The URL can be used to link to this page

00-965ORIGINAL� Presented Referred To Council File # d � r q �^J Green Sheet # 104015 Committee Date 1 BE TT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the October 10, 2 2000, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Properry Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 address: 4 Propertv Ap�ealed � Ap eln lant 5 586-588 Reaney Avenue (Rescheduled from 10-3-2000) James and Jeanine Sundberg 6 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the 7 nonconfornung doors need to be replaced, ihey wiil be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 8 building must othenvise be in compliance. 9 634 Snellin� Avenue South Catherine Thorson far Halberson & Blaiser 10 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the 11 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they wiil be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 12 building must otherwise be in compliance. 13 875 Thomas Avenue (Laid over from 9-19-2000) 14 Decision: Appeal denied. 15 1430 York Avenue (Laid over from 9-19-2000) 16 (Appeal withdrauvn.) 17 18 412 Goodrich Avenue 19 Decision: Appeal denied. 20 60 Rose Avenue East 21 (Appeal withdrawn.) Christopher Lahaie Steve Nichols for K.7. Management Mike Hazgarten Peter Rodriguez 22 Appeal reeardin¢ repaix of billboards (Laid over from 9-19-2000) Brian Bates 23 Decision: Appeal denied. 24 97 0�'ord 5treet North ��j L„� 0,�� `�-o Mark Gehan for Buffalo Sober Group, LLC 25 Decision: Appeal denied. � � �� , � ��CL.u.� �: � M� . t-'.`(`c�.e� �— �� _�� a oo c� RESOLUTION CIT( OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA i Green Sheet 104015 00-9�5 0 $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey Coleman � Harris � Benanav f Reiter � Bostrom f Lantry � — 1 � Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney � Adopted by Council: Date O.�T .( 8' i � c'� a Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council Adoprion Cem d by Council Secre B By: ` \��2� . + w � _ _ _ y � Approved by Mayor: ate �� 9Y� By: ao -96s .."� City Council Offices � 10-12-2000 �cr aoxsori a �tor+E Gerry Strathman, 266-8575 _- BE ON COUNCILAGErIDA BY @A7� _ AE7K.N n•_I�lil..`�' TOTAL � OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET �,:, No10!,�015 anon.o. ❑ arcwnowEr ❑ anaiuc ❑ n1�IrJ�LaFAY1CFf0�t ❑ NIUICYY.fFRNKCfC ❑ WYORMRAfAifAl1l{ ❑ (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the 10-11-2000 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 586-588 Reaney Avenue, 634 Snelling Avenue South, 875 Thomas Avenue, 1430 York Avenue, 412 Goodrich Avenue, 60 Rose Avenue East, an appeal regarding repair of billboards, and 97 Oxford Street North. PIANNiNG COMMISSION CIB CAMMITTEE CIVII SERVICE CAMMISSION Has ihis ve��rm e+er waked unrkr a contract f« this deuartmem7 vES no Has Mis Pe�soNfirm e�er been a dlY empbyee7 YES NO Does this persoNfi�m possess a aldll rwt rwrmaltypossesseU by am/ curteM ary emplqree7 YES NO �s enis pe(soMrrm a targetetl venaon YES NO AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION t COST/REVRlUE BUD6EfID (qRCLE ONE) ACTNITY NUMBER �flaS�� YES NO INFORMATON (IXPWNj �W �� Collins, Buckley, Sauntry & Haugh, � West 1100 Frst National Bank Buiiding 332 Minnesota Street Sairrt Paul, Mi�nesota 55101-1379 TelepMne: (65'� 227-0611 r� c�n zz�-0�ss VIA FAX AND HAND DELIVERY October 11, 2000 0 0 , 9�� Wilfiam EHaugh,Jr. :t Michael J. SauMry Mark W. Gehan #tPatriGcTTiemey �r*n,�,asd.c��ne�d x John R.Schulz oThOmas R.O'Cqnnell o Dan O'Conriell Christine L SYrcemer a ilwmas E Mc�l"utrem Marihew A Slxven Michael D. Werrpeil � ��i #F:tTheodore J. Coltins 19321999 Eugene D. Buckiey Mr. Gerry Strathman Director, Council Research Center Office of the City Council Suite 31Q, Ciry Hall St. Paul M[155102-1615 Re: 97 North Oxford Street, St. Paul, Minnesota Our File No. 11780-1 Dear Mr. Strathxnan: On behalf of my client, Buffalo Sober Group, L.L.C., I hereby seek review of your denial of my client's appeal of the revocation ofthe certificate of occupancy for the premises at 97 North Oxford Street. As I informed you at the hearing on October 10, the revocation was based solely upon the property not having yet been granted a Permit for a non-conforming use of the building. The application for that permit is now pending. Very truly ours, MARK W. GEHAN MWG:mj cc: Mr. Walter Dinalko *Also AtlmNed in Wis'.onsin t Cimi Trcdl Specralis[, Cer6fied bj ihe C'r+il LiLgation $ection Cf ihe Minnesota State Bar Asxcaalicn. #CerMetl 6ytt�e National Board of Tnai Ativocacy as a CrNI Triai Ativocate oCPA CeNFetl by the Minneso�a SYate Boartl of AarouMancy. ° MBA in Finance. ��(�� t�.. NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, October 10, 2000 Room 330, City Hall Gerry StratUman, Legislative Hearing Officer Staff Present: Pat Fish, Fire Prevention; Wendy Lane, License, Inspection, Environmental Protection(LIEP); Tom Riddering, LIEP; Mike Urmann, Fire Prevention Gerry Strathman called the meeting to order at 134 p.m. 586-588 Reaney Avenue (Rescheduled from 10-3-2000) (No one appeared to represent the property.) Mike Urmann reported he had no objecrions to an appeal. Gerty Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforxning doors need to be repiaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 634 Snelling Avenue South Cathy Thorson, owner, appeared and stated she is appealing the requirement to instali fire rated doors. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire razed doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 875 Thomas Avenue (Laid over from 9-19-2000) (No one appeazed to represent the property.) Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. 1430 York Avenue (Laid over from 9-19-2000) (Steve Nichols, attorney for K. J. Management, sent a fax indicating that the appellants wish to withdrawn their appeal.) 412 Goodrich Avenue (No one appeared to represent the properiy.) Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. �o ��5 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 10-10-2000 Page 2 60 Rose Avenue East (The appellant appeazed and stated he has withdrawn his appeal.) Appeal re a�rding renair of billboards (Laid over from 9-19-2000) Brian Bates, appellant, appeazed and stated this began with an August 9, 2000, letter to Chris McCarver from Wendy Lane. The last sentence reads that no permit is needed for this work. That decision is what Mr. Bates is appealing. His appeal is based on two sections of the Legislative Code: Section 66.201 reads "No person shall place, erect or maintain a sign, nor shall a lessee or owner pernut properry under his control to be used for such a sign, which does not conform to the following requirements and without first obtaining the requisite permits for such sign." Section 33.03 reads in essence that any repairs exceeding $300 needs permits. It is Mr. Bates understanding that Section 33.02 reads that minor repaixs do not need permits. (Mr. Bates gaue Mr. Strathman copies of Sections 66.201 and 33.03.) Gerry Strathman