :�i ;i H'-� , yiF r 1.:1�i. �Y f�fiY.:l I/1 N 7 . :! � ! '�ry'-+ MEMBERS PRE��NT: kon �_ ► ss .an. �hairman r�ar�_� ! d �:n tson C�aviu ch it� bJi 1 i ia . Ti lton F,ober . V i er i na MEMBERS ABSENT: Sean M. � arey OTHERS PRESENT: �an G st rland. Buildir.g ; Code t7fficer Steve �a card, Fire Marsh�ail Pat Fish Dept. of Fire �'revention Hope br ms . Dept . of Fire Prevenzion Jim P. i i I . Divisic,n of Publ ic Heaitn �an u s r 1 and, C i tv Arc�-� i te�t J i ck: rr� v, Hous i ng t� Bu i l d i ng Code �lhoma each, PEu Lawre �c 5oderholm. PtD � ta Do o ue 8ev Ryan Joe 1 a� man A 1 frtedo Cavet�r�o i� ick ig Patr- ick �ui i ivan John J . Kerwin Bettv Moran k:e ! I i e ovak Ms . � G i i bert Rich rd Travis Mr. iBrannan ��sa M rscha i k ��vji d 0 I son Greg G'Brien STAFF : �ose nine P. Bon�iovanrji Chairman Glassman cail d the meetinq tQ order at 1 :30 p.m. February 14, 1989. He e comed the appel �ants and explained the procedures , stating t at what the board �toes is , recommends action to the City Coun il 1 . Approval of the minu es of the January �110, 1989 meetinc� as . submitted in writina Motion made by David Schultz to approve the minutes of the January !0, 1989 as u mitted in writing. Seconded by Harald Knutson. MOTION CAR I D UNANIMOUSLY. 1 Ghairman Glassman, rererred ta a letter received trom Counciimemeb�r 5cheibei . thanking the Board for the request of maybe chana i ng the r!arne of tnE Board f�rom "5oard of Appea l s 8 Review" to "Code EnforcemEnts A�prals Board. " This wiii be senr to a comrnittee for review. After that . Counciimember 5cheibe! wi � i r:nt i r.� tY�a F-;r7�T"Tf. 2 . CASE HEARINGS: CASE NO: PROPERTY APPEALED A�F�EL!ANT 02-8y-H 143b VanBuren Ave. Laura M. Lundber� (Vacant Bldg) Guardianship for Ruth E . Bunch APPEARANCE: Ed Donohue SUBJECT: Appellant is requesting a waiver of the vacant building fee of $ 100. U0, as per letter dated January 1 , 1989, because of financial hardship. PROCEEGINGS: Ed Donohue, representing Laura Lundberg. The owner of the house is an elderly woman. who had a stroke and is in a nursin� homz. Ernest money has been put down on the home and there is a Uood possibility that ti-►e house couid be sold ir� 3U days. Ed Donohue. stated that at the time Ms. Bunch had the stroke and had to leave the house, it had to be �lacarded as "Not Fit for Human Habitation" . There had to be extensive clean-up as Ms . Bunch saved everything and the place was a mess . Jim Prill , from Department of Public Health stated that the place is not boarded. BOARD ACTION: Motion made by David Schultz to waive the fee if, the place is inspected by the Health Department and the Placard is lifted. Seconded by Bill Tilton. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ----------------------------- 03-89-H 398 Banfil St. Lucille E. Widing (Vacant b)dg} APPEARANCE : Greg O'Brien SUBJECT: Appellant is requesting a waiver of the vacant building fee, because of financial hardship. Greg O'Brien Co-owner , bought the house in April of 1988, stated that he has been working on the house. Building has e new roof, new wiring, and new furnace. Work has stopped since the building has been red tagged. Appellant has spent about �12, 000. 00 on the house. 2 ' , . � . - I ��2��. . ��-ii.� _� i fll �T' ! � t . r i'Lr(71 LClt� U' `/ 1 � i fl C�� Url � 1 �� ''!°� ! ttl S��r3fi?C trl�� r�ar-? �.�..1 �".' t C!..�1' �'��'1�...!i rement� tr�a �. P �.�W�'�''� : � ��71..: � � �� V une?r TY!� ��rd i r�anc= . wn i c�': �re: a� ! tF� �ues are ��a i c . t�!�e o�.:t a �er!?t i t . ,_�r'�_>�r i r�a r i�r- �_: I t�� ur � t_r� � r� i .�r� nr r i f;la-r�r, j r? . �,+��_� 5 S-�t,4i C''�I'�r j r�i�n��•_ �,� : „�i-��5 . J i m Pr i I i stated Tnat i n n i case �nere i s ar�otner factor . ��r: i •�� is . the re��ir of tne buildi a was not compi �te� �y February i � . A Council nearinn is sche ul d. consiciering demolition. This is a ser�arate issue from the f es The buildina neeci=_ a iot more work. � Bi i i Ti izon referred to a no e from Ms . Widir�a. which stateci. that prPSSUre has to be p t n Mr. 0'Brien. , A letter from the Fort Road/West 5tre�t Fed ra ian. which stat�d that " if the owner is unable to afford t e ee or rehab w rk, an appropriate �e�osition