asked was his clann that the work Eller Media wants to do constihrtes maintenance of the sign. If it exceeds $300, responded Mr. Bates. Also, nowhere does it say $300 per biilboard. Multiple billboazds were repaired. It is his contention that to repair one billboard with a new catwalk and safety cable would exceed $300. Bruce Faribeau (phoneric) has spent his working cazeer in construc6on and trades and has much experience with this kind of construction and materials. He took the trouble to get quotes for the kind of materials needed to do the repairs. Bruce Faribeau (phonetic), appeazed and stated there aze two basic components, which comprise the perimeter that the grading sits upon. The grading costs $2.25 a square foot for the U.S. steel warehouse price, which would come to $258. Using 60 feet minimum angle iron to comprise the frame which the grading would sit upon would cost $142.80, bringing the total to$400.98. Safety cables run about $50 each. There would be one per boazd. Mr. Strathman stated to make the repairs on one board would cost $450. Mr. Faribeau responded that is conect, but that does not include sales tas, transportation, labor, fabrication. His estimate of $450 is using the baze minimuxn. Wendy Lane reported she received a letter from Chris McCarver who wanted to replace the safety cables and catwalks on the older billboard structures. Ms. Lane's responded to his letter. Tom Riddering reported that 33.03a is an excepfion for when building pemuts aze not required. To see when it is required, a person has to look at Uniform Building Code 106.1, which reads "..no building or structure regulated by this code shall be erected, constnxcted, enlarged, altered, repaired, moved, improved, removed, converted or demolished unless a separate permit for each building or shucture has first been obtained from the building official." Mr. Riddering considers this to be maintenance for people who are changing the sign faces. 00 �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 10-10-2000 Page 3 Mr. Strathman stated the word maintenance was not in that code. The state building code is sIlent on maintenance and repairs, and he is interpreting that to mean it is not required, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Riddering responded yes. By saying it is less than $300, a building permit is not needed, asked Mr. Strathman, does that imply if it is more than $300, a building permit is needed. Mr. Riddering responded a person could infer it, but it does not say it. The building code is written to inspect buildings and lazge shuctures that could pose a public danger. If a pernut is needed every time maintenance is done on a building, a thousand more inspectors would be needed. Maintenance is defined as replacing like with like, replacing pieces that aze worn out. Mr. Strathman asked if they had applied for a permit to do this repair, would one have been issued. Ms. Lane responded the moratorium refers to alterations to signs and new construcfion. There are several new special sign districts that also prohibit the alterations of advertising signs. Her office did not see this as an alteration. If LIEP decided Eller Media needed a permit, it would have been granted; which would include a fee and an inspection. Any decision regarding the zoning ordinance is appealable to the Planning Commission. Mr. Strathman stated the appeal is here because LIEP did not issue a permit, but if a permit was issued, this appeal wouid be before the PIaiming Commission. Ms. Lane responded the decision not to issue a pernut was a building code decision. If a permit was issued, the question would be if a permit could have been issued under the sign ordinance. Mr. Bates stated this appeal was originally to the Plamiing Commission. The interpretation of 33.03 seems to be an issue. When it reads that a person does not need a permit under $300, it must be interpreted that you do need one over $300. Mr. Riddering responded there are many things over $300 that do not require a permit. Section 106.2 has a listing, which includes fencing, movable cases, retaining wa11s, and water tanks. Gerry Strathman stated it is his understanding that it is not the City's practice to require permits for repairs and maintenance for matters involving more than $300. Mr. Riddering responded not necessarily, but he would need a specific example. If it is over $300 and considered maintenance or repair of an existing system, it would not require a permit. Marvin Liszt, attorney for Eller Media, appeazed and stated his position is this appeal is improper. Scenic Minnesota has no right to appeal this decision. Secondly, these signs are legal nonconforming structures in Saint Paul; therefore, these signs aze governed by 66301 which deals with nonconfonning signs. Thirdly, there is ample law dealing with legal nonconformiug uses. They are allowed to remain and Eller Media is allowed to do maintenance so they do not become unsafe. If Eller Media is not allowed to do maintenance, they and the City would be subject to liability if a worker was injured. Eller Media is involved in a nationwide program to upgrade the safety of these regulations to comply with OSHA's safety requirements. �d � �S PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOT'ES OF 10-10-2000 Page 4 Chris McCarver, Eiler Media, appeazed and stated the standard billboards were originally built to witUstand 3,000 pounds of pressure. The new standard is 5,400 pounds of pressure. OSHA requires Eller Media to upgrade their cables. The safety standard for platforms has changed to steel grades. Also, Mr. McCarver's company owns a steel fabricating company in Chicago. The cost is under $300 per sign. (Mr. Liszt gave Mr. Strathman a letter with his disagreements in detail. He also ga�e Mr. Strathman OSHA regulations.) Mr. Liszt stated the cost of painting a house is over $300, and it does not require a permit. Historically, maintenance issues do not require pernuts. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal by Scenic Minnesota. The interpreta6on of the Building Officer and Zoning Inspector is a reasonable interpretation of the current statute. 