of the house mi ht be throuah the citv's Seiective Clearance program. " � BOARD ACTION : M�tion made by Bili riiton to �ieny the request r"or a waivcr o� the vacant bu� lci ' ng fFes. Seconded t�y David Schultz. r�OT I O�v CAF?R I EU UNAN I MC�l15L . ---------- -- --------------------- 1U-89-H 39t� Lafond Av . Gregory 7. Ryan ( Vacant B da ) , � APPEARANCt : BevErly Ryan I� SUBJECT: Appeliant is relue tina a waiver o the vacant buildina fee, as he is in the pr ce s af rehabbin�� he house and cannot afford the extra expenses � ' PROCEEDINGS: Ms. Rvan and he son purchased the property and are trying to rehab tr�e home. N building permits have been taken, because it needs mostly p in ing. Jim Prill , from Division f ublic Health stated that there are two diff=erent buiidings o t e pr�perty, each in different conditior�. The one refer e to, is to the f'ront of the lot (39G Lafond) . Some of the win o had to be replaced. A permit for electrical work was taken o . Mr. Ryan paid the fees from September thru December. F s owing are for' first quarter (Jan thru March 1989 plus pena i ies of ($120. OU}'''. Ms. RYan stated that ther is a ad in the pa;�per� hoping to rent the house by the first of Mar h. ', I 3 ' SUARC� Ai�"f I ON: hlot i on made bv Robert V i er i n�a t� wa i ve tne v�cant bu i ! d i na fiee fr-��m �ian tnru Marcn . ��rov i ded a i i re�� i rzmenr_.� �re me� . Seconded t�v uavia Schu} t=. �!'1t \/i 1TF i;��c d ��ys 1 ( �- i i r-.�,n 1 ,qi��crunt- ;�,r: �J ---------------------------------- 1 i-ti�-H 3yU 1 !2 Lal=oncl Ave. Gt-e�o�-v i. Rvan fVacant Bldg) APPEARANCE : Bever 1 v !=tvan SUBJECT: Appellant is requesting a waiver of the vacant buildin� fze, as he is in the process of rer;a�bing tr�e house and cannot afford the �xtr-a ex�enses. PROCEEu I NGS : T'r►e r�ouse to the rear or" the i ot ti 390 1 /Z Lafond; neer�s a building �zrmit. becausz it r�eeds extensive work to retiab. Tr�e appe i 1 ant wou l d 1 i ke to use t'r�e money for rehab, rather than pay tk�,e vacant bu i 1 di ng fiee. ��A�i� AC1-!O�i : Mot i on made bv B i 1 I T i I t.on to venv the wav i er ofi tt-,z bu i f�i ng f ee. Sec��r��ied by RoGert V i er i n�. MU1�I��fv CARR I tD UNAN I i IVUSL�Y . ----------------------------------- t�7-89-H 244 Aurord Ave. Guang-Jon� Jason Wei ( 2 units) Slit�JEC i: Appe i 1 ant i s request i ng the f i 1 i ng t=ee be refunded, as he has been working with the inspector and was dbie to resolve the vioiations . BOARD ACTION: Motion made by David Schultz to refund the riling fee. Seconded by Harold Knutson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . ----------------------------- 04-89-F 65 E . Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul YWCA (64 units) Joel Waxman APPEARANCE : Joel Waxman SUBJECT: Appellant is requesting a variance on the removal of the bars on the windows of all tt-�e rooms on floors Sth, 6th and 7th, because of the danger involved. PR��;E E Cf I N�'��: M r°, W�1;rr��r� i � 1�r�►�r_,t i �� tt��r r�� r-•rrr�.�i r� �� y t �I rooms on the fifth. sixth & seventh floor , because of an accident prior to having the bars installed in 1985. Mr. Waxman stated that Mr. Joe McDonough an inspector from the City of St. Paul Fire and Safety Services did concur with Mr. Waxman that the bar 4 - � ��i�� could remain on the window . PaL FisPi. rrom Fire Freven i n stated that Mr . McDonough was the oriainal insr�ector fon c �ommercial par�t. and net tne res i�ient i a i �art of tne bu ! i •^.�. � At the t'i me of the acc i rye�t . r i ra, i=T-�y�r��_. ir�rl � . � ;1�r1?l� °` f�lty �^'. ini� ;'r �Jr"ji'S Tri hc. jn�:t.� i Vc-ri , temporarily. since tnen mo e sleeping rooms have been added. Pat � ish-�, also stated that t the request of the District Cnief. in the area, who would be h responding. (Responsibie Chief) for the buiiding. should an mergency occur.! survey the buildina to see what exists present y at this point , the District Chief from that arEa stated the i e Department has na access to any at the upper floors . Code ac u lly requires thalt one window in each sleeping roam be free of b r , probably referring to 96 rooms. Pat Fish, stated that she r quested the District Chief take a look at the situation. T e District Chief advised Ms . Fisn that in looking at the buildin , that the only windows that could be lac�dered, are the ones th t do not have a structure adjacent to the buiiding, which would be on the Kellogg side. It was suggested that two window n fifth, sixth and seventh floors . southwest and sout'r►east c r ers be without bars , accessible to Fire Uepartment. BOARD ACTION: Bill Tilton m de the motion that the request for a variance. pertaining to r m ving the bars from sleeping r��ms on fifth . sixth and sevent f oors be denied. Seconded by David Schultz. Mc�TION CARRIE U ANIMOUSLY . ---------- - ------------------- 08-��-F 1�it� Cc�ncor S . A 1 fredo G. Cayetana (2 1/2 units APPEARANCE : Alfredo Caye an SUBJECT: Appellant is re ue ting a variance on existing ceiling tiles , as per letter date J nuary 4, 1989. PROCEEDINGS: After much disc ssion, Steve Zaccard, Fire Marshall suggested that the appell nt work with the Fire Department, then maybe be able to come up it a viable solution to the problem regarding the ceiling. BOARD ACTION: The Board g ve the Appellant a' postponement of 30 days to trv and work wi h he Fire Department, to resolve the problem of the ceiling il s , if not then return to the March meeting. ---------- -- --------------------------- 5 �J5-89-r �58 �a�it-�n Ave. ri i stor i c: f�enovat i ons � 10 uni�.� ) R � r_�►:. IG�i �1NPEARANCt : R�cK iao _�^._ _-_ °:_ ,- _ . . _`tr . _ , ..�-1�_.-=_ . , _ � . _ . � ,�_c. _,,: ... ,-> .-.. . . _ - . . _ dea�iL�o ! ts , as per i etter dated i�ecernber �3 . 1 uti8. Appe � i ant�wau 1 a i i ke to re�+l ace the�� as th�v become de*ect i ve. BU,4RU ACTION: Mation made by Ron Glassman to grdr.t a varidnce on the pT-eser�t deadbolts , witt� the condition, that upon re�airing or replacing tr�e deadbolts, that they be replaced ��ith tr�e c.�ne inch. Seconded bv David Schuitz. i�10TION CAhRIED IiNAN? MOUSLY . ---------------------------------- 12-89-F 1544 Grand Ave. Patrick F . Suliivan (5 units ) APPEARANCE : Patrick F . Sullivan SUBJECT: Appel ! ant is appealing the Revocation of tne Certiricate of Uccupancy. P!EASE NOTE : The Rev��cation of the Certiticate of Occupancv is a resu 1 t of the fact that tl-�e appe 1 1 ant fa i l ed to comp 1 y w i th tr:e applicable requirements in a reasonable amount of time without appeal , as per � etter dated January ltl, 1989 firom Firc Prevention. The oriqinai orders were written Uecember 1y85. PRt�C:EEUINGS : Mr . Suilivan is the owr�er of the buildin� at 1544 Grand. There is a C?rtificate of Occupdn��i an the buil+�lin�. Pat Fish, from Fire Prevention stated that the Certificate c�f Occupancy was renewed March 6, 1987 for three years. What had been good, with conditions , should have been corrected by December 1987. Mr. Sullivan said that the inspector never notified him that there was to be an inspection. In Januarv Mr. Sullivan received a letter from Fire Prevention informing him that the Certi�icate of Occupancy was revoked. Pat Fish, from Fire Prevention stated that Mr. Sullivan did have a problem with an inspector in 1987. At the request of Mr. Sullivan, Ms . Fish met with Mr. Sullivan for an inspection. All the corrections that the inspector did call were in line with Fire Code at that time. Ms . Fish worked with Mr. Sullivan until there was just a few outstanding c�rrections . Fire Prevention at that tim� renew�� the Gertii=lcate with � f�w uutstanningti cc?r�rectlGn:1 . th�t W?1"t� �t 9 � � tc_i r�r C1�=�i11'. �sr'-1 i��`=•�+er�:t jt�t-t= Wrt'e_' done in December 1988 and January 1989. At that time a notice was sent to Mr. Sultivan, although, there seems to be some probiem in Mr. Sullivan getting his mail . There was a citation issued to Mr. Sullivan, which is still unresolved. 6 � ' \ � Mr . tierwin - the Site Pla a� in �rocess the �I�st timr thct Mr . Kerwin was before the bo rd. The repiy to the Site Pian application arrive� the a day (Uci�ober 11 . 1988) . What the city wanted was a Special U e Permit. Mr. Kerwin applied f�r a Sc�ec i a� Use Per-m i t an De ern er 9. 1 988. At that t i me more p? ans 'r�G-'1 C ( C!�l:CSI,CI.: t r' ! �(l 1 � t w! � �;�1 M�.°i C i.lUf i 'E..'' . �.