97 Oaford Street North Mazk Gehan, representing Buffalo Sober Crroup, appeazed and stated this matter is now before the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul. Mr. Gehan met with representatives of PED (Planning and Economic Development), LIEP, and the Fire Deparlrnent who said there are no health ar safery issues at this building. This is a zoning issue: should the certificate of occupancy be revoked when a structure does not have an e�sting nonconforming use pernut. If the oniy issue to decide is if there is a permit, the answer is negative and there is nothing more to do today. Mr. Gehan suggested this matter be laid over for a matter of a month. There aze 26 residents in the facility, who aze in recovery. He questions why there is an immediate need to revoke the certificate of occupancy pending the decision of the Planning Cominission. The people opposed to this can express their opposition at the Planning Commission and the City Councii. Gerry Strathman stated the issue of continuance should be addressed at this point, which would suspend the enforcement of the revocation order. He asked is anyone in jeopardy in this building. Ms. Fish responded the building is due for a certificate of occupancy inspection in spite of this hearing; therefore, there are no outstanding safety code violations because there is no recent inspection. Wendy Lane stated she concurs it is a zoning issue. She also issued a criminal citation for Buffalo Sober Group, which is set for an arraignment August 25. In Fire Marshal Zaccard's letter, he referred to Section 62.101 which reads the use cannot be changed without meeting the provisions of this code. Section 64.104 reads the certificate of occupancy is required by the Saint Paul Legislative Code which also constitutes certification of zoning complaints. The City's Plamiing staff is recommending denial of this application to the Planning Commission. Anne Hinrichs, 1060 Laurel Avenue, appeared and stated it was the investors responsibility to look into the zoning. That appazently did not happen. The property was zoned for a duplex. For over 9 months, the neighborhood has absorbed 30 additional residents in the neighborhood. C��-` � � PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 10-10-2000 Page 5 Gerry Strathman asked how she knows it was zoned for a duplex. Mr. Gehan responded it would have to be converted to a duplex to turn it into a conforming use now. It has never been a duplex; it was built as a fourplex. Ms. Huuichs stated she has forry signatures of people who are opposed to this. She would like to eapedite Yhiugs. Mr_ Strathman responded this may be an exercise in futility. The decision today would have to do with the revocation of the certificate of occupancy. By the time this appears before the City Council, the Zoning Committee will have already met. This matter may be better served by wntinuing this hearing. Wendy Lane expIained the Plamung Commission meets on October 20 and then the decision is appealable within 15 days. The Zoning Committee and the Plamiing Commission may choose to lay it over. Also, it may take a long time for it to get through the City Attomey's Office. Mr. Strathxnan asked what would the Fire Department do if the appeal is denied and the revocation is sustained. Ms. Fish responded a tag would be issued to the owner. Another vacate date would be issued for probably the end of November. Ms. Hinrichs responded that is over a month away; therefore, she would rather not conrinue it. Alexander Drivas, 1072 Laurel Avenue, appeared and stated there is a problem finding pazking close to their building, and the alley is blocked sometimes. Mr. Strathman stated everyone is here; therefore, he will hear this matter today and make a recommendation to the City Council instead of laying it over. Mr. Gehan asked what the issue is today. Mr. Strathman responded the Fire Department has revoked the certificate of occupancy because it is not in conformance with the zoning code. Mr. Gehan responded the building does not have a permit within the current zoning code to pernut them to operate the building in the fashion it is being operated. That is not a matter of factual dispute. Mr. Strathman asked what he is looking far in filing this appeal. Mr. Gehan responded he is trying to avoid having 26 people without a home. The only case in which the city has revoked a certificate of occupancy on a zoning issue was for a sauna. This issue has become political. Zoning matters typically go to the Zoning Committee. As a matter of equity, Mr. Strathxnan should stand aside on this issue until the zoning issue has been resolved. Mr. Strathman stated it is not his role to substitute his judgement for the Fire Marshall, but it is his role to review his decision as to its reasonableness. It seems it is reasonable for the Fire Mazshall to issue a revocarion for the certificate of occupancy based on the fact that it is not properly zoned. Mr. Gehan stated the neighbors have nothing to do with the issue. They aze not parties to this proceedings. Due to the informal nature of these hearings, stated Mr. Strathman, he sometimes hears from people that have an interest, but not in the legal sense. oc�� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOT'ES OF 10-10-2000 Page 6 Gerty Strathman denied the appeal citing he does not find any basis for finding the Fire Mazshall in eaor or acting unreasonable in revoking the certificate of occupancy. The meeting was adjourued at 2:53 p.m. rrn ORIGINAL� Presented Referred To Council File # d � r q �^J Green Sheet # 104015 Committee Date 1 BE TT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the October 10, 2 2000, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Properry Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 address: 4 Propertv Ap�ealed � Ap eln lant 5 586-588 Reaney Avenue (Rescheduled from 10-3-2000) James and Jeanine Sundberg 6 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the 7 nonconfornung doors need to be replaced, ihey wiil be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 8 building must othenvise be in compliance. 9 634 Snellin� Avenue South Catherine Thorson far Halberson & Blaiser 10 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the 11 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they wiil be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 12 building must otherwise be in compliance. 13 875 Thomas Avenue (Laid over from 9-19-2000) 14 Decision: Appeal denied. 15 1430 York Avenue (Laid over from 9-19-2000) 16 (Appeal withdrauvn.) 17 18 412 Goodrich Avenue 19 Decision: Appeal denied. 20 60 Rose Avenue East 21 (Appeal withdrawn.) Christopher Lahaie Steve Nichols for K.7. Management Mike Hazgarten Peter Rodriguez 22 Appeal reeardin¢ repaix of billboards (Laid over from 9-19-2000) Brian Bates 23 Decision: Appeal denied. 24 97 0�'ord 5treet North ��j L„� 0,�� `�-o Mark Gehan for Buffalo Sober Group, LLC 25 Decision: Appeal denied. � � �� , � ��CL.u.� �: � M� . t-'.`(`c�.e� �— �� _�� a oo c� RESOLUTION CIT( OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA i Green Sheet 104015 00-9�5 0 $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey Coleman � Harris � Benanav f Reiter � Bostrom f Lantry � — 1 � Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney � Adopted by Council: Date O.�T .( 8' i � c'� a Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council Adoprion Cem d by Council Secre B By: ` \��2� . + w � _ _ _ y � Approved by Mayor: ate �� 9Y� By: ao -96s .."� City Council Offices � 10-12-2000 �cr aoxsori a �tor+E Gerry Strathman, 266-8575 _- BE ON COUNCILAGErIDA BY @A7� _ AE7K.N n•_I�lil..