(It�rl 1 dF� 1 I CG rlJ! �f IC Speciai Use Permit . A cording to the law, it is to gc, to the Planning Commission in 0 ays . A reply was received in December from Larry Soderhoim. Finally, I had a m�eting with Larry �ang5 and a representative r" o the Mayors office on Jan�ary 20, 1989 to resolve certain it ms Again, more plans were to be drawn (Plan 16) . These pla s ere compieted on February 13 , 1989, so that is were the pro es is at present. The Special Use Permit application is in. Mr. Kerwin - there i t o points of reference, one - a meeting requested by Jan Gas er and, the inspectors were around the table i .e. mechanic 1 electrical , etc. and Mr. Gasterland had not been involved b fo e, and the fact came up that we wPre goin� to do the work on he heatinq svstem and the electrical and then get our plans tog t er on the river front. One member at the meeting made a sta ern nt (that sounds ;'reasonable to me, get the heating and upgra e lectrical and if it takes a couple of years to get your plan t g ther on the river front the building wiii be safe) I rememb r o�king at the gentleman and thinking, two years! then my m n went to my other point of reference, and that is - that I got in olved in this projec:t five years aga. Mr. Kerwin - Th estion is goinq ' to come up some where along the road, about h is going to pay the water, sewer, etc. The river front m ne that got released to the city. through the Sewer Bond refu di g. that came through the State Legislature. I went to the S t Legislature and made my case. We wanted to redevelop this pr perty. The author of that bill , that relzased 15 or 17 mill o dollars to the city of St. Paul had requested that one-four h of that amount be designated to this project. Jim Scheibel as asked the Mayor to study the project. The Mayor has since the ome back with a moderately negative response. Mr. Glassman - hat negative response did you receive? Mr. Kerwin - Well , the Mayar wrote a letter to Phylis Conn, saying tha there is a lot of contention and some threaten litigation with respect to this property and it is going to be difficult o ahead) . I would like my Special Use permit and Site Plan ev ewed. Mr. Glass an - Why are you h�re, today? 8 . � � � ,_ 1.�,. �-//.s�% Ms . G � ibert and Ms . Novak . tenanzs in -rne b�iidina. asKed t�� SD?c�k t.0 Lrle C70�?-C!. �h?V Rt'?S�!'1Lar`t a i i ct p2' 1 L�?�ii� '�hZL SL. 1 I I 4�1�T'° rl�t t_.Gfll� ' eteC. f"I?" . l� 1 �S'=rf?c+Cl . S�..�Lr?�! rhar trl? F".3'Oct't� __;� c j�� n�,;,t �-�� i a ,�n �i�a r.CV'�'�:di. I Jfl G't c! l..C' � t r 1 L:�LC O!" Vl:�_i1f�C1 IC'v . ! i ;� l:Gcl-u ��? c�:�� var i ance t7i" ex-'tens i ons Of' 'C 1 Rt2 Of1 CO?"T'eCC 1 Of15 LO DE CO[le. M!' . G 1 assrnan suaryested that i f a re-i nspect i on from tne != i re Departmer�- . found all tt�e items . tnat. were not aone bet=ore revocation, �r� in fiact done, ther. Fire Prevention pror�ably would re-instate tne certiricate. 6UARD A��TiUN : Motion made bv BiII Tiiton to denv the re�uesz co overruie the Revocation of the Certificate of Gccupancv. Seconcled bY David Schultz. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL'Y . ------------------------------------ 93-88-H 30 E . 7th St. Wot- Id Trade Center and 37b Jacksar� St . Ga i t i er� P i aza SL+3JECi: This case was before the boar� on Gctober 11 . 198�. anv t�equest.ed t� oe post�aned ta the �ebruary meet i na. TI-�e aAr�e i i ant r equESted a postponement for 3U aays . ------------------------------------ i4-b9-F 436 5ne��ard Rd. Nicoliet F:estor�tior� ( 5 units ? John �1. Kerwin APPEARANCE : Jonn J . Ket-win SUBJECT: Work required for safety as ordered, has been comptztedo City requestEd a Site �)an and variance applic:atians in process have been delayed primaril ,y by City. (Condemnation letter from Fire Prevention dated Januarv 26. ly8y. Vacate date is Februarv 25, 1989. ) PROCEEDINGS: Mr . Kerwin stated that he was before the board October 11 , !98$. At that time Mr. Kerwin was to get permits . and do some work on the property and continue with the Site Plan review process_ The work is done. All new gas piping to all the furnaces. A second 60 amp eiectrical service with wires run to each furnace. 7 � - � � �y//.� Mr. Kerwin - Because. aaain t e itv has come out to the pro�ertv without o �hone call or a 1 tt r and placed a "Conciemnation Notice" on the building. Wi hout courtesy of any contact. Evzrytime that these notices r �laced on the building. there is � bia amount of disru��ti�n. 5teve Zaccard, Fire Marshall - ver a year ago. Fire Prevention was informed thaz this forme p wer plant was b�ing used for residential . The issue befo e he board, is whether we had the responsibility to again post t e building as "Unfit for Human Habitation" . The action Mr . K rwin is referring to is not a new Condemnation, it simply is r p sting a Condemnaition that was posted in March 1988. At t t time. there was a hearing at which the board granted an extension of time for some work that had to be done. Then in August it ga 'n was posted with a "Condemnation Notice" . Anot er hearing was held in October 198£3. At that time the board agai ranted an extension of time to do some more work, with some c n itions. Testimony can be provided from our Building Offical , J n Gasterland, that the conditions from the October meeting av not been done. As a result, we simply again re-posted hi building as "Unfit for Human Habitation" because it o s not qualify for a CertificatP of Occupancy. Mr. Glassman - Has he in c , fixed the hea�ing plant safely? Mr. Zaccard - Since the O to er hearin�, Yes� Mr. Zaccard - The notice o me was that Mr. Kerwin had not meet the conditions that h board had established at the October meeting, subject to the n Use. We did serve Mr. Kerwin a lawful notice to the add es , that we had s�rved him before. Notice was served in Mar h 1988, and August 1988 and again in January 1989. for the sa e ondemnation. Mr. Schultz - I would li e to ask a general question? Can you say to me today, that t is building meets �11 health, safety, zoning. flood use, what ve codes? Is ther� any gaurantee, a 100% certainity that he wout e er receive approval of all the special use and requirements th t re being asked in the near future? Larry Soderholm, from P a ning Division - In regard to zoning, there is no guarantee, it is quite doubtf�i that the proposal that Mr. Kerwin has will e approved. Ba$ically, we cannot dll�w residentail use of a b il ing below flood level . Industrial use could continue, its a e 1 non-comformin� use of a building. To have it occupied resid n ially, even for ;Artist housing, it needs to be either out of th lood plane, whiich is p�assibte, at b��t, an alternative is to m lete a dyke, which Mr. Kerwin says i � partially constructed ar und the bu11d1ng, wh�ch-would r�1se t� �+r��perty out af the 1 d fringe. This would change the Ft Plane. 9 Mr. Schult� - W�u1d tn�t have to br dp�roved by the G<�r�p Cf Engineers? Mr . Soderholm Yes , That would have to have approval of first , the P 1 ann i ng C��mm i ss i on to do tr�e r i I 1 i ng o� the f !o�r� fr i nge. tt��r. i r Lt1a"C wer'e �apt'OV?c7, Lflell "G(-1C wUt'K COU IC1 p�'uC�?d �rtct' Lnc t'c'v i ew and approval or the U�R and the Corp of Enqineers . If this is completed and certified by the Corp, then the Federai �mer�ency Management Agency wouid approve it. The zoning m��s w�aulci have to be changed to say, it is no longer in the flood fringe. At this p�int, it couid be used for Artist 5tudios, but it could not be converted tu apartments. Allow Artist Studios to operate in Industrial zoning, where they are scuplurin� and painting. If it were rezoned to residential then it could be converted to regular apartments . Mr. Schultz - I was the person who at the October meeting stated that this project should not be allowed ta be continued. I remain convinced of this. I did not think there was a likelihood that this project would ever get off the ground. The last time we met , there were tenants here on your behalf. At this point, my senses, for whoever is at fault , or whatever intend, you may have had going into this pro.ject. I cannot in conscious vote to continue this project. I do not see in the neai, future this project ever receiving approval of being converted into the kind of pro.ject that you want. I don't see the existence of the tenants being in that property, which has been used as a past excuse, as any excuse for the city to bank on zoning or any type of heatth safety