`�' TOTAL � OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET �,:, No10!,�015 anon.o. ❑ arcwnowEr ❑ anaiuc ❑ n1�IrJ�LaFAY1CFf0�t ❑ NIUICYY.fFRNKCfC ❑ WYORMRAfAifAl1l{ ❑ (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the 10-11-2000 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 586-588 Reaney Avenue, 634 Snelling Avenue South, 875 Thomas Avenue, 1430 York Avenue, 412 Goodrich Avenue, 60 Rose Avenue East, an appeal regarding repair of billboards, and 97 Oxford Street North. PIANNiNG COMMISSION CIB CAMMITTEE CIVII SERVICE CAMMISSION Has ihis ve��rm e+er waked unrkr a contract f« this deuartmem7 vES no Has Mis Pe�soNfirm e�er been a dlY empbyee7 YES NO Does this persoNfi�m possess a aldll rwt rwrmaltypossesseU by am/ curteM ary emplqree7 YES NO �s enis pe(soMrrm a targetetl venaon YES NO AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION t COST/REVRlUE BUD6EfID (qRCLE ONE) ACTNITY NUMBER �flaS�� YES NO INFORMATON (IXPWNj �W �� Collins, Buckley, Sauntry & Haugh, � West 1100 Frst National Bank Buiiding 332 Minnesota Street Sairrt Paul, Mi�nesota 55101-1379 TelepMne: (65'� 227-0611 r� c�n zz�-0�ss VIA FAX AND HAND DELIVERY October 11, 2000 0 0 , 9�� Wilfiam EHaugh,Jr. :t Michael J. SauMry Mark W. Gehan #tPatriGcTTiemey �r*n,�,asd.c��ne�d x John R.Schulz oThOmas R.O'Cqnnell o Dan O'Conriell Christine L SYrcemer a ilwmas E Mc�l"utrem Marihew A Slxven Michael D. Werrpeil � ��i #F:tTheodore J. Coltins 19321999 Eugene D. Buckiey Mr. Gerry Strathman Director, Council Research Center Office of the City Council Suite 31Q, Ciry Hall St. Paul M[155102-1615 Re: 97 North Oxford Street, St. Paul, Minnesota Our File No. 11780-1 Dear Mr. Strathxnan: On behalf of my client, Buffalo Sober Group, L.L.C., I hereby seek review of your denial of my client's appeal of the revocation ofthe certificate of occupancy for the premises at 97 North Oxford Street. As I informed you at the hearing on October 10, the revocation was based solely upon the property not having yet been granted a Permit for a non-conforming use of the building. The application for that permit is now pending. Very truly ours, MARK W. GEHAN MWG:mj cc: Mr. Walter Dinalko *Also AtlmNed in Wis'.onsin t Cimi Trcdl Specralis[, Cer6fied bj ihe C'r+il LiLgation $ection Cf ihe Minnesota State Bar Asxcaalicn. #CerMetl 6ytt�e National Board of Tnai Ativocacy as a CrNI Triai Ativocate oCPA CeNFetl by the Minneso�a SYate Boartl of AarouMancy. ° MBA in Finance. ��(�� t�.. NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, October 10, 2000 Room 330, City Hall Gerry StratUman, Legislative Hearing Officer Staff Present: Pat Fish, Fire Prevention; Wendy Lane, License, Inspection, Environmental Protection(LIEP); Tom Riddering, LIEP; Mike Urmann, Fire Prevention Gerry Strathman called the meeting to order at 134 p.m. 586-588 Reaney Avenue (Rescheduled from 10-3-2000) (No one appeared to represent the property.) Mike Urmann reported he had no objecrions to an appeal. Gerty Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforxning doors need to be repiaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 634 Snelling Avenue South Cathy Thorson, owner, appeared and stated she is appealing the requirement to instali fire rated doors. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire razed doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 875 Thomas Avenue (Laid over from 9-19-2000) (No one appeazed to represent the property.) Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. 1430 York Avenue (Laid over from 9-19-2000) (Steve Nichols, attorney for K. J. Management, sent a fax indicating that the appellants wish to withdrawn their appeal.) 412 Goodrich Avenue (No one appeared to represent the properiy.) Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. �o ��5 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 10-10-2000 Page 2 60 Rose Avenue East (The appellant appeazed and stated he has withdrawn his appeal.) Appeal re a�rding renair of billboards (Laid over from 9-19-2000) Brian Bates, appellant, appeazed and stated this began with an August 9, 2000, letter to Chris McCarver from Wendy Lane. The last sentence reads that no permit is needed for this work. That decision is what Mr. Bates is appealing. His appeal is based on two sections of the Legislative Code: Section 66.201 reads "No person shall place, erect or maintain a sign, nor shall a lessee or owner pernut properry under his control to be used for such a sign, which does not conform to the following requirements and without first obtaining the requisite permits for such sign." Section 33.03 reads in essence that any repairs exceeding $300 needs permits. It is Mr. Bates understanding that Section 33.02 reads that minor repaixs do not need permits. (Mr. Bates gaue Mr. Strathman copies of Sections 66.201 and 33.03.) Gerry Strathman asked was his clann that the work Eller Media wants to do constihrtes maintenance of the sign. If it exceeds $300, responded Mr. Bates. Also, nowhere does it say $300 per biilboard. Multiple billboazds were repaired. It is his contention that to repair one billboard with a new catwalk and safety cable would exceed $300. Bruce Faribeau (phoneric) has spent his working cazeer in construc6on and trades and has much experience with this kind of construction and materials. He took the trouble to get quotes for the kind of materials needed to do the repairs. Bruce Faribeau (phonetic), appeazed and stated there aze two basic components, which comprise the perimeter that the grading sits upon. The grading costs $2.25 a square foot for the U.S. steel warehouse price, which would come to $258. Using 60 feet minimum angle iron to comprise the frame which the grading would sit upon would cost $142.80, bringing the total to$400.98. Safety cables run about $50 each. There would be one per boazd. Mr. Strathman stated to make the repairs on one board would cost $450. Mr. Faribeau responded that is conect, but that does not include sales tas, transportation, labor, fabrication. His estimate of $450 is using the baze minimuxn. Wendy Lane reported she received a letter from Chris McCarver who wanted to replace the safety cables and catwalks on the older billboard structures. Ms. Lane's responded to his letter. Tom Riddering reported that 33.03a is an excepfion for when building pemuts aze not required. To see when it is required, a person has to look at Uniform Building Code 106.1, which reads "..no building or structure regulated by this code shall be erected, constnxcted, enlarged, altered, repaired, moved, improved, removed, converted or demolished unless a separate permit for each building or shucture has first been obtained from the building official." Mr. Riddering considers this to be maintenance for people who are changing the sign faces. 