issues. Further , I don't see your past action, or your past money, that you have put into the pro.ject, any reason for our continuing to allow you to use a proiect, that does not conform to existing code and probat�ly nevEr will conform. My decision rernains more firmer than )ast October. The Board has been exceedingly reasonable with you for the last vear on this project. I see no reason for this board to continue to grant you any variances or extensions of time for this project. Mr. Kerwin - Mr. Soderholm has outlined how to get things done. Mr. Glassman - Asked Mr. Kerwin, what really do you want? Mr. Kerwin - We want to use the property. For some reason, I don't know what it is. This kind of building produces this kind of emotional , tear it down, get rid of it or vacate it. We ran into that almost from day one. We have met with the inspectors and have done the work necessary for minuimum life safety. We are foliowing the process. We have not been allowed tc� g�t t� th� Planning Commission. We have been basically barred from getting to the Planning Commission. Mr. Schultz - What I am saying at this point is I don't care if you contin�e the process. 1 just do not want tenants to be living there. It does not meet Heatth safety codes in the full sense. 10 . Mr. Gtassman - During the Condr n tion. Would Mr. Kerwin have the right to work on the buildi g Mr . Zaccard - He has to start ro the bottom up, which is, he must get zonina approval befor h qualifies for permits . There ! � .� !Ot O� ,-i0'.-k. tr�,�t F,�� ±.� h r :r��• , Mr. Kerwin - I feel staff wan s to shut us down. We think that they talk to each other. � eed time to get this t� a legally constituted board. I beg o y u do not let the city bottle us up. Mr. Zaccard - We certainly we c me Mr. Kerwin to go to the proper courts . We are not i t e business to deny people occupancy. We are in the bu in ss to approve occupancy. Not one of us are a part an p rcel of a consp� racy to deny Mr. Kerwin the use of his proper y. It is our duty and roll to see that it is used in conforman e according to the code. Jan Gasterland. Building d Officer in the ;Citv - Let me echo Steve's remarks . We hav et with Mr . K�rwin on numerous occasions . We have gone th e tra nine yards to help, in trying to acc�mmodate his needs n he way of construction. We are continually put into a sit a ion where we have to equate what is going on in the building, ju t as we do in any other building in the city. We are aware a t what is going �n in the building, and we are a part of tha 1 ability. It i � our professional feeling that people should no be occuping th�t building. Based on buildings that we hdv een and our prof�ssional experience that building is unsafe to o cupy. It is, w�s and remains unsafe to occupy. For the good i the people and �he liability of the city, those tenants shoul b out of that bu� ldin� until the work is done ar�d the approvals ar granted. Mr. Schultz - if the bu 1 ing is unoccupied, you of course are willing to work with the w er? Mr. Gasterland - Yes . th t s correct. Mr. Schultz - In order t have a Condemna'tion Placard rernoved, making it fit for occupa c , there are cer�tain processes that have to followed. T your knowledge 'is the city willing to help Mr. Kerwin! Mr. Gasterland - Yes , t at is correct. 12 � ��i� . Mr. Kerwin - I have been re-habbing buildings since 1968. I started on Goodrich and Victoria. There is alwavs a transition from one occupancy to another . Mr . Knutson - The whole thing st?ms rrom the fact that you put ��nan�s i n zn i 5 ou i i u i ng. beTor-e ar�y �� an wa� subrni t.r_ed. -i n i r-teen plans were submitted, non were approved. You are doing something that you believe is ok, but the city says no. I even went , so far , as argue for you, to allow the tenants to remain if the conditions were met. These were only a temporary measure. Larry Soderholm - We received an application for Site Plan Review back in August and sent Mr . Kerwin a letter about it and talked with him on October 11 , 1988. We explained what Mr. Kerwin had to do. One of the things Mr. Kerwin had to do was to get approval from the Planning Commission. Mr. Kerwin made application to the Planning Commission