00 �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 10-10-2000 Page 3 Mr. Strathman stated the word maintenance was not in that code. The state building code is sIlent on maintenance and repairs, and he is interpreting that to mean it is not required, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Riddering responded yes. By saying it is less than $300, a building permit is not needed, asked Mr. Strathman, does that imply if it is more than $300, a building permit is needed. Mr. Riddering responded a person could infer it, but it does not say it. The building code is written to inspect buildings and lazge shuctures that could pose a public danger. If a pernut is needed every time maintenance is done on a building, a thousand more inspectors would be needed. Maintenance is defined as replacing like with like, replacing pieces that aze worn out. Mr. Strathman asked if they had applied for a permit to do this repair, would one have been issued. Ms. Lane responded the moratorium refers to alterations to signs and new construcfion. There are several new special sign districts that also prohibit the alterations of advertising signs. Her office did not see this as an alteration. If LIEP decided Eller Media needed a permit, it would have been granted; which would include a fee and an inspection. Any decision regarding the zoning ordinance is appealable to the Planning Commission. Mr. Strathman stated the appeal is here because LIEP did not issue a permit, but if a permit was issued, this appeal wouid be before the PIaiming Commission. Ms. Lane responded the decision not to issue a pernut was a building code decision. If a permit was issued, the question would be if a permit could have been issued under the sign ordinance. Mr. Bates stated this appeal was originally to the Plamiing Commission. The interpretation of 33.03 seems to be an issue. When it reads that a person does not need a permit under $300, it must be interpreted that you do need one over $300. Mr. Riddering responded there are many things over $300 that do not require a permit. Section 106.2 has a listing, which includes fencing, movable cases, retaining wa11s, and water tanks. Gerry Strathman stated it is his understanding that it is not the City's practice to require permits for repairs and maintenance for matters involving more than $300. Mr. Riddering responded not necessarily, but he would need a specific example. If it is over $300 and considered maintenance or repair of an existing system, it would not require a permit. Marvin Liszt, attorney for Eller Media, appeazed and stated his position is this appeal is improper. Scenic Minnesota has no right to appeal this decision. Secondly, these signs are legal nonconforming structures in Saint Paul; therefore, these signs aze governed by 66301 which deals with nonconfonning signs. Thirdly, there is ample law dealing with legal nonconformiug uses. They are allowed to remain and Eller Media is allowed to do maintenance so they do not become unsafe. If Eller Media is not allowed to do maintenance, they and the City would be subject to liability if a worker was injured. Eller Media is involved in a nationwide program to upgrade the safety of these regulations to comply with OSHA's safety requirements. �d � �S PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOT'ES OF 10-10-2000 Page 4 Chris McCarver, Eiler Media, appeazed and stated the standard billboards were originally built to witUstand 3,000 pounds of pressure. The new standard is 5,400 pounds of pressure. OSHA requires Eller Media to upgrade their cables. The safety standard for platforms has changed to steel grades. Also, Mr. McCarver's company owns a steel fabricating company in Chicago. The cost is under $300 per sign. (Mr. Liszt gave Mr. Strathman a letter with his disagreements in detail. He also ga�e Mr. Strathman OSHA regulations.) Mr. Liszt stated the cost of painting a house is over $300, and it does not require a permit. Historically, maintenance issues do not require pernuts. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal by Scenic Minnesota. The interpreta6on of the Building Officer and Zoning Inspector is a reasonable interpretation of the current statute. 97 Oaford Street North Mazk Gehan, representing Buffalo Sober Crroup, appeazed and stated this matter is now before the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul. Mr. Gehan met with representatives of PED (Planning and Economic Development), LIEP, and the Fire Deparlrnent who said there are no health ar safery issues at this building. This is a zoning issue: should the certificate of occupancy be revoked when a structure does not have an e�sting nonconforming use pernut. If the oniy issue to decide is if there is a permit, the answer is negative and there is nothing more to do today. Mr. Gehan suggested this matter be laid over for a matter of a month. There aze 26 residents in the facility, who aze in recovery. He questions why there is an immediate need to revoke the certificate of occupancy pending the decision of the Planning Cominission. The people opposed to this can express their opposition at the Planning Commission and the City Councii. Gerry Strathman stated the issue of continuance should be addressed at this point, which would suspend the enforcement of the revocation order. He asked is anyone in jeopardy in this building. Ms. Fish responded the building is due for a certificate of occupancy inspection in spite of this hearing; therefore, there are no outstanding safety code violations because there is no recent inspection. Wendy Lane stated she concurs it is a zoning issue. She also issued a criminal citation for Buffalo Sober Group, which is set for an arraignment August 25. In Fire Marshal Zaccard's letter, he referred to Section 62.101 which reads the use cannot be changed without meeting the provisions of this code. Section 64.104 reads the certificate of occupancy is required by the Saint Paul Legislative Code which also constitutes certification of zoning complaints. The City's Plamiing staff is recommending denial of this application to the Planning Commission. Anne Hinrichs, 1060 Laurel Avenue, appeared and stated it was the investors responsibility to look into the zoning. That appazently did not happen. The property was zoned for a duplex. For over 9 months, the neighborhood has absorbed 30 additional residents in the neighborhood. C��-` � � PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 10-10-2000 Page 5 Gerry Strathman asked how she knows it was zoned for a duplex. Mr. Gehan responded it would have to be converted to a duplex to turn it into a conforming use now. It has never been a duplex; it was built as a fourplex. Ms. Huuichs stated she has forry signatures of people who are opposed to this. She would like to eapedite Yhiugs. Mr_ Strathman responded this may be an exercise in futility. The decision today would have to do with the revocation of the certificate of occupancy. By the time this appears before the City Council, the Zoning Committee will have already met. This matter may be better served by wntinuing this hearing. Wendy Lane expIained the Plamung Commission meets on October 20 and then the decision is appealable within 15 days. The Zoning Committee and the Plamiing Commission may choose to lay it over. Also, it may take a long time for it to get through the City Attomey's Office. Mr. Strathxnan asked what would the Fire Department do if the appeal is denied and the revocation is sustained. Ms. Fish responded a tag would be issued to the owner. Another vacate date would be issued for probably the end of November. Ms. Hinrichs responded that is over a month away; therefore, she would rather not conrinue it. Alexander Drivas, 1072 Laurel Avenue, appeared and stated there is a problem finding pazking close to their building, and the alley is blocked sometimes. Mr. Strathman stated everyone is here; therefore, he will hear this matter today and make a recommendation to the City Council instead of laying it over. Mr. Gehan asked what the issue is today. Mr. Strathman responded the Fire Department has revoked the certificate of occupancy because it is not in conformance with the zoning code. Mr. Gehan responded the building does not have a permit within the current zoning code to pernut them to operate the building in the fashion it is being operated. That is not a matter of factual dispute. Mr. Strathman asked what he is looking far in filing this appeal. Mr. Gehan responded he is trying to avoid having 26 people without a home. The only case in which the city has revoked a certificate of occupancy on a zoning issue was for a sauna. This issue has become political. Zoning matters typically go to the Zoning Committee. As a matter of equity, Mr. Strathxnan should stand aside on this issue until the zoning issue has been resolved. Mr. Strathman stated it is not his role to substitute his judgement for the Fire Marshall, but it is his role to review his decision as to its reasonableness. It seems it is reasonable for the Fire Mazshall to issue a revocarion for the certificate of occupancy based on the fact that it is not properly zoned. Mr. Gehan stated the neighbors have nothing to do with the issue. They aze not parties to this proceedings. Due to the informal nature of these hearings, stated Mr. Strathman, he sometimes hears from people that have an interest, but not in the legal sense. oc�� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOT'ES OF 10-10-2000 Page 6 Gerty Strathman denied the appeal citing he does not find any basis for finding the Fire Mazshall in eaor or acting unreasonable in revoking the certificate of occupancy. The meeting was adjourued at 2:53 p.m. rrn ORIGINAL� Presented Referred To Council File # d � r q �^J Green Sheet # 104015 Committee Date 1 BE TT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the October 10, 2 2000, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Properry Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 address: 4 Propertv Ap�ealed � Ap eln lant 5 586-588 Reaney Avenue (Rescheduled from 10-3-2000) James and Jeanine Sundberg 6 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the 7 nonconfornung doors need to be replaced, ihey wiil be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 8 building must othenvise be in compliance. 9 634 Snellin� Avenue South Catherine Thorson far Halberson & Blaiser 10 Decision: Variance granted on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the 11 nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they wiil be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the 12 building must otherwise be in compliance. 13 875 Thomas Avenue (Laid over from 9-19-2000) 14 Decision: Appeal denied. 15 1430 York Avenue (Laid over from 9-19-2000) 16 (Appeal withdrauvn.) 17 18 412 Goodrich Avenue 19 Decision: Appeal denied. 20 60 Rose Avenue East 21 (Appeal withdrawn.) Christopher Lahaie Steve Nichols for K.7. Management Mike Hazgarten Peter Rodriguez 22 Appeal reeardin¢ repaix of billboards (Laid over from 9-19-2000) Brian Bates 23 Decision: Appeal denied. 24 97 0�'ord 5treet North ��j L„� 0,�� `�-o Mark Gehan for Buffalo Sober Group, LLC 25 Decision: Appeal denied. � � �� , � ��CL.u.� �: � M� . t-'.`(`c�.e� �— �� _�� a oo c� RESOLUTION CIT( OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA i Green Sheet 104015 00-9�5 0 $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey Coleman � Harris � Benanav f Reiter � Bostrom f Lantry � — 1 � Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney � Adopted by Council: Date O.�T .( 8' i � c'� a Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council Adoprion Cem d by Council Secre B By: ` \��2� . + w � _ _ _ y � Approved by Mayor: ate �� 9Y� By: ao -96s .."� City Council Offices � 10-12-2000 �cr aoxsori a �tor+E Gerry Strathman, 266-8575 _- BE ON COUNCILAGErIDA BY @A7� _ AE7K.N n•_I�lil..`�' TOTAL � OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET �,:, No10!,�015 anon.o. ❑ arcwnowEr ❑ anaiuc ❑ n1�IrJ�LaFAY1CFf0�t ❑ NIUICYY.fFRNKCfC ❑ WYORMRAfAifAl1l{ ❑ (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the 10-11-2000 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 586-588 Reaney Avenue, 634 Snelling Avenue South, 875 Thomas Avenue, 1430 York Avenue, 412 Goodrich Avenue, 60 Rose Avenue East, an appeal regarding repair of billboards, and 97 Oxford Street North. PIANNiNG COMMISSION CIB CAMMITTEE CIVII SERVICE CAMMISSION Has ihis ve��rm e+er waked unrkr a contract f« this deuartmem7 vES no Has Mis Pe�soNfirm e�er been a dlY empbyee7 YES NO Does this persoNfi�m possess a aldll rwt rwrmaltypossesseU by am/ curteM ary emplqree7 YES NO �s enis pe(soMrrm a targetetl venaon YES NO AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION t COST/REVRlUE BUD6EfID (qRCLE ONE) ACTNITY NUMBER �flaS�� YES NO INFORMATON (IXPWNj �W �� Collins, Buckley, Sauntry & Haugh, � West 1100 Frst National Bank Buiiding 332 Minnesota Street Sairrt Paul, Mi�nesota 55101-1379 TelepMne: (65'� 227-0611 r� c�n zz�-0�ss VIA FAX AND HAND DELIVERY October 11, 2000 0 0 , 9�� Wilfiam EHaugh,Jr. :t Michael J. SauMry Mark W. Gehan #tPatriGcTTiemey �r*n,�,asd.c��ne�d x John R.Schulz oThOmas R.O'Cqnnell o Dan O'Conriell Christine L SYrcemer a ilwmas E Mc�l"utrem Marihew A Slxven Michael D. Werrpeil � ��i #F:tTheodore J. Coltins 19321999 Eugene D. Buckiey Mr. Gerry Strathman Director, Council Research Center Office of the City Council Suite 31Q, Ciry Hall St. Paul M[155102-1615 Re: 97 North Oxford Street, St. Paul, Minnesota Our File No. 11780-1 Dear Mr. Strathxnan: On behalf of my client, Buffalo Sober Group, L.L.C., I hereby seek review of your denial of my client's appeal of the revocation ofthe certificate of occupancy for the premises at 97 North Oxford Street. As I informed you at the hearing on October 10, the revocation was based solely upon the property not having yet been granted a Permit for a non-conforming use of the building. The application for that permit is now pending. Very truly ours, MARK W. GEHAN MWG:mj cc: Mr. Walter Dinalko *Also AtlmNed in Wis'.onsin t Cimi Trcdl Specralis[, Cer6fied bj ihe C'r+il LiLgation $ection Cf ihe Minnesota State Bar Asxcaalicn. #CerMetl 6ytt�e National Board of Tnai Ativocacy as a CrNI Triai Ativocate oCPA CeNFetl by the Minneso�a SYate Boartl of AarouMancy. ° MBA in Finance. ��(�� t�.. NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING Tuesday, October 10, 2000 Room 330, City Hall Gerry StratUman, Legislative Hearing Officer Staff Present: Pat Fish, Fire Prevention; Wendy Lane, License, Inspection, Environmental Protection(LIEP); Tom Riddering, LIEP; Mike Urmann, Fire Prevention Gerry Strathman called the meeting to order at 134 p.m. 586-588 Reaney Avenue (Rescheduled from 10-3-2000) (No one appeared to represent the property.) Mike Urmann reported he had no objecrions to an appeal. Gerty Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforxning doors need to be repiaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire rated doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 634 Snelling Avenue South Cathy Thorson, owner, appeared and stated she is appealing the requirement to instali fire rated doors. Gerry Strathman granted a variance on the nonconforming doors on the following conditions: 1) when the nonconforming doors need to be replaced, they will be replaced with conforming fire razed doors, 2) the building must otherwise be in compliance. 