on December 9, 1988. On D�c.ember 1�, 1��88 we sent him a return lzttzr explaining that his application was incomplete. We itemized what additional information would be needed and that was January ZU, 1989. Today in the mail we received a new application. One of the main pieces that is stiil missing, in this application is, engineering st�dies , showing what has been done on the levee, and if that standard is up to the Corp of Engineers. Then we would know it is reasonable to follow that line as a way of making the building meet the zoning code. That critical piece of information is still missing from the application. We ask to have a cross section of the building, so that we know where the floor levels are in relation to the flood level . Mr. Kerwin said that he does not want to have a new drawings done on the project . The drawings we have to the building seem to be the Historic cross section of the buiiding, I believe that this is dated 1925. We have received a new application, it does not have as good information as we would like to have. Mr. Glassman - Let me ask a questions, He wants to continue the project. How would you feel if we said. "Continue to work on the project, but no one is allowed to live in the buflding?" Mr. Zaccard - This is exactly what is being asked of this board to consider. This building is Condemned. because it does not qualify for a Certificate of Occupancy. Allow that Condemnation to take force and effect, resulting in the vacating of the occupancy of that building. Allowing us to get approvals. These approvals are done before occupancy. The calibar of code violations that occur there, the occupancy of a b�ilding without a Certificate of Occupancy. Various contruction trades perform in that building without the benefit of any permits. We have been working with Mr. Kerwin, since we discovered this, quite by accident, over a year ago. The Board has held out its hand 1 ong enough, I wou 1 c! r�ape tt�r b��r�'J wi 1 1 <<JGt�i �i t�-�i � condemnation, and would allow us to enforce it and let Mr. Kerwin have his remedies in court. 11 . � - � � � �� "� �>/i.�3 Mr. Tilton - When this was be o e the board a year ago, I got the impression that Mr . Kerwin th u ht that the city had been actively opposed to any devel p ent. Mr. Gasterland, you distinctly gave me the impres i n, that you were willing to wark with Mr . Kerwin. I want to a if Mr. Kerwin disaarees with tr�at. Mr . Kerwin �.:.+� vou ee . that Mr . GaGt�rland or ^trer people in the city have bee a tively trying tp prevent you from making progress in getting a pr val ? Mr. Kerwin - I believe that de initely is the �ase. On my relationship and meeting dow the city and w�e have had many meetings. City staff has be n aking any possi,ble route to defeat the use of the buildi g. Mr. Viering - Why are they p osed to the pro,�ect? Mr. Kerwin- I really do not n w. I guess its because anything that has ever been planned, ha never been build on the river. Something is wrong with the pr cess. Mr. Viering - It seEms to m t at any kind of development like this , has a set of stages o e ust face. Hopei�ully, the bottom line to all that is , that t e uilding gets th�e Certificate of Occupancy. What I don't und r tand is , that a �person like you, wh� has developed a number of b ildings , and you �are a professional . Why did you skip all the s eps , in going through all tr�ese things, and then put peopl n the building, before you had the Certificate of Occupancy? Mr. Kerwin - Might I may s ggestion? The notice to vacate be removed and stayed until t e lanning Commissfion has a chance to review the 14th, 15th and 1 th plan and the Citv Council . Mr. Viering - When will th s 11 happen? Mr. Kerwin - I 'm not sure One applicatiorr last summer and one application now. Mr. Kerwin - The law on Co d tional Use Permi�lt is; within 60 days of the date of applic t on for Conditior�al Use Permit. The Planning Administrator sh 11 submit the appljcation together with additional information to th Planning Commi�sion, it does not say that they have to app ov it. Mr. Chairm�n, they are going to knit pick and find items ro now until eterhity. It has got to get to the Planning Commi si n and the City Council . 