875 Thomas Avenue (Laid over from 9-19-2000) (No one appeazed to represent the property.) Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. 1430 York Avenue (Laid over from 9-19-2000) (Steve Nichols, attorney for K. J. Management, sent a fax indicating that the appellants wish to withdrawn their appeal.) 412 Goodrich Avenue (No one appeared to represent the properiy.) Gerry Strathman denied the appeal. �o ��5 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 10-10-2000 Page 2 60 Rose Avenue East (The appellant appeazed and stated he has withdrawn his appeal.) Appeal re a�rding renair of billboards (Laid over from 9-19-2000) Brian Bates, appellant, appeazed and stated this began with an August 9, 2000, letter to Chris McCarver from Wendy Lane. The last sentence reads that no permit is needed for this work. That decision is what Mr. Bates is appealing. His appeal is based on two sections of the Legislative Code: Section 66.201 reads "No person shall place, erect or maintain a sign, nor shall a lessee or owner pernut properry under his control to be used for such a sign, which does not conform to the following requirements and without first obtaining the requisite permits for such sign." Section 33.03 reads in essence that any repairs exceeding $300 needs permits. It is Mr. Bates understanding that Section 33.02 reads that minor repaixs do not need permits. (Mr. Bates gaue Mr. Strathman copies of Sections 66.201 and 33.03.) Gerry Strathman asked was his clann that the work Eller Media wants to do constihrtes maintenance of the sign. If it exceeds $300, responded Mr. Bates. Also, nowhere does it say $300 per biilboard. Multiple billboazds were repaired. It is his contention that to repair one billboard with a new catwalk and safety cable would exceed $300. Bruce Faribeau (phoneric) has spent his working cazeer in construc6on and trades and has much experience with this kind of construction and materials. He took the trouble to get quotes for the kind of materials needed to do the repairs. Bruce Faribeau (phonetic), appeazed and stated there aze two basic components, which comprise the perimeter that the grading sits upon. The grading costs $2.25 a square foot for the U.S. steel warehouse price, which would come to $258. Using 60 feet minimum angle iron to comprise the frame which the grading would sit upon would cost $142.80, bringing the total to$400.98. Safety cables run about $50 each. There would be one per boazd. Mr. Strathman stated to make the repairs on one board would cost $450. Mr. Faribeau responded that is conect, but that does not include sales tas, transportation, labor, fabrication. His estimate of $450 is using the baze minimuxn. Wendy Lane reported she received a letter from Chris McCarver who wanted to replace the safety cables and catwalks on the older billboard structures. Ms. Lane's responded to his letter. Tom Riddering reported that 33.03a is an excepfion for when building pemuts aze not required. To see when it is required, a person has to look at Uniform Building Code 106.1, which reads "..no building or structure regulated by this code shall be erected, constnxcted, enlarged, altered, repaired, moved, improved, removed, converted or demolished unless a separate permit for each building or shucture has first been obtained from the building official." Mr. Riddering considers this to be maintenance for people who are changing the sign faces. 00 �� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 10-10-2000 Page 3 Mr. Strathman stated the word maintenance was not in that code. The state building code is sIlent on maintenance and repairs, and he is interpreting that to mean it is not required, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Riddering responded yes. By saying it is less than $300, a building permit is not needed, asked Mr. Strathman, does that imply if it is more than $300, a building permit is needed. Mr. Riddering responded a person could infer it, but it does not say it. The building code is written to inspect buildings and lazge shuctures that could pose a public danger. If a pernut is needed every time maintenance is done on a building, a thousand more inspectors would be needed. Maintenance is defined as replacing like with like, replacing pieces that aze worn out. Mr. Strathman asked if they had applied for a permit to do this repair, would one have been issued. Ms. Lane responded the moratorium refers to alterations to signs and new construcfion. There are several new special sign districts that also prohibit the alterations of advertising signs. Her office did not see this as an alteration. If LIEP decided Eller Media needed a permit, it would have been granted; which would include a fee and an inspection. Any decision regarding the zoning ordinance is appealable to the Planning Commission. Mr. Strathman stated the appeal is here because LIEP did not issue a permit, but if a permit was issued, this appeal wouid be before the PIaiming Commission. Ms. Lane responded the decision not to issue a pernut was a building code decision. If a permit was issued, the question would be if a permit could have been issued under the sign ordinance. Mr. Bates stated this appeal was originally to the Plamiing Commission. The interpretation of 33.03 seems to be an issue. When it reads that a person does not need a permit under $300, it must be interpreted that you do need one over $300. Mr. Riddering responded there are many things over $300 that do not require a permit. Section 106.2 has a listing, which includes fencing, movable cases, retaining wa11s, and water tanks. Gerry Strathman stated it is his understanding that it is not the City's practice to require permits for repairs and maintenance for matters involving more than $300. Mr. Riddering responded not necessarily, but he would need a specific example. If it is over $300 and considered maintenance or repair of an existing system, it would not require a permit. Marvin Liszt, attorney for Eller Media, appeazed and stated his position is this appeal is improper. Scenic Minnesota has no right to appeal this decision. Secondly, these