13 Mr. iilton - Mv o�inion is verv dif*erent then mv col � eaaue. unroi-tuncte4v. it comes to tne same conciusio�. beca�se in� only issue. b�fore tnis DOdYd is : can people continue to iivP rhere? Aii these fellows r►-orn the Ci 'LV seem li �e aood auvs. whv C�rl`t tC?t� Nldrt^1 f1Q 1..0(fif!l ! cS ! C�fl =.e?t� d Jlt.fP �E'V ! AW Pl �+r! . !-CV? ?4! ��fll! d��I"�::V� i l. . �.:c?ftL i fl�_�U�:":C U�GfI ; aLe�' a��prvv� i r('�_iC!1 L.lt� �„GI-�� Oi Enaineers . I quess I feel that some of the fault iies with tne cirv. and some of ti-�e fault lies with vou , Mr. Kerwin. I 'm �oina to vote against people living in ti�e building . because. tnat is the issue before this board. When was the first pian submitted? Mr . Kerwin - the first plan was submitted in 1y83 , we met with Rick Weiderhorn and PEG. At that time, it was aoing to taKe 3 months, before approval , then it died. It turned into strong opposition. At ihat time, we were told to draw another plan, which we did. ti�at died also. Then we wer�e told to form a partnership with th� neighborhood. this we did. that died also. It never did get to the Planning Commision. We made app] ication to modify the f�loc�d way line. because there is a peninsula in front of the buildiria. that is part of the architectual inter-fa�e w i th ttie r i ver. We spend � !0 ,OOU. OU w i th Th:DA to do a f 1 ooci way siudy of the river . to sr�ow that redrawing the flood way iine would be permissible, and that was submitted t� the ciLy and nothin� happeneci. A yedr later , meanwhile the city reneged ��n its agreement to buy tne pro�erty, a�ong came an itern before the Giannina Commission and it was to redraw the flooci way line. What thAv r�ad aone, wds to c�me up with a proposai to redraw the floor� wa�i line, not around the peninsula. b�t squdsr�ing it back against our property. such that ds a practical matter . we nave just about the �n1y un-dzvel�pable property. Un a forr_.y ��re study we were exclude�. Mr. Soderhalm - Speaking fior the Planning Division, fet me comment, first. Mr . Kerwin has done plans and talked with city staff about thern. this does not mean he has gone for zoning approval . He has talked to people in the development division to try and set up a deal to see if we can get a project to work. The first plan to be submitted for zoning review was submitted last August, 1988. It was reviewed normalty by the staff. This took about a month, followed by a letter explaininq what had to be done. So, the first application that was submitted to the Planning Commission was in December, 1988. We informed Mr. Kerwin that it was incomplete and we wanted him to get the rest of the information to the Planning Commission for their review. As to what the Planning Commision did with the Flood Way designation at the time of the Zoning study, about where the designation should go thru Mr. Kerwin' s property. At the time it was started there was 4�% of his ProRerty, that was buil�J�,�lc At the end of the study 83% of his property was buildable. The P 1 ann i ng C�imm 9 s i c�n tiUub 1 ed tr�e amaur�t of 1 end. 14 - � ` �-�/� Mr. Glassman - John, maybe h best thing for this board to do is not to hear the appeat . Le ou go to District Court with this issue. Mr. Kerwin - My Attorney ex h nged letters with the Mayor about two years ago. The Summons a d Compiaint is on the Attorney's desk getting ready for serv c . I just thought, there really has to be a better way to see t i thing out over years and years . What I am doing is exhausti g the administrative remedies, if they are exhausted today, t e I will end up in Court. I do think, however, before that t�me, it is very important that we be able to go before the Plann n Commission with a positive proposal for the building. Mr. Glassman - The City is o stopping you from doing that, its just that you had tenants i he building long enough. BOARD ACTION: Motion made y David Schultz to deny the request for lifting of the Piacard n the Condemnation and amend the vacate date to be March 31 , 1 89. Seconded by Harold Knutson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ------------ - --------------------- There being no further busi e s meeting adjourned 3 :30 p.m. 15