signs are legal nonconforming structures in Saint Paul; therefore, these signs aze governed by 66301 which deals with nonconfonning signs. Thirdly, there is ample law dealing with legal nonconformiug uses. They are allowed to remain and Eller Media is allowed to do maintenance so they do not become unsafe. If Eller Media is not allowed to do maintenance, they and the City would be subject to liability if a worker was injured. Eller Media is involved in a nationwide program to upgrade the safety of these regulations to comply with OSHA's safety requirements. �d � �S PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOT'ES OF 10-10-2000 Page 4 Chris McCarver, Eiler Media, appeazed and stated the standard billboards were originally built to witUstand 3,000 pounds of pressure. The new standard is 5,400 pounds of pressure. OSHA requires Eller Media to upgrade their cables. The safety standard for platforms has changed to steel grades. Also, Mr. McCarver's company owns a steel fabricating company in Chicago. The cost is under $300 per sign. (Mr. Liszt gave Mr. Strathman a letter with his disagreements in detail. He also ga�e Mr. Strathman OSHA regulations.) Mr. Liszt stated the cost of painting a house is over $300, and it does not require a permit. Historically, maintenance issues do not require pernuts. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal by Scenic Minnesota. The interpreta6on of the Building Officer and Zoning Inspector is a reasonable interpretation of the current statute. 97 Oaford Street North Mazk Gehan, representing Buffalo Sober Crroup, appeazed and stated this matter is now before the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul. Mr. Gehan met with representatives of PED (Planning and Economic Development), LIEP, and the Fire Deparlrnent who said there are no health ar safery issues at this building. This is a zoning issue: should the certificate of occupancy be revoked when a structure does not have an e�sting nonconforming use pernut. If the oniy issue to decide is if there is a permit, the answer is negative and there is nothing more to do today. Mr. Gehan suggested this matter be laid over for a matter of a month. There aze 26 residents in the facility, who aze in recovery. He questions why there is an immediate need to revoke the certificate of occupancy pending the decision of the Planning Cominission. The people opposed to this can express their opposition at the Planning Commission and the City Councii. Gerry Strathman stated the issue of continuance should be addressed at this point, which would suspend the enforcement of the revocation order. He asked is anyone in jeopardy in this building. Ms. Fish responded the building is due for a certificate of occupancy inspection in spite of this hearing; therefore, there are no outstanding safety code violations because there is no recent inspection. Wendy Lane stated she concurs it is a zoning issue. She also issued a criminal citation for Buffalo Sober Group, which is set for an arraignment August 25. In Fire Marshal Zaccard's letter, he referred to Section 62.101 which reads the use cannot be changed without meeting the provisions of this code. Section 64.104 reads the certificate of occupancy is required by the Saint Paul Legislative Code which also constitutes certification of zoning complaints. The City's Plamiing staff is recommending denial of this application to the Planning Commission. Anne Hinrichs, 1060 Laurel Avenue, appeared and stated it was the investors responsibility to look into the zoning. That appazently did not happen. The property was zoned for a duplex. For over 9 months, the neighborhood has absorbed 30 additional residents in the neighborhood. C��-` � � PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF 10-10-2000 Page 5 Gerry Strathman asked how she knows it was zoned for a duplex. Mr. Gehan responded it would have to be converted to a duplex to turn it into a conforming use now. It has never been a duplex; it was built as a fourplex. Ms. Huuichs stated she has forry signatures of people who are opposed to this. She would like to eapedite Yhiugs. Mr_ Strathman responded this may be an exercise in futility. The decision today would have to do with the revocation of the certificate of occupancy. By the time this appears before the City Council, the Zoning Committee will have already met. This matter may be better served by wntinuing this hearing. Wendy Lane expIained the Plamung Commission meets on October 20 and then the decision is appealable within 15 days. The Zoning Committee and the Plamiing Commission may choose to lay it over. Also, it may take a long time for it to get through the City Attomey's Office. Mr. Strathxnan asked what would the Fire Department do if the appeal is denied and the revocation is sustained. Ms. Fish responded a tag would be issued to the owner. Another vacate date would be issued for probably the end of November. Ms. Hinrichs responded that is over a month away; therefore, she would rather not conrinue it. Alexander Drivas, 1072 Laurel Avenue, appeared and stated there is a problem finding pazking close to their building, and the alley is blocked sometimes. Mr. Strathman stated everyone is here; therefore, he will hear this matter today and make a recommendation to the City Council instead of laying it over. Mr. Gehan asked what the issue is today. Mr. Strathman responded the Fire Department has revoked the certificate of occupancy because it is not in conformance with the zoning code. Mr. Gehan responded the building does not have a permit within the current zoning code to pernut them to operate the building in the fashion it is being operated. That is not a matter of factual dispute. Mr. Strathman asked what he is looking far in filing this appeal. Mr. Gehan responded he is trying to avoid having 26 people without a home. The only case in which the city has revoked a certificate of occupancy on a zoning issue was for a sauna. This issue has become political. Zoning matters typically go to the Zoning Committee. As a matter of equity, Mr. Strathxnan should stand aside on this issue until the zoning issue has been resolved. Mr. Strathman stated it is not his role to substitute his judgement for the Fire Marshall, but it is his role to review his decision as to its reasonableness. It seems it is reasonable for the Fire Mazshall to issue a revocarion for the certificate of occupancy based on the fact that it is not properly zoned. Mr. Gehan stated the neighbors have nothing to do with the issue. They aze not parties to this proceedings. Due to the informal nature of these hearings, stated Mr. Strathman, he sometimes hears from people that have an interest, but not in the legal sense. oc�� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOT'ES OF 10-10-2000 Page 6 Gerty Strathman denied the appeal citing he does not find any basis for finding the Fire Mazshall in eaor or acting unreasonable in revoking the certificate of occupancy. The meeting was adjourued at 